Gored Liberals\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nGored Liberals, Wasted Votes, and Selling Out\r\nby Bijan Parsia<\/b><\/p>
\r\nGored Liberals\r\n\r\r\n\r\n\r\nAs Gore fumbles his way out of the White House and\r\r\nBush spends his way into it (of course, this isn't certain, but...),\r\r\nthe odd debate over \"Nader the election spoiler\" has become a\r\r\ncacophonous roar since Gore mobilized the Loyal Liberals to do his dirty\r\r\nwork. The general refrain is quite old: \"A vote for Nader is a vote\r\r\nfor Bush!\" and \"Don't waste your vote by voting for someone who can't\r\r\nwin!\" There are three popular counterpunches: Side-note: This election seems to be a\r\r\nreplay of the 1988 one. Dukakis was 30<\/b> points ahead coming out\r\r\nof the Democratic convention, and he managed to squander it against\r\r\nwhat was widely considered the weakest Republican ticket in\r\r\ndecades. Dukakis, like Gore, was a unlovable technocrat. Dukakis, like\r\r\nGore, swore off \"mudslinging.\" The Bushes, on the other hand, come\r\r\nacross as genial enough<\/i> and have no problem with smearing their\r\r\nopponent. Not to mention spending a ton<\/i> of\r\r\nmoney.<\/p>\r\r\n\r\r\n The money point is crucial. Dubya managed\r\r\nto squash McCain (who is a likeable -- to the press -- more\r\r\nindependent Gore) by outspending him two to one. (During the\r\r\nprimaries, Bush didn't accept federal matching funds so as to avoid\r\r\nspending limits.) Right now, Bush is letting the RNC buy the ads. Bush\r\r\njust may prove that having no<\/i> useful qualities except a vague\r\r\nreputation for geniality and a bunch of negatives means little\r\r\ncompared to a pile of money and a willingness to be\r\r\nnasty.<\/p>\r\r\n\r\r\n Gore's surrogate campaign against Nader is\r\r\nentirely<\/i> negative. It's not just that it's mean, but, with few\r\r\nexceptions, it offers no reason to vote for<\/i> Gore. Instead, we\r\r\nare enjoined to not<\/i> vote for Nader in order to \"effectively\"\r\r\nvote against<\/i> Bush. Even the Supreme Court argument -- that Bush\r\r\nwill appoint justices that will overturn Roe v. Wade<\/i> and Gore\r\r\nwon't -- doesn't purport that Gore will be an effective and active\r\r\nadvocate of abortion rights (e.g., funding for poor women, rolling\r\r\nback Webster, etc.), much less women's rights in\r\r\ngeneral. This is a measure of what progressives can expect from a Gore\r\r\nadministration: to be shafted while the chorus sings, \"It could have\r\r\nbeen worse; it could have been worse; hallelujah, it could have been\r\r\nworse.\"<\/p>\r\r\n\r\r\n It could be better, too. Much better.<\/p>\r\r\n\r\r\n Remember that the DLC has worked to kill the left wing of\r\r\nthe Democratic party. It suppressed Jesse Jackson and dispersed the\r\r\nRainbow Coalition. It betrayed the unions to bring us NAFTA et.\r\r\nal<\/i>. Did I mention welfare reform? (And these are just the\r\r\ndomestic<\/i> policies!) All this was done in the name of taking\r\r\nback the White House. We progressives bit the bullet and held our\r\r\nbreath and noses and voices and supported Clinton\/Gore. Of course, the\r\r\nDemocrats lost the House and Senate (with many<\/i> Democrats\r\r\nswitching over), and we didn't get health care, and we did get Kosovo,\r\r\nIraq, East Timor, and Rwanda. But we had the White House, and if we\r\r\nwanted to keep it we had to keep our mouths shut and accept the little\r\r\nlosses which, or so they told us, were better than the big<\/b>\r\r\nlosses we could<\/i> have suffered. And now \"we're\" going to lose\r\r\nthe White House unless progressives come back into the fold and do\r\r\ntheir duty: Vote for someone who despises us and all that we stand\r\r\nfor.