Let me start out by saying, there are two distinct groups of "they", each
with their own reasons and agendas for claiming that Ralph Nader lost
the election for Al Gore in 2000.
The most visible and virulent, of course, are the sour puss Democrats. I
understand how they feel. Which is why I have no respect for them
anymore.
Disclosure:
I was raised working class in Detroit, when unions were strong. I don't
think I even met a Republican for my first eighteen years. Certainly my
parents, their friends, and everyone within 50 miles of the trailer
park we lived in was Democrat. Until 1996, I voted as a knee-jerk
Democrat.
So let's get down to the nitty-gritty.
The presidential election of 2000 was decided in Florida.
Almost 6,000,000 people voted. Al Gore lost to George W. by 537 votes.
There were massive irregularities in the election, including 54,000
alleged felons who were disenfranchised of the right to vote. Most
turned out to not be felons at all, and 54% of them were
African-American, a demographic highly likely to have voted for Al Gore.
Also, there were all sorts of problems with chads and double-voting,
usually attributable to weirdness with vote tallying and the ballots
themselves.
Having said that . . .
97,421 people voted for Ralph Nader. It is assumed that had these 97,421 people
not voted for Nader, they would have voted for Al Gore and he would
have swept the election.
Wrong!
But even before I get into that, why don't they rail against the 538 registered Democrats
who were too lazy, too drunk, too preoccupied, too busy shacking up
with some honey, too hooked on some soap opera or sitcom, or maybe too
stoned, to get off their lard asses and vote for Al? Why pick on people
who made a considered, deeply principled
decision to take a stand against the rabid conservatism of the right __
aka the Republicans __ AND against the sell-out and betrayal of the
progressive left by the Democrats?
It's no secret. Bill Clinton and Al Gore were responsible for tilting so far to
the political right they gutted the Democratic Party of its core values.
True progressives __ the kind of people who responded to Nader's message __ comprising
the 97,421 and voted for him in Florida, were finally fed up with the
Democratic Party, its pandering to big business, its pathetic cowering
to bubble heads like Newt Gingrich.
If Ralph Nader had not been on the ticket, most of those 97,421 would have stayed
home. Because they __ like yours truly __ had had it up to their
widow's peak with the Beltway's business-as-usual, resented Clinton's
pivot to the right, and were stunned if not horrified by the corporate
takeover of the Democratic Party.
I admit I was charmed by Clinton. I loved his humor, his persona, his sax playing.
He was __ and still is __ a brilliant speaker, a real charmer. But
remember, this is the man who led the charge for deregulating Wall
Street and the abolition of Glass-Steagall, initiated the subversion of
the social safety net with his aggressive attack on welfare, and foisted
on a gullible nation the horrible trade agreement known as NAFTA .
Yes ... NAFTA!
I remember watching the debate between Al Gore __ who by then I found both
articulate and in his robotic way extremely mesmerizing __ and Ross
Perot. I recall my reflexive and now embarrassing rooting for Al,
wanting him to put that ugly little jerk in his place. But guess what?
Al was wrong! I was wrong! Ross Perot was dead on the money. NAFTA has
turned out to be, just as Mr. Perot predicted, a very bad deal for America.
That was just the tip of the iceberg. Much of the Clinton-Gore agenda __ Mr.
Gore's commitment to the environment being the commendable exception __
turned this country completely around. But in the wrong direction!
When the 2000 campaign got underway, many of us were getting wise to this.
Growing numbers of voters were becoming restless, disenchanted. I sat in
the huge coliseum in Portland, Oregon where 10,000 people paid to hear Ralph Nader speak. That's right, we paid for tickets like we were going to a Sting concert. That's how desperate people were becoming for a presidential candidate who talked straight and made sense.
So let me take this a step further. Instead of blaming principled voters who used
the ballot to make a genuine cry for real change, why not blame the
Democratic Party for making a challenge from Mr. Nader a necessity?
Why not blame all of the knee-jerk Democrats who maintained their
steadfast, unprincipled and unthinking loyalty, despite the fact that
the party was moving further and further to the right, abandoning the
unions, abandoning their core working and middle class constituencies?
The country then deserved and still deserves a real alternative, a
choice which aligns with the vast majority of the voting public on most
key issues. The Nader phenomenon was created by the gaping void left when the Democratic Party become the Republican Party Lite.
So Democrats, blame yourselves for Al Gore losing the 2000 election! Don't
scapegoat a man who has given forty years of his life to unselfish
public service, has been a model of integrity, has always been open and
honest about his views, never sold out, and has been rewarded with
ridicule, mockery and every vile form of abuse our shallow and snide
media clowns could whip up between games of Foosball and sniffing
celebrity panties.
At the beginning of this article, I said there were two "they" factions who
propagate the Spoiler Nader myth. The second set of "theys" is a little
more stealthy. Please pay close attention, folks.
I'll tell you who else benefits from this false narrative. The conservatives! The right wing!
Because if the public can be convinced that the choice is only between
Tweedledee and Tweedledum __ as Nader characterized the
Democrat-Republican option __ there will never be a credible threat to
their agenda.
The only occasion Democratic candidates __ generally fairly privileged and connected
individuals who live more in the stratospheric upper reaches of society
__ give notice to the needs of the working and middle classes are when
they are challenged from the left. That's why the New Deal became the
agenda of the Democratic Party. The country was in turmoil and
socialists and even communists were viewed as a legitimate threat at the
polls. Same thing at the end of the 19th Century with the rise of the Progressives. When there is what is perceived as a real alternative to oligarchic, monopolistic, and corporate control, the Democratic Party must embrace progressive policies or get their butts kicked at election time. It's pure politics.
But . . . if everyone can be convinced that voting for a third party is throwing away their votes, voila!
No threat from the left. The Democratic Party makes its gradual but
certain migration to the comfort and safety of Daddy Warbucks. Big money
talks and politicians walk. But with their backs to ordinary citizens
like us. With Citizens United and the recent McCutcheon decision by the
Supreme Court, that is truer than ever before in our history.
So the other they __ the right wing of this country __ also want you to think there has never been or never will be a progressive option. "See what happens. You vote for those kooks and you end up throwing the election!"
I'd really like to think we're smarter than this. But it's not encouraging.
Third-party voting is a tough way to go. I voted Green the last three
presidential elections. As a result I suffer the constant taunts about
throwing my vote away and being an air-headed chump. But I don't for one
second believe that I in any way furthered the evil juggernaut of the
right wing in this country. I like to think __ perhaps too
idealistically __ I'm just part of an awakening, a vanguard for what
will turn politics in America around and restore something resembling
the ideal of democracy to our nation.
There's one other benefit . . .
I can sleep at night.
[ This originated at the author's personal web site . . . http://jdrachel.com ]
