Why Ralph Runs (Aaron Swartz: The Weblog)

Ralph Nader’s first presidential campaign was against Bill Clinton in 1996. Democrats were still smarting from their incredible defeat in 1994, when they lost control of the Congress. There were two competing theories about what the “lesson” of that election was. Some saw it as a sign of the public’s increasing conservativism, a message that Democrats were too far left. Obviously the solution would be to move right. Others saw it as a sign that weren’t being tough enough on the important issues, causing the people who could gain the most from government — the poor, blacks, etc. — to become more cynical and not vote. Obviously the solution was to fight harder and reenergize these non-voters.

Move right or fight? Nowhere was this dispute more evident than at the President, Bill Clinton. In one ear, he had his old friend Labor Secretary Robert Reich. Using constant lobbying and other pressure tactics, Reich got Clinton to fight for some issues. Most notably, he got Clinton to support an increase in the minimum wage (then, as now, at a 20-year low) and to sign an executive order forbidding government contractors from permanently replacing striking workers.

At times it seemed like Clinton wanted to do the right thing, but he was torn by his desire to find common ground with his opponents. But it was not possible to find common ground with the radical conservatives who, led by Newt Gingrich, took over in 1994. To them, politics was war, and they’d fight for everything they could get. The more Clinton caved, the more they demanded. Robert Reich suggests Gingrich was even upset that Clinton caved so much, since it deprived him of a fight.

But in the other ear, he had conservative pollster Dick Morris. Morris, an arrogant and immoral jerk, cared only about reelection. He described his worldview to Reich: “Clinton has a solid forty percent of the people who will go to the polls. Another forty percent will never vote for him. That leaves the swing. Half of the swing, ten percent, lean toward him. The other ten percent lean toward Dole.” Morris urged Clinton to compromise with the Republicans whenever possible to get an issue off the table. Then Clinton could campaign on whatever liberal positions polled well with the swing.

For reasons that are unclear to me, Clinton went with Morris. The White House process of policy development and discussion was placed with a new one: Tell your ideas to Dick Morris. If they poll above sixty, he tells the President. As a result, Clinton campaigned on issues like the V-Chip and school uniforms, while signing Republican bills to slash government programs and destroy welfare.

And so it is into this world Nader entered. Clinton doesn’t listen to liberals (who else are they going to vote for?), he doesn’t listen to nonvoters (who knows if they’d ever vote?), he only listens to Dick Morris, who only listens to the swing. Nader tries to solve both these issues. By stealing liberal votes, he can force Clinton not to take his 40% for granted. By energizing non-voters, he adds to the pot of potential voters Clinton can woo.

In part because of Nader’s presentation, Democrats didn’t understand this. Are there differences between the Democrats and Republicans? Sure. But Nader was largely right — the Democrats were trying to be Republican Lite. And both parties had become dependent on corporate money. (This especially affected Democratic congressmen, who woul have great trouble getting reelected without business funds which they could not get without being pro-business.)

Instead of realizing that Nader voters were there to be wooed, they thought they were to be yelled at. Instead of making political concessions to these voters, they ran ad campaigns that yelled at them. (A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush!) They saw Nader as a spoiler, taking voters they previously had taken for granted. Instead of solving the reasons that caused them to leave, they tried new tactics to get them back.

And so, sadly, Nader largely failed. Much to his consternation, liberal groups ironically rolled over for Clinton’s conservativism much as Clinton had rolled over for Gingrich’s. They gave Clinton their support without demanding anything in return.

And in some sense, Morris succeeded. Although he personally had to be forced out because of a sex scandal (he let a prostitute whose toes he sucked listen in on his phone calls with Clinton), his associates stayed on and won Clinton reelection. But in a more real sense, he failed. Clinton had no mandate for a second term, politics moved further to the right, and the less-well-off people the Democrats were supposed to represent got shafted. The Democrats won the election, only by selling their soul.

And they didn’t get it back. Although Al Gore’s personal struggle may have been a little different (as we’ve seen since 2000, he’s quite the passionate liberal at heart), he ended up deciding to campaign in much the same way. So Nader ran again. Nader may have cost Gore the election, but he continues to maintain that it was Gore’s election to lose. And he’s right. Had Gore followed Nader or Reich’s recommendations, he would have likely beat the Republican from Haliburton. Had he gotten Clinton to carry out the recommendations in his second term, it would have been a rout. But instead the country moved even further to the right.

In 2004 it seemed like things might actually improve. Howard Dean, one of the only Democrats to actually stand up and fight, was ahead by a large margin and able to break fundraising records without taking from the corporate trough. Kerry ended up defeating him, but not without making “Bring It On” his campaign promise. But Kerry has broken this promise. Bush has come at him with an unprecedented amount of incorrect negative ads, and Kerry has hardly responded. Following in Clinton’s footsteps, his most ambititous plan to date is to raise the minimum wage. He has done little to encourage Democrats to fight (although, thankfully, others have). And so Nader ran again.

Nader keeps running because things have not fundamentally changed since 1996. The Democratic Party has still lost its soul and its way. And while he may not be very clear about it, it’s clear he will keep running until he forces them to get it back.

(Source: Robert Reich’s memoir Locked in the Cabinet.)

posted June 29, 2004 09:45 AM (Politics) (17 comments) #

Why Ralph Runs

Nearby

Comments

Add Your Comment