Sound. Fury. Nothing.
by Clay Risen
The other night I went to the Ralph Nader
"Super Rally" in Chicago, and was amazed.
Easily 8,000 people packed into the University of Illinois-Chicago Pavilion, people who really seemed to care about
what was going on in American politics. And not just presidential politics — there was
petitioning, and flyers, and every group imaginable represented along the sidelines.
And then there were the speakers. Nader was preceded by over 90 minutes of Studs Terkel,
Phil Donahue, Eddie Vedder, Jello Biafra, John Anderson and Michael Moore. Though each said basically
the same thing, each also drove the crowd to higher levels of excitement.
Finally, there was Nader. By far the best speaker on the campaign trail, he sallied
forth for over an hour, not with pin-prick attacks on his opponents, but with discussion
of real, substantive issues. People around me gasped when he noted that CEOs make an
average $50,000 a day. People booed when he mentioned Gore and Bush. People cheered when
he promised to fight against the "permanent corporate government" that "makes the real
decisions in Washington."
 |
Reader Email
"...I strongly disagree with the statement you made, '...pretending that their votes really do count...'"
More ›
|
|
|
So after all this warm, fuzzy idealism, why do I still feel cynical about Nader's
campaign? I looked around the Pavilion and saw thousands of people, but all I could
wonder was whether in a year Nader could draw the same sized crowd.
I hope not. But Nader's problem is that, though he can't really do otherwise, he is
being disingenuous to his supporters. Pretending the hurdles are not as high as they
are, pretending that their votes really do count. He presents a circular argument: The
reason he can't get into the mainstream is that he is shut out by corrupt campaign
financing and corporate control of politics, but then he says only he as president can
change these things.
Don't get me wrong — I support Nader, and will vote for him. But I will do so as a
protest, and I will do so with the knowledge that what happens in November is largely
irrelevant to the issues he highlights. Campaign finance reform is, sadly, not a legislative issue, but one tied up
in the courts. Labor policy is not going to resolved in the next four years; nor is our
national energy policy going to be oriented toward renewable fuels.
In the end, the choice of president matters very little, as Nader himself argued. Presidents have little
influence on the day-to-day lives of citizens; what they do do is set the political tone
for the rest of the system. People should look at next month's election as a choice not
between Gore and Bush, but between a mildly liberal political scene and a rabidly
conservative political scene.
And then Naderites should ask themselves — which atmosphere would they like to be
operating in? An atmosphere where the Supreme Court will in all likelihood be locked up
by conservatives? An atmosphere where national energy policy specifically excludes the
search for alternative fuels? An atmosphere where things like gay rights, labor and the
right to choose are absent from national dialogue? Because with a Bush presidency,
that's what we'll get.
Under Gore, things will not change much. Campaign finance reform will be slow going. The
Supreme Court will not become the liberal, activist machine it was in the 1950s. But
what will change is the atmosphere — the Left has already shown itself to be a strong
force in American politics, and under a Gore presidency it can start to have real sway.
The real fight looming for the Left is not in November, and it's important for its
leaders to tell people they are in for a long haul.
E-mail Clay Risen at risenc@yahoo.com.