<\/p>\r\r\n\r\r\n I confess to feeling the touch of ambivalence. I really and truly despise Bush, and I'm\r\r\ncompletely embarrassed by him. I'm hard pressed to come up with\r\r\nsomeone who's more<\/i> of a pathetic lightweight aiming for high\r\r\noffice than George W. Bush: Reagan, Bush Sr, even Dan Quayle had\r\r\nbetter qualifications, personality, intelligence, stature. I blush for\r\r\nthe Republicans.<\/p>\r\r\n\r\r\n However, the Loyal Liberal appeal to vote for Gore\r\r\ndoesn't<\/i> heavily focus on the rage and humiliation I feel toward\r\r\nBush -- even though, I think, such a campaign would play well with the general public. I can\r\r\nimagine several \"killer\" ads discussing Texas's and Bush's systematic\r\r\nmisadministration of the death penalty, ads that could even support\r\r\nthe death penalty in general. Given the fact that worry about the\r\r\nfairness of the application of the death penalty, coupled with a \"in\r\r\nprinciple\" favoring of it, is<\/i> the dominant public view, it's\r\r\nmystifying that Gore hasn't pounded on it. I just don't understand why\r\r\nthe Gore campaign turns itself inside out to be nice to Bush and then\r\r\nturns itself outside in to be nasty to Nader.<\/p>\r\r\n\r\r\n\r\n Wasted votes<\/p>\r\r\n\r\n\r\n<\/b> If you vote for someone who then doesn't win, have you\r\r\nwasted your vote? Suppose Nader gave up and endorsed Gore, and even\r\r\nsuppose that Gore picked up a few percentage points as a result, what\r\r\nhappens if Gore still<\/i> loses (which is quite possible, sad to\r\r\nsay)? Now that<\/i> would be a wasted vote for a progressive.<\/p>\r\r\n\r\r\n By the same token, suppose Gore would win -- by however\r\r\nslim a margin -- even if Nader didn't<\/i> withdraw, but in fact Nader\r\r\ndid? In that case, wouldn't the Naderites have wasted not just their votes, but their efforts\r\r\nto put Nader on the ballot?<\/p>\r\r\n\r\r\n Everyone who supports Nader knew from the start that\r\r\nhe wouldn't win the election: the deck was wildly stacked against him,\r\r\nand Al Gore didn't do a damn thing to change that. Some folks wanted\r\r\nto be able to vote for someone they'd actually want<\/i> to have as\r\r\nPresident. Some wanted to build the Green Party up. Some wanted to\r\r\nsend a strong message to the Democrats. These are all real, positive\r\r\nreasons to vote for Nader which don't disappear because Gore can't\r\r\nbeat Bush. Furthermore, none<\/i> of them are achieved by a vote for\r\r\nGore, especially a vote which is really a vote against Bush.<\/p>\r\r\n\r\r\n So to say that they are \"wasted\" per se<\/i> has to be some\r\r\nsort of error. There is the probability that they won't be votes cast\r\r\nfor the winner of the election, but it's at least 50-50 that they\r\r\nwon't be for the winner if you vote for Gore. And for progressives\r\r\ndisenchanted by the Democratic party, it's highly likely that a vote\r\r\nfor a winning Gore will involve a lot of waste as well (in spite of\r\r\nGore's \"environmentalism\").<\/p>\r\r\n\r\r\n It's odd, really: the Democrats spent\r\r\nthemselves to gain the presidency (under DLC guidance). Pre-Clinton, they controlled the\r\r\nHouse and the Senate, they had a large majority of state governerships and\r\r\nlegislatures. Post-Clinton, they lost they House and the Senate and\r\r\nmany, many states.