Wednesday, 05 July 2000
.....
Now in some doubt, the political establishment reaches for the long knives: the "former friends," the Washington Times, and the New York Times Editorial Board. Just a few days after being nominated by the Green Party, Nader has become a "threat to democracy." The only surprise in this development is the speed with which Nader and the Greens went from "lunatic fringe" to "threat to democracy," a transition that some third-parties -- for example, the Libertarian Party -- never accomplish.
In the 29 June Washington Post, Lloyd Grove writes that, "After paying little public attention to the campaign of Green Party presidential nominee Ralph Nader, Vice President Al Gore has enlisted the help of a former Democratic congressman to deal with the liberal consumer advocate. Former Connecticut Rep. Toby Moffett (D) will help Gore's campaign deal with Nader's candidacy, which threatens to hurt the vice president in several key states." Who's Moffett? Grove claims that he's a "former friend...from the consumer rights movement 20 years ago," who is "no longer speaking" to Nader "because of Ralph's inclination to eat his own."
It must be nice when, as a columnist, rather than having to think and write for yourself, you can just print what the big boys suggest. Grove's piece reads like a Gore campaign press release. He just can't resist implying insider knowledge with the deliciously ambiguous, "after paying little attention..." How much attention is that, exactly? Surely we're not supposed to believe that because Gore hasn't said anything publicly about Nader that his campaign is ignoring Nader, who is the sole reason presently why Bush threatens to win California, the biggest single prize in the election.
Grove wants us to think he has insider knowledge of the campaign, that he's "well-placed". But he's so clumsy in trying to establish his status that it backfires: surely the insider point to make is that the Gore campaign has been paying lots of attention to Nader, hence the decision to find someone -- anyone! -- who will "deal with" him.
But Grove is merely a pinprick; the New York Times is, as ever, the knife between the ribs. In a NYT editorial of 30 June, we see the theme maturing: Nader as threat to democracy. If this idea weren't so predictable, or its acceptance so potentially dangerous, it might be worth having a giant public laugh at its early appearance.
The NYT editorial claims that Nader's candidacy is little more than cranky posturing (this of perhaps the most ascetical American political figure in 150 years): "he is engaging in a self-indulgent exercise that will distract voters from the clear-cut choice represented by the major-party candidates." This is a curious claim: first, the matter of distraction is more complex than the NYT makes it appear, and its truth or falsity is largely an empirical matter. Second, the NYT assumes that there is a "clear-cut choice" between Gore and Bush, something Nader has repeatedly and clearly denied. Rather than begging that question, the NYT ought to address it directly, an obligation of intellectual integrity that lies beyond its usual mien.
The editorial claims that Gore will be most hurt by Nader's candidacy because Gore is "the contender closest to Mr. Nader on the environment and other issues." Closest? Yes. Close? Not at all. Clearly the NYT believes that people who want to vote for only Nader, or those who choose Nader out of disgust or mistrust of Gore, deserve no real political choice. Again, this is pathetically transparent question-begging: the issue of Bush and Gore's proximity -- and the remoteness of Nader and the Greens to both Bush and Gore -- is exactly what propels Nader to run at all, a fact that the NYT knows, but chooses to obscure under mealy-mouthed, imprecise verbiage. "This political reality casts doubt on Mr. Nader's claim to be driven by policy differences rather than ego." It's now clear that there isn't a single member of the NYT editorial staff that's able or willing to read or accurately represent the Green Platform, a document that -- whatever else its ample flaws may be -- clearly stakes out significant and far-reaching policy differences between the relevant parties and candidates.
The editorial continues with what may be the howler of the political season: "But given the major differences between the prospective Democratic and Republican nominees, there is no driving logic for a third-party candidacy this year, and the public deserves to see the major-party candidates compete on an uncluttered playing field." Might one of those "major differences" lie between the Gore and Bush proposals for raising the minimum wage, where there is, literally, as Nader points out, no more than a dime's worth of difference? If the NYT editorial staff had the merest regard for intellectual integrity, the obvious conclusion to draw from its undemocratic mania for an "uncluttered playing field" is to call for Gore's withdrawal from the race. Indeed if it's ideological purity and clarity of choice that the NYT honestly wants, the best matchup is Nader and Buchanan. Of course the NYT doesn't care about ideological diversity or real political choice. It merely seeks to reinforce, reflexively, the bipartite political status quo at all costs.
The NYT rushes gleefully further into the depths of doublespeak when it claims that "Mr. Nader acknowledges that on his traditional issues, Mr. Gore would promise more progress than Mr. Bush." While I have not heard, and very much doubt, that Nader "acknowledges" this, one should pay careful attention to the other verb in that sentence, "promises". It's more than likely in fact that Gore will promise more, though not nearly enough, than Bush with regard to Nader's "traditional issues." Clinton, after all, promised a great deal in 1992, much more than the incumbent Bush. What matters, however, is what Clinton and Gore have delivered: a consistently blemished record of betrayal after accomodation after abandonment after outrage.
Finally, the editorial desperately switches course near the end. It masquerades criticism of Nader's views on trade as further comment on the inappropriateness of his candidacy: "The main economic issue that divides Mr. Nader from the major-party candidates is trade, and there, both Mr. Gore and Mr. Bush have positions that are better for the wage-earning voters that Mr. Nader claims to represent. For he and the Green Party are against all the recent trade agreements, including American membership in the World Trade Organization." So not only is Nader horribly confused about what's better for "wage-earning voters" that he "claims" to represent; but he and the Green Party have the gall to oppose "all the recent trade agreements." (Again, note the doublespeak: he doesn't represent them but only claims to. Further, he claims to represent "wage-earning voters" which is surely the overwhelming majority of the electorate? Whom, then, do Gore and Bush claim to represent?) Regular NYT readers can decipher the coded language: Nader and the Greens are part of the anti-progress, anti-god-and-family, anti-poor-and-third-world lunatic fringe that started the current round of "democratic crisis" in Seattle and in D.C.
Despite the intellectual and moral mendacity of the Paper of Record, ordinary citizens should see in all this some cause for optimism. Historically, the American political establishment doesn't resort to the myth about democracy-in-crisis unless there is the threat of real social change in the air. That the NYT reached for that myth so quickly after Nader's recent nomination is a sign that Nader and the Green Party are making someone nervous about the possibilities. And it's not only Al Gore.
This is Nader, the Greens, and the "Crisis of Democracy" <http://monkeyfist.com/articles/596>