Printable Version
Tell a friend
Gore's Guilt Trip
Thursday, January 25, 2007(The Harwood Institute for Public Innovation)
Gore's Guilt Trip
by Richard C. Harwood
Is a vote for
Nader really a vote for Bush?
-
msnbc.com, November 1, 2000
Green Party
presidential candidate Ralph Nader tells
supporters in Michigan he is no spoiler: "You
can't spoil a political system that's spoiled
to the core," he said.
WASHINGTON, Nov.
1 ó Conventional wisdom has it that in just a
handful of days Ralph Nader may help to snatch
victory from the hands of Al Gore. Thereís
lots of urgent talk about how Gore should
handle Nader. But thereís a missing piece of
the discussion: just what is at the heart of
the Nader support.
SURPRISINGLY, Ralph
Naderís support hasnít waned over the course
of campaign 2000. As Election Day approaches,
and the stakes become clearer, people still
have not bailed out on his candidacy. Instead,
Naderís strength only seems to have grown in
numbers and intensity.
Ross Perot
Redux?
In 1992, another third-party
candidate took off in the polls - the Reform
Partyís Ross Perot. With the demise of the
Reform Party, and the mocking of Perot in some
quarters, we often forget that he attracted the
support of millions of Americans by speaking
plainly to people. He took on tough issues such
as the budget deficit, campaign finance reform
and NAFTA. He lavished praise on the town hall
meetings, a symbol of Americaís enduring
commitment to the right of the public to be
heard. And he talked in practical terms of
needing to ìfixî Americaís
problems.
The Nader campaign has some
similarities to Perotís, but thereís also a
fundamental difference. Perotís campaign, for
all the positive things it triggered in
Americansí imagination, sprung from peopleís
anger and disgust with the political system. A
vote for Perot was a means by which to send the
system a message: ìWe have had enough!î Nader
takes that disaffection one step further down
the road to political
reality.
Certainly, some Nader
supporters may simply be frustrated with their
choices for president this year and may not
even know Naderís full array of political
views. But Nader seems to stand for something:
for honesty, integrity, a track record of
consistency and conviction, a willingness to
speak out. It seems that the Nader support is
grounded more in peopleís hopes for what
America can be than in grinding the system to a
halt.
Who's Guilty?
To get Nader
supporters into the Gore column, Democrats are
now pulling out all stops. Their thrust is to
make Nader supporters feel guilty - arguing
that a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush. In
the end, Nader just might make the difference
in a handful of states, thus swinging the
election to Bush.
This prospect raises
the question of whether Nader will then hold
responsibility for a Republican victory and the
course then-President Bush takes? A quick,
shallow knee-jerk analysis might render an
emphatic answer of ìyes!î
Think It
Through
But perhaps it would be wise to
think this situation through with greater care
and seriousness. One could argue that it is not
Nader who must temper his own ambitions, but
Gore, who needs to make his own case to
American voters. To many people, Gore simply
has not delivered.
Indeed, Goreís
topsy-turvy campaign has been the antithesis of
Naderís. Where Gore has constantly changed the
suits he wears, looking for just the right
tones, Nader seemingly has not even bothered
change out of - or even clean - his one suit.
While Americans have seen three different Al
Gores in the three presidential campaigns,
Nader seemingly has not even worked on his
political delivery. And while Gore tries daily
to find just the right issue to pitch,
apparently being tone deaf at times, Nader has
remained true to his long-standing public
views.
Perhaps what resonates most
deeply among Nader supporters is that he speaks
to the kind of politics people seek - one in
which the candidate knows himself, bases his
views on conviction and stands for something,
even in the midst of political
crossfire.
A New Direction
John
McCain, and Bill Bradley to a lesser degree,
tapped into similar desires among Americans
disaffected with politics-as-usual. Now Nader
continues that charge. Sure, among these
candidates the issues and positions they value
differ, but the sensibilities embodied within
the candidacies themselves hold fast and true.
While many people might not yet be ready to
embrace this different style of politics, they
clearly are moving in that
direction.
Efforts to ìguiltî people
into leaving Naderís side may sway just enough
voters for Gore ultimately to win this
election. But at the heart of the matter, these
efforts miss the point. People hold aspirations
for a different kind of politics in America.
Winning their votes will demand responding
genuinely to those aspirations, not making
people feel guilty about them.