There are a number of persuasive reasons to cast a vote for Ralph Nader in
the fall, and a number of unpersuasive reasons, too. But the principal
argument in favor is this: On the 22nd of May last, Nader said without
equivocation that if he had been a Congressman he would have voted to impeach
Clinton and that if he had been a Senator he would have voted to convict him.
The argument that "they all do it" has, paradoxically, become an argument
with which the Washington permanent government actually justifies itself. It
used to be a Nixonian gambit, and it evolved easily into a Clintonian one.
But you have not broken intellectually with the consensus unless you view the
phrase "they all do it" as part of the case for the prosecution, not the
defense.
This sets Nader apart from most of those liberals who only affect to despise
or oppose the "bipartisan" monopoly. Faced with the question, How corrupt and
lawless can a man be and still be President, the bulk of the American left
(which, to put it coarsely, is as much as to say the bulk of a rump)
answered, Easy. He can be as corrupt and lawless as he likes, as long as he's
a Democrat. After all, aren't his foes Republicans? Aren't they partisan?
This riposte, insofar as it deserves the name, is one of those beliefs that
are only true for as long as the speaker is stubborn enough to persist at
them. It's not unlike saying that a vote for a third party is a wasted vote.
Self-evidently, if more Democrats had denounced Clinton's abuses of power,
the honor of holding this position would not have accrued so exclusively to
Republicans. By a somewhat longer chain of reasoning, if all those who wanted
political pluralism and a multiparty system were prepared to waste their
franchise by voting in favor of it, their franchise would turn out not to be
so wasted. Admittedly, both propositions are quixotic to begin with, but they
do not express the obvious fallacy or tautology of the opposed positions, and
they do not depend on having other people determine your thinking for you.
I had the slight distinction of being the speaker at the defeat celebrations
of the Green Party in Washington, DC, on election night 1996, and I probably
looked as much of a fool as I felt. For one thing, I am not a member or
supporter of the Green Party. (If you care to know my politics, I am an old
socialist who is living fascinatedly through a period when only capitalism
seems to be revolutionary.) For another, I had been awfully disappointed at
the apparent vanity and futility of Ralph's campaign. Nineteen ninety-six was
the year in which it became clear to literally millions of people that an
election could be bought, party conventions could be rigged, media coverage
could be arranged and presidential "debates" could be fixed. Yet those
willing to work and argue for at least a protest against this--and there are
times when even a protest is better than nothing--had been let down by a
manneristic, even eccentric noncampaign.
It feels very slightly different this time. For one thing, the Democratic
Party is not so much dead as actually, visibly, palpably rotting on the slab.
The only breath of dissent in the bought-up and closed-out "primary season,"
where almost nobody got a chance to vote, was supplied by a reactionary
crowd-pleaser from Arizona who's had it with the campaign finance racket.
Meanwhile, I suppose it's possible to use the threat of Christian fascism one
more time to terrify the liberals, but it's pretty obvious that Governor Bush
is not a hostage to his party's Jurassic wing. Sinister little mediocrity he
may be, but who's seriously frightened of him? He's smoothly domesticated by
the old moneyed establishment, just like his rival, and it's actually quite
hard to picture him using cruise missiles out of personal and sexual pique,
as Clinton really did do twice.
And it seems that Ralph Nader is taking the moment seriously. All the
questions he is asked by the media pack have been scripted by the Democratic
National Committee. "Aren't you a spoiler?" "Isn't a vote for you a wasted
vote?" "What about the lesser of two evils?" And to these he has
replied--with enough confidence to deter too much repetition--what's to
spoil? His emphasis has been more and more on the open theft of the
democratic process, on the importance of having or being able to have an
election at all. His critics in the Gore camp are now so degenerated that
they don't mind saying a rigged and bought election is fine if only their
side wins it. Their objection to Nader's running is not merely an objection
to his program, but--keep your eye on this point--to the fact of his daring
to run at all. Even the Mexican system has more capacity for shame than that.
Now I know that many of you are sincerely, gravely, brow-furrowingly worried
about which future monarch gets to appoint which future Justice. But why not
admit it? You don't really know, and you won't really be asked, who will fill
the next Supreme Court seat. (And it was the Democratic majority on the
Senate Judiciary Committee, not George Bush senior, who made Clarence Thomas
a Supreme.) It is as possible, in theory as well as practice, to imagine Gore
making a safe and stupid reactionary appointment as it is to picture Bush
making an "unpredictable" centrist one. The point, though, is that it is
servile to wait upon their pleasure and caprice in this way.
The ruling class doesn't have to play the humiliating roulette of "lesser
evil." It has its bets covered by ownership of the casino. It has, as far as
is possible, everything under control and all contingencies provided for.
Casinos are places where, oddly enough, poor people go to transfer their
money to rich people. (And that's just what you do, buster, and you too,
honey, when you make your campaign donations.) But, just as the casino owner
would have to work or starve without the endless gullibility of the punter,
the whole two-party machine would stall if people stopped playing the
existing odds. It's the one freedom that can't be taken away or "factored
in," and it is, thus, the one faculty that most needs a vigorous and
unabashed exercise. If I was shyly asked when people should dare allow
themselves this frightening liberty, I'd say the time was 'round about now.
www.thenation.com
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