<\/p>\r\r\n\r\r\n The National Conference of State\r\r\nLegislatures' web site has an illuminating\r\r\ntable detailing the balance of control of the states going back to\r\r\n1938. From 1970 through 1992, the Democrats controlled an overwhelming\r\r\nmajority of state governerships and legislatures. In 1992, 25 states\r\r\nwere under Democratic dominance, 8 under Republican, and 16 split. In\r\r\n1994, the Democratic states had dropped to 18, the Republican had 19,\r\r\nand there were 12 split states. Historically, this is not entirely\r\r\nunusual, but one does wonder if the presidency is worth the House, the\r\r\nSenate, and<\/i> control of all those states. It's not clear that a\r\r\nGore administration would or could do anything to reverse this\r\r\ntrend.<\/p>\r\r\n\r\r\n Gore's no Reagan. He's not even a Clinton. Can we\r\r\nreally expect him to be an effective progressive leader against all\r\r\nthe power mobilized against him (not to mention all the power he's\r\r\nsold himself to)? Can we dare to hope that a progressive movement will\r\r\nflourish with him \"in charge\"? Especially a movement that gave up its\r\r\nconscience, its organization, and its wallet (i.e., Federal matching\r\r\nfunds) to save his sorry ass?<\/p>\r\r\n\r\r\n I suspect not.<\/p>\r\r\n\r\r\n Four years of compromise, of gritted teeth, of excuses\r\r\nand excusing, of rightward movement, of apologetics, of erosion of\r\r\npurpose and drive, of joy at microscopic gains and smaller than feared\r\r\nlosses: this is what we're likely to get for our vote? And this is\r\r\nsupposed to be an easy, obvious decision?<\/p>\r\r\n\r\r\n As I so often do, I find myself\r\r\nturning to Martin Luther King, Jr's Letter From Birmingham City\r\r\nJail:<\/p>\r\r\n\r\r\n Nonviolent direct action seeks to create\r\r\nsuch a crisis and establish such creative tension that a community\r\r\nthat has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the\r\r\nissue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be\r\r\nignored. I just referred to the creation of tension as a part of the\r\r\nwork of the nonviolent resister. This may sound rather shocking. But I\r\r\nmust confess that I am not afraid of the word tension. I have\r\r\nearnestly worked and preached against violent tension, but there is a\r\r\ntype of constructive non-violent tension that is necessary for\r\r\ngrowth...So the purpose of the direct action is to create a situation\r\r\nso crisis-packed that it will inevitably open to the door to\r\r\nnegotiation.<\/p>\r\r\n\r\r\n Voting for Nader in a swing state entails the risk\r\r\nthat Bush may win that state. Not working all out for Gore entails\r\r\nthat risk too, yet I don't see the Loyal Liberals trying to recruit<\/i>\r\r\nNader or the Naderites. From the convention, to the debates, to the\r\r\nlast minute diatribes, there's been no negotiation, no\r\r\nacknowledgement, no honesty. If Nader and his supporters aren't\r\r\ncareful, we stand to waste more that just<\/i> our votes. And the\r\r\nshrillness of the Loyal Liberal diatribes points to a crisis that we\r\r\nshould not wish to suppress.<\/p>\r\r\n\r\r\n It's strikingly characteristic of the people in power\r\r\nthat the call to fall in line is purely top down. The Loyal Liberals\r\r\nare all \"leaders,\" power brokers, pundits, and politicians. They stand\r\r\nready to blame Nader for Gore's failure and are quick to dismiss the\r\r\nlong-term, grassroot efforts of the Green Party. If the\r\r\nmembership<\/i> of the NAACP, several of the major unions, and the\r\r\nlike passed resolutions asking Nader to throw in with Gore, the case\r\r\nwould be a lot more compelling, for there would lie the possibility of\r\r\nsolidarity and change.