I don't usually publish my articles on sixties-l but this seems relevant and perhaps will help get us past the vote for Gore/vote for Nader argument. Note that this was written for a general. rather than a progressive/lefty audience. From the Brattleboro (VT) Reformer, 11/3/00 AFTER THE ELECTION By Marty Jezer Tuesday promises to be a close election. On the left side of the political spectrum, people are agonizing. Gore? Nader? What to do? Vote your conscience. Lesser of two evils. Vote your hopes. Bore and Gush are identical. A Republican victory would be dangerous. A month ago, when Gore was ahead, a vote for Nader, at least in states like Vermont, seemed safe and easy. It astonishes me that Bush has made it a contest. If Gore loses, he's got no one to blame but himself. It's not the issues that have cost him; it's his public persona. A seeming captive to the pollsters and image-makers who advise him, Gore comes across as an intelligent man with a hollow core. Whether true or not, this is the public perception, and it could cost him the election. A gift for fund-raising (one shared by Gore) does not make George W. Bush presidential. A product of affirmative action for white males with rich and influential fathers, Bush lacks the experience, the intelligence, the knowledge, the wit, and the character to hold our highest elected office. Hopefully, he understands his limitations and will surround himself with his Daddy's old advisors. This won't happen with Congress. It's good- bye "compassionate conservatism" when the likes of Trent Lott, Tom Delay, and Dick Armey take power. In areas of foreign policy and global economics, there is little difference between Bush and Gore. Indicative of their support for an imperialistic foreign policy, both believe that the loony-tune invasion of Grenada was a justified military action. Both are also obsessed with Fidel Castro. The major trouble spot outside of the Middle East is Colombia where Clinton and Gore are already sending money, weapons, and advisors. With Colombia's oil-rich neighbor, Venezuela, cozying up to Castro's Cuba, there is potential for further American aggression no matter who is commander-in-chief in the White House. Gore and Bush also share common ground in supporting corporate control of the national and global economy. This is the issue of the future, around which a progressive movement is likely to grow. Free trade, it should be said, is not the problem. Trade should be encouraged; it creates wealth and breaks down national barriers. What's crucial is who makes the rules. Worker rights and environmental protections have to take precedence over corporate profits. Gore, Bush and their respective parties are beholden to corporate money and lack the political autonomy to challenge corporate priorities. That's where campaign finance reform comes in, full public funding. There's no hope for reform in a Bush administration. John McCain aside, the Republican idea of campaign reform is to prohibit labor unions from making contributions. Gore has promised reform, and even endorsed full public financing; but Clinton made similar noises and then did nothing. Full public financing (the Clean Money Reform) won't happen until Congress feels the heat of public pressure. As a consumer advocate, Nader did not lead on this issue. I hope he will after the election. A vote for Nader is a direct challenge to corporate dominance. But it's also a symbolic one. Nader has no political leverage as a political candidate. He will have leverage after the election leading an anti-corporate movement. It would be great if Nader got 5% of the vote and enabled the Greens to become eligible for some public money in the next election. But the money is paltry; the goal not essential. More important than Tuesday is the leadership Nader provides when the election is over. A leader of a new movement must be willing to talk straight to the public, even if he has to tell his most enthusiastic supporters truths they don't want to hear. Nader has been a disappointment in this regard. His argument that there are few differences between Bush and Gore holds water only if one is looking at the election from a revolutionary perspective. And Nader's no revolutionary; he's more a progressive Democrat whose issues have been abandoned by his party. On specific issues like taxation, social security, environmental protection, health care, human rights, and education, there are important differences between Bush and Gore. Even on issues of corporate dominance, Gore's support (however compromised) for the public sector creates possibilities (from regulations to tax credits) to pressure and encourage corporations to adopt clean technologies. Under Bush's plan for free market regulation, corporations have no incentive to risk investments in green technology. The crisis of global warning cannot wait for ideal solutions. Gore understands this; Bush doesn't. The Supreme Court is another issue where Nader has been disingenuous. Citing Warren and Brennan as great Republican Justices is sophistry. They lived in a different era, when racists and reactionaries were Democrats. Abortion is not the only issue where the Supreme Court is a factor. Challenges to Buckley v. Valeo, the horrible court decision which equates free speech and money, are making their way to the Supreme Court. Overturning Buckley would make it easier to get special interest money out of politics. Bush is in debt to the right-wing and one likely pay-off is his Supreme Court nominations. But, if you're like me, you've heard these arguments -- and are still agonizing. Come Tuesday, in the privacy of the voting booth, we'll all vote our consciences. Some of us will vote strategically. If our state is safe for -- or lost to -- Gore, we'll vote for Nader. Others of us will vote for Gore to stop Bush and assure a better future. Either way, what counts is what happens after the election is over. We can't give up on issues of importance. Whether it's President Gore or Bush or the Congress is Republican or Democrat, there will be work to be done. Once the passions and arguments of this election are exhausted, those of us who want peace, fairness, equality, and economic justice will have to get over this election and start working together. -30- Copyright (c) 2000 by Marty Jezer Marty Jezer * 22 Prospect Street * Brattleboro, Vermont 05301 * website: <http://www.sover.net/~mjez Subscribe to my Friday commentary (it's free), just send me your e-mail address by reply
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 11/06/00 EST