Global
A couple of months ago, the current Democratic Party leadership seemed to be firmly in control. The succession was orderly. The party's new ticket of "moderates" -- Al Gore and Joseph Lieberman -- gained momentum. If all went according to plan, President Lieberman would be wrapping up his second term in 2016.
The longstanding game plan kept boosting people who fervently embraced "the center." Why defend low-income mothers when you can brag about dumping them off the welfare rolls? Why make trouble for Wall Street when you can curry favor and rake in larger contributions? Why put a brake on the drug war when you can keep building prisons and filling them with more dark-skinned poor people?
Applauded by countless reporters and pundits, the New Democrats grabbed hold of the national party apparatus in 1992 and never let go. Journalists concluded that all the major policy issues within the Democratic Party had been settled. The mood was similar among most of the Democrats on Capitol Hill as they kowtowed to the party's hierarchy.
The recent "Hey, a sleeping lawyer is still a lawyer" decision came from the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on a 2-to-1 decision agreed to by the ever-charming Judge Edith Jones, who was on the short list for the Supreme Court when Bush pere was president and will certainly be so again under Bush fils.
Under Judge Rhesa Hawkins Barksdale and Judge Jones' remarkable legal reasoning, "It is impossible to determine whether ... counsel slept during presentation of crucial exculpatory evidence, or during the introduction of unobjectionable, uncontested evidence." Therefore, they voted to fry the guy.
Actually, the top candidate for Supreme Court under Bush, who is looking for judges like Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, is Judge Emilio Garza, the Clarence Thomas of the Hispanic world (without any known sexual peccadilloes).
Jesse Jackson cries out that, "Our very lives are at stake." Paul Wellstone quavers that George W. Bush will "repeal the 20th century." Martin Peretz, owner of the Gore-loving New Republic, writes furiously (and foolishly) that, "Naderism represents the emotional satisfaction of the American left at the expense of the social and economic satisfaction of women, blacks, gays and poor people in America."
Back in 1992, Jackie Blumenthal, wife of White House aide Sidney Blumenthal, was asked why she and her husband were such rabid supporters of a con man from Arkansas called Bill Clinton. "It's our turn," she hissed at once, as though that settled the matter once and for all.
And so indeed it was: the turn of that whole class that had endured the 12 long years of Reagan/Bush time to take their rightful place in Washington. Of course, in terms of substantive change, America remained a one-party state, under center-right government.
Jesse Jackson, Jr., possibly the most intelligent and consistently progressive Congressman, makes the same point. After flirting with public opposition to the selection of Lieberman as Gore’s vice presidential running mate at the Democratic National Convention in Los Angeles this summer, he pushed back from the political brink. White liberals, Jackson warned, may have the “luxury” of voting for Nader, a courageous and principled man who nevertheless cannot win, because they don’t have to live with the practical consequences of a Bush victory.
You may want some background on how it came about.
Byrd's hideous death attracted the national media to East Texas. The case and reaction to it were much-examined, as was the later case of Matthew Shepard, the young gay man who was lashed to a fence in Wyoming.
By the beginning of the 1999 session of the State Legislature, the black, brown and gay communities were demanding a hate crimes bill, and the issue had to be addressed by Gov. George W. Bush. He said he opposed the bill because "all crimes are hate crimes."
The House sponsor, Rep. Senfronia Thompson, in one of the finest speeches of her career, made a direct rebuttal: "Is cashing a bad check a hate crime? Is insurance fraud a hate crime?"
The black establishment’s behavior and motivations are understandable. Big city mayors rely on federal dollars to address urban problems, and a Gore administration would certainly be preferable to the conservative policies of Bush. A strong black voter turnout for Gore could also contribute to Democratic majorities in Congress, which in turn would elevate a number of African Americans like Harlem Congressman Charles Rangel into powerful House chairmanships. Thousands of black professionals, managers and attorneys who are connected to the Clinton administration through networks of patronage and power, see Gore’s victory as being essential to their own career advancement.
This remake of the infamous classic "daisy ad" from Lyndon B. Johnson's 1964 campaign accuses the current administration of having "sold" the nation's security to "Communist Red China" -- that's as opposed to Communist China, Red China or even just China -- in exchange for campaign contributions. And as a result, China "has the ability to threaten our homes with long-range nuclear warheads." None of which is true, by the way. My favorite moment was when the group's spokesman told The New York Times that the group was formed to bring "accountability" to politics.
Meanwhile, Our Boy George -- the uniter not the divider, the one who promises to restore civility to Washington politics -- is getting so mean that it's creating newspaper headlines. So much for his pledge not to wage a campaign of personal attacks.
For several decades, the Pacifica Foundation -- which owns five radio stations and operates a small national network -- nurtured precious experiments in the arid terrain of radioland. Pacifica has provided listeners with wide-ranging discussion, progressive analysis and independent news coverage, in acute contrast to America's usual corporate-backed media fare.
But during the last few years, Pacifica's board of directors made itself a self-selecting body with an increasingly mainstream agenda. The more highhanded the new hierarchy became -- and the more it deserved strong criticism -- the more determined it became to prevent criticism of itself from getting onto Pacifica airwaves.
OK, Nader voters. Let's talk.
I'm voting for Ralph. I'm voting for Nader because I believe in him, admire him and would like to see his issues and policies triumph in our political life. I'm also voting for him because I live in Texas -- where all 32 electoral votes will go to George W. Bush even if I stand on my head, turn blue and vote for Gus Hall, the late communist.
I know that many of my fellow Nader voters are young people and probably don't want to hear from a geriatric progressive. (We had to walk three miles through the snow, barefoot, uphill both ways.) But I have learned some things just from hanging around this long, and with your permission, I will pass them on.