 |
|
|
|
|
By BuckcuB
Let us further assume, with ridiculous generosity to Bush, that only sixty percent of that ten percent would have voted for Gore. The result? A lead of more than 2,000 votes for Gore in Florida. But for some reason, Nader is being given a pass on this. In spite of encouraging millions of people to completely waste their votes--and those votes were indeed a complete waste, neither electing Nader nor garnering the necessary five percent of the vote required for future Federal funding. I submit that Ralph Nader and the Green Party bear a tremendous amount of the responsibility--or should I say blame?--for the disputed outcome of the election. I am, perhaps, in the minority in believing that Nader and the Greens should be punished for their arrogant stupidity. Pragmatically, this is a two-party nation politically. The quixotic and dangerous effect of a tiny third party has now been amply demonstrated. One might not find a great deal of enthusiasm for Gore among Green voters, but I bet there is ZERO enthusiasm for Bush. Yet the Greens and Nader may end up having given the election to a man who opposes everything they believe in. I do think Nader and the Greens must be punished, unforgettably and publicly. I have heard the arguments for a "vote of conscience," and I am unmoved. What "conscience" is it, which foolishly ignores the very real (as we've seen) potential for handing the Presidency to its enemy? That is not conscience -- it is vanity, and worse, it is stupid vanity. And Nader deserves the blame for foolishly encouraging his supporters when he knew the danger. Before the election, I thought Nader was simply a rather short-sighted ideologue. Given his statements and continued arrogance following the election, I've come to believe that Nader is essentially an anarchist. He didn't want to "reform the system," he wanted to destroy it. Having failed to do so on both personal and party fronts, he is nevertheless reveling in the damage he wrought.
And Hitler correctly recognized that as a threat more dangerous than all the helpless-children-cowering-in-air-raid-shelters films ever made. Let us destroy Nader and the Greens with ridicule. Future parties and candidates with the same aspirations will surely take warning from that destruction. I am now of the considered opinion that Al Gore ought to take the first reasonable opportunity to concede this election to Bush, while obliquely reminding the nation that he DID win the popular vote. Congress is evenly divided in both houses. Whoever "wins" the presidency is going to be faced with four long bitter years of charges that he stole the election, and with a degree of vicious partisanship in Congress unrivaled in 140 years. The office, frankly, is not worth having at this stage of the game. The only upside for liberals? Whoever becomes president has no serious popular mandate (although Gore can at least fall back on his win of the popular vote) and no majority in Congress. None of the grand plans proposed by either candidate during the campaigns has a snowball's chance in Hell of being enacted, because it will be blocked by the other side in Congress. And whichever man wins, the legitimacy of his position will remain questionable in perpetuity. As I heard one major pundit reply when asked when this mess would be over: "It will NEVER be over." A Bush presidency might, by the clear weakness of George W, magnified by the weakness that will be thrust upon anyone who takes office under these circumstances, help Democrats to seize control of Congress in the 2002 off-year elections, and to regain the White House with a stronger candidate in 2004. In any case, enacting any strong conservative agenda would be impossible for Bush. And forget about appointing real conservatives to the Supreme Court. Like Reagan facing a Democratic Congress, Bush would be reduced to nominating the slightly-right-of-center, and like Reagan, those appointments might come back to bite the conservatives in the ass. We need fear no Scalias or Thomases. Like the infamous Bork, any such candidate would be shot down in humiliating flames. The temptation to Monday-morning-quarterbacking is almost undeniable. Along with many leftist Democrats, I think Gore was a fool not to make heavy use of Bill Clinton in his campaign. Clinton is a consummate politician -- he can even briefly enrapture his most-vicious enemies.
Locally, the ugly fury which has been simmering quietly while we all wait for the outcome has begun to boil over. Yesterday, the Bucks County (Pennsylvania) Democratic Party headquarters was vandalized with spray paint. Someone sprayed the words "LIE" and "CHEAT" across the offices' plate-glass window above posters of Gore and Lieberman, in safety-orange spray paint. But get this: whoever did it used a stencil. A STENCIL! Police say they have never seen spray-paint vandalism that wasn't free-handed. The general consensus of investigators is that the vandal (A) wanted to be sure the message was perfectly clear, and/or (B) wanted to ensure that his/her handwriting wouldn't be recognized. I have never heard of anything so bizarre -- using a stencil for vandalizing with spray paint! And I will be very surprised if a little vandalism is the worst of it, once the final decision is made in this election. I think all that simmering ugly fury is going to explode on a level the pundits don't begin to imagine. We have learned one final truth from this election -- that we are a nation deeply and almost-evenly divided. Regardless of specific campaign issues, there is no doubt in the minds of voters about where each candidate stands. Gore is a liberal, and Bush is a conservative. And this is less an election than it is a war to decide in which direction the nation will go. And look closely at that division. Women, gays, labor and blacks voted overwhelmingly for Gore--the traditionally-oppressed groups. Straight white males, the well-to-do, evangelical Christians and capital voted overwhelmingly for Bush. And from what I'm hearing, both groups have some very strong feelings that this is a make-or-break situation for their ideology. Clinton has moved the nation leftward toward the center, after twelve years of Reagan/Bush rightist policy, and liberals hope to see that movement continued and cemented by Gore. Conservatives want a repudiation of the Clinton years, and a return to the right, anchored by the son and heir of the man Clinton defeated. It is a hopeless situation. Health concerns worry People with AIDS on two fronts about a Bush presidency. They are concerned about what might happen to research and to programs like Ryan White funding under Bush. It is tempting, however, to consider with glee the inevitable gaffes and potential scandals of a Bush administration. George W. is simply not a very bright bulb, and I doubt whether his much-vaunted team of advisors could stave off all the potential public acts of stupidity. Not least of which is needing such a team in the first place. Who wants a President who needs training wheels? But I do hope that Gore will find some gracious and reasonable opportunity to concede, at this point. Whoever gains office under these circumstances is doomed to failure and ignominy, I believe. Better that it be Bush. |
In the great outcry by "our" side against Bush and his tactics, I think the
hugely-destructive "spoiler" influence of Ralph Nader is being foolishly
ignored--conveniently enough for Nader. Let us assume that, without
Nader, a mere 10 percent of those who voted for him would have bothered to
vote at all.
Did Gore blow it by not inviting President Clinton onto the campaign trail? 
© 1997-2000 BEI