<\/p>\r\r\n\r\r\n Selling Out<\/p>\r\r\n\r\r\n\r\n<\/b> If Nader and his voters are to sell out, to waste our\r\r\nvotes and efforts in a different way, we should sell them dearly and\r\r\nfor solid coin instead of airy promises. While I do not especially\r\r\ntrust Gore, there are plenty of things that Clinton<\/i> could do on\r\r\nGore's behalf right now<\/i> (after all, a crucial part of the Loyal\r\r\nLiberal argument is the power of the presidency, a power under Gore's\r\r\ndirect influence). Mitigation or elimination of the siege Iraq tops\r\r\nmy list. For that, I would sell far more than a vote or Federal\r\r\nmatching funds. Just ending the illegal-by-every-measure bombing runs would be worth\r\r\nconsideration. Stopping the dropping of chemical\/biological weapons on\r\r\nColumbia is another easily acceptable bid. Putting pressure on Israel to stop their violence against the Palestinians\r\r\nis yet another.<\/p>\r\r\n\r\r\n The Clinton\/Gore policy with regard to any of these three issues results in more deaths and\r\r\ndestroyed lives than the mere repeal of Roe v. Wade<\/i> could hope\r\r\nto produce (not counting that abortion rights can be fought for and\r\r\nsecured on any number of fronts). And each of those policies is much more under the direct control of the president than abortion rights. They could be mitigated, at least, with the stroke of a pen. To the contrary, even if elected president, Bush would have to appoint\r\r\nexactly the right justices (which would have to get through the\r\r\nSenate), and then a challenge to Roe<\/i> would have to come\r\r\nthrough, and then Roe<\/i> would have to be overturned, and then<\/i>\r\r\nrestrictive legislation would have to be passed, typically on a state\r\r\nby state basis.<\/p>\r\r\n\r\r\n When we are told to save abortion rights by throwing\r\r\nin with Al \"Keep-the-Sanctions--Fight-the-War-on-Drugs--We're-an\r\r\nhonest-broker-who-happens-to-be-a-friend-of-Israel\" Gore, we should\r\r\nask in turn, \"Is the distant risk worth supporting the immediate and\r\r\ndefinite destruction?\" On these three issues and many more Gore and\r\r\nBush are in total lockstep.<\/p>\r\r\n\r\r\n To vote for Nader may be to \"help\" Bush in that the\r\r\nvote doesn't lower Bush's chances of winning. But sticking with Nader,\r\r\nhowever painful it may be, at least offers some hope of future\r\r\nleverage. Of course, merely to cast a defiant vote isn't enough. If it\r\r\nis<\/i> to be more than an empty gesture, it must be joined with a\r\r\nwillingness to be active in future battles and to sustain and heighten\r\r\nthe tension. If we each make our vote an integral part of our\r\r\nactivism, then it is worth more than the fear of a Bush planet can buy.\r\r\n<\/p>\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\nBijan Parsia is the scourge of slacker philosophy students at UNC\r\nwhere he is a PhD candidate in philosophy. An avid computer\r\nprogrammer, Bijan writes for The\r\nMonkeyfist Collective on issues of politics, identity, and\r\nliberation.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\n","contact":"bparsia@email.unc.edu","link":"http:\/\/monkeyfist.com\/articles\/702","address":"","phone":"","parent_id":0,"mime_type":"text\/html","summary":"This article from Monkeyfist.com neatly disposes of the Loyal Liberal's attempt to smear Nader and his supporters. Gore promises to be terrible for progressive causes; the Clinton-Gore DLC gambit has been terrible for the Democratic Party; and Gore hasn't given Nader or the Greens any reasons to support him. It would be ill-advised for Nader supporters to sell out to and for Gore for what he's offered them so far: nothing but scorn, derision, and hypocrisy.","numcomment":0,"fileurl":"\/uploads\/2000\/11\/702.htm","filesize":"14.8 kibibytes","article_url":"\/news\/2000\/11\/4322.php"},"attachments":[],"comments":[]}