Clint Mudrick, Kansas State Collegian

I am not voting for Ralph Nader.

I realize that “Nader for president” is among the hottest fads to hit campussince capris, but I made the mistake of examining the man’s politicalstances, and as a result lost all interest in him. It is my belief that someNader supporters like him simply because he is perceived as different(which, as I will explain later, he is not), but I have come to theconclusion that if difference is the only thing worth voting on, I wish toendorse a much more viable “different” candidate: independent film directorKevin Smith.

Let us examine both candidates. Ralph Nader is admirable because he doesn’taccept contributions from big business. This admirable trait, however, losesluster when Nader can’t complete a sentence in an interview or on hishomepage without pointing it out. Whatever happened to being noble andquiet?

Kevin Smith is noble because, in a sea of movies that spend hundreds ofmillions in attempts to dazzle the audience with special effects whileleaving out a plot, he spent a mere $10 million on “Dogma,” his biggestproduction. Moreover, he didn’t mention this fact every time he wasinterviewed and the information is hard to find anywhere except hidden awayin news groups.

Ralph Nader is “different” because he is willing to take a stand on issues.The reality is that he simply sidesteps the big topics. Rather than focus onforeign policy, Nader discusses Makah Whaling, a truly vital subject.Instead of pivoting his campaign on the death penalty, Nader is more securetalking about cleaner gas (because if there’s one thing I need, it is to paymore money per gallon). It turns out that, on the issues Gore and Bush focuson, Nader also follows the prevailing views; he is considered differentbecause he focuses on the stuff other people don’t tend to think of, mainlybecause they aren’t the most important issues.

Kevin Smith rarely takes a stance on any huge issues. On occasion he slips agem of morality into his movies (gay rights in “Chasing Amy,” religioustolerance in “Dogma”), but is more adept with focusing on the smaller, more”important” issues, such as whether Lois Lane could have Superman’s baby (ala “Mallrats”) or, as discussed in “Clerks,” whether the rebel alliance hadthe right to kill the janitors in the Death Star (”they’re just takingorders”). If it is the important issues students want, Smith covers themall.

Another reason some rally behind Nader is the “common American” persona hecarries. The man has fought for the little guy for decades, has fought forairbags, powerful unions and an end to those evil corporations thatgainfully employ so many Americans. While his pro-worker platform is acarbon copy of Gore’s, it is nonetheless one that should be discussed. Naderis no fan of corporate America, but his remedy for big business involvessteps that would cripple corporations.

A man does not come more common than Kevin Smith. In his movies, he focuseson the meek of the Earth. In “Clerks,” he shows the struggles of commonretail store employees. “Chasing Amy” follows the hardships a comic booktracer and his friend face in the world of still animation. “Mallrats”follows two unemployed and worthless young men (how much more common do youget?) through a mall in a truly romantic quest to get their respective girlsback. “Dogma” is about your typical angels cast from heaven who … well,never mind about “Dogma.”

Smith’s distaste for big business also is much more subtle and sensible.”Clerks” involves a downtrodden convenience store worker who rebels againsthis hostile workforce not by joining a large and hopelessly bureaucraticunion but rather by closing the store for a game of hockey on the shop’sroof. Such proactive and sensible thinking is much more suitable for a WhiteHouse position than Nader’s.

Kevin Smith has supplied America with a bevy of contributions. Chief amongthese are his characters. Jay, Silent Bob, Brodie and “Chasing Amy’s” Alyssaare so incredibly more multi-dimensional than Nader that comparison would belaughable. Additionally, while Nader sticks with the hopelessly bland andpatronizing “Government of, by and for the people … not moneyedinterests,” Smith offers the sincere and defining “Snootchie BoochieNoochies!” Need I say more?

Finally, for a running mate, Nader has chosen Winona LaDuke, aHarvard-educated intellectual who has little to her name save aenvironmentalist propaganda. While Kevin Smith has yet to name a runningmate (mainly because he is unaware he is being endorsed for president), Ibelieve he would team him up with the lovable Silent Bob. While it mightseem odd for a man to run with his own movie alter ego as his running mate,I would rather have a quiet fictional tubby veep than LaDuke any day.

If you are looking to make a statement that you support a guy who is onlysuperficially different, vote Nader. But if you are in the market for a guywho can make a Ben Affleck movie for less than a quarter of a milliondollars (”Chasing Amy,” a classic) write “Kevin Smith” on that ballot. AsBrodie, his character for the masses, said in response to the notion thatwomen want romance, not Disney World’s Mr. Toad’s Wild Ride, “Be fair.Everybody wants Mr. Toad’s Wild Ride.”

Copyright 2000, Student Publications Inc. All rights reserved. This materialis provided only for personal, non-commercial use. For republication,reproduction, transmission, distribution or public display of material fromthe Collegian Web site, a user must get written permission from StudentPublications Inc., Kedzie Hall, Kansas State University. External links areneither endorsed nor guaranteed by Student Publications, Inc.