If they don't do what the big money tells them to do, they won't get the big money, and so they won't be able to win a presidential election. It's such an obvious corruption and termination of democracy that anyone who believes in the principle of democracy surely has to believe in the principle of getting the money out of politics.

It seems to me that the most straightforward and necessary reform in U.S. politics--and, for that matter, in the politics of many of the world's nations--is to ban the private funding of candidates and parties. The funding for all candidates should be small, there should be a cap on it, and it should be provided by the state.

WHAT DO you say to people who agree with what you say about the problems of the political system, but think that this election is different--and that we have to defeat Bush before we can take up any other challenge?

ONE OF the curious features of American politics is that the necessary reforms are always being deferred to the next presidential election. People agree--almost everyone you talk to who believes in democracy agrees that the system is bust, and it needs to be changed. But everyone seems to believe that it can be changed at some indefinite date in the future.

And whenever you come close to a presidential election, people say, "Well, the guy on the other side, the Republican candidate, is so bad that we have to vote Democrat to avoid the really terrible one from getting in." They don't like what the Democrats stand for. They don't like the fact that John Kerry, or whoever it might happen to be, stands for just a watered-down version of what the Republicans stands for, and for the perpetuation of this profoundly corrupt system.

But we have to vote for the bad guy, because otherwise the terrible guy will get in. Then you say to them, "So what are you going to do about this corrupt system?" And they say that will have to wait until the next election. And you say to them, "Well, that's what you said at the last election." So it goes on. And the necessary political changes are constantly deferred into this indefinite future.

All my experiences as a political activist suggest to me that if you want change, you have to start working for that change now. Once you get into the mindset of postponing change or prevarication about change, then that change is postponed forever. You never get to that point where you say that now we have to act.

There is only one time for political action, and that time is now. If you intend to change a system, you've got to start working on that system from where you are--not imagine that some future generation will do it on your behalf. That simply does not work in politics.

I've found that even on this side of the Atlantic, and even within the Guardian, people are very reluctant to say, "Vote for someone who you want to vote for, rather than just voting for the bad guy instead of the terrible guy." And there is this sense that Bush is almost a different species.

Now, there's no question that Bush and particularly the people who surround him are extremely dangerous men. They have some extremely peculiar views about the world, and they have a completely distorted sense of reality when it comes to foreign policy. No question about that. But there's also no doubt that what they represent is a trend in foreign policy which long, long predated them--and which Kerry seems determined to perpetuate.

THERE IS a more left-wing case for the Anybody But Bush attitude which argues that the 2004 election is a referendum on Bush and his "war on terror," and if Bush is re-elected, people around the world will see it as the "American people" ratifying Bush's wars. How would you respond to this argument?

THERE IS some truth in that. But this is about more than one man. This is about an entire political system. If Bush wasn't there doing what he is doing, someone very similar to Bush would be. Indeed, Kerry himself has said that if he were president, he would have invaded Iraq by now. He's made it clear that he would still have given Bush the authority to go to war , even knowing what we know now.

You put all that together, and it becomes pretty clear to me that you've got to vote for more than just getting rid of one candidate. You have to vote to change the system. Sure, I can see how people would respond with puzzlement to Bush's re-election, if that's what's going to happen.

But I can also see them regarding America as a deeply dangerous and unpleasant place if what happens is that the alternative candidate to Bush, Kerry, comes in and does exactly the same thing as Bush was doing during his presidency. Then they'll think, "Well, it's not Bush, it's America that's evil. We've got to attack America."

That's surely the conclusion that people will draw. If they can blame the invasion of Iraq on one man, then they can say that it's not Americans in general who are the problem. But if the Americans change their president, and the political system still does exactly the same as it was doing before, then their conclusion very obviously is that the problem lies with Americans and with America.

I don't want people to conclude that. I want people to conclude that there is a political problem that is not caused by the people in America--it's caused by the capture of democracy. But in order for that to happen--in order for Americans to prove that to the rest of the world--they have to institute a different system.

RALPH NADER has suffered all kinds of slanders during this election campaign, including some of his supporters from 2000 denouncing him as an egoist who doesn't care about the development of the movement for change. What's your view of Nader?

HE'S NOT a perfect human being. If anyone's trying to become president, well, there's got to be a bit of ego in there. I don't believe that he's as pure as the driven snow. What I do believe is that he's a hell of a lot better than the other guys, and that he actually believes in the positions that he takes.

That's a rare thing these days in politics. Normally, a party's candidate simply does what is politically convenient, and what he is effectively forced to do by his party structure. Nader has the advantage that he doesn't have a party structure. He isn't under anyone's thumb, and he can determine where he stands for himself.

He has stuck to what he believes. You can question his methods, and I can question some of his positions--I don't agree with everything that he stands for, though I think a lot of what he stands for has a good deal of sense in it. But you can't question his political courage. He's a man of conviction, who's stuck to those convictions.

Here's a man who's even taken on the Anti-Defamation League. I don't know U.S. politics as well as I should, but I can't think of a single other prominent U.S. political figure who's been brave enough to take on the Anti-Defamation League--and say that it's wrong for everyone who criticizes Israeli policy to be branded as an anti-Semite.

SOME PEOPLE on the left believe there's nothing to be gained from electoral politics, and that we should focus all our efforts on grassroots organizing. What do you think?

WE CAN'T turn our backs on the electoral process. I think it's a false dichotomy when you say that either you're going to vote and take part in this corrupt electoral process, or you're going to stand against it. We've got to do both. You've got to fight within the structures the system gives you, and fight the structures.

It seems to me that when a candidate does come plainly from the left, as Nader does--and that is a rare thing in U.S. politics--then those who support the same policy areas that he supports should be fighting for him. They should not be fighting against him, and they should not be spending their time bad-mouthing him and spreading stories--many of which are completely false--about him in order to do him down, and to bring in someone who is no better than Bush Lite.

The bad or the terrible?

FROM GEORGE Monbiot's Guardian column on the U.S. presidential election, titled "The bad or the terrible?":