The debacle affectionately referred to as Election 2000 is officially over and George Bush has, technically, triumphed over his competitors. In a manner kindred to Border Control begrudgingly waving an alien onto American soil, Bush has been inaugurated -- or, perhaps sentenced -- as our president for the next four years. The culmination of the recent election would appear definitively positive for the republican party. What more, really, can a candidate and camp hope for than to be elected? Bush�s appointment should be considered a climactic victory. But it isn�t. Far from it, �Dubya� will be historically remembered for his obscenely tacky, overused nic-name and his illegitimate claim to the presidency. The majority of the country -- and when I say �majority�, I do so with no asterisk or reference to the electoral college -- can simply write off Bush�s reign as fraudulent. His appointment was granted due to either the gross incapacity of a defunct voting method, or, the decision of the Supreme Court. Gore supporters will always have strangely complex balloting and thousands upon thousands of votes on their side.
While Gore will be able to find many and sundry excuses for Bush�s victory, he won�t be fortunate enough to guiltlessly explain allowing Bush to win. The election should never have been reduced to hand counted Florida ballots. Instead of pouncing upon Bush�s inability to consistently explain healthcare proposals or form coherent, grammatically correct sentences -- Gore instead invested his time trying to convince the country he does, in fact, have a pulse.
Gore was often quoted -- usually while holding two fingers beneath his throat and smiling in a boorish, mannequin like fashion -- that Nader and the Green Party �do not pose a threat�. This was obviously an overtly strained attempt at boldfaced lying, as one of the most popular Democratic campaign slogans was: �A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush.� Massachusetts representative Barney Frank did most of his lobbying for Gore under the veil of staunch Nader criticism, chastising Ralph for ignoring such issues as abortion and gun control. To which Nader replied:
�Sometimes he talks faster than his brain operates. I�ve been an advocate for civil liberties since he was learning how to play soccer in elementary school.�
Nader can casually shrug off such claims because, well, for starters he�s almost solely responsible for the current Highway Safety Act, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act and the Freedom of Information Act. He�s also spearheaded fights against racial discrimination and child poverty, which have cemented his rightful place as Americas favorite cock-eyed, crazy uncle. Come time to confront Gore and Bush, Nader described their shenanigans and their platform as �one party with two heads�. He elaborated:
�Do they have any flunk standard by which they will jettison the lesser of two evilism statute? I don�t know about that because when you really press the Democrats to the wall on an issue, their last resort is, �But the Republicans are worse� They define themselves by the worst Republicans as they continue to be bad Democrats.�
It�s with a sideways smirk that Nader waltzed into the presidential arena and placed both Gore and Bush in playful headlocks, all the while munching upon the laurels of victory.
The main objective of the Green Party was to gain five percent of the popular vote. This would mean the party had a dramatic effect upon the election and, to boot, would receive federal funding. While the lofty goal of 5% was never realized, the effect of the Green Party was (forget dramatic) downright historic. Not only have they created an intensified interest in party ideals, they also remain relatively unscarred from an election that, if anything, left a mark. No amount of skin grafting will be able to conceal the pounding that both Gore and Bush have and will continue to receive.
Regardless, Gore can still be seen posturing and forming excuses while Bush is breathlessly running about looking for yet another photo opportunity with a minority. The winner in all this, the heralded alternative to this madness, is Nader. The Green Party�s pledge to work �for the people� not monied interests� seems all the more enticing after watching the amateur puppet show of Gore/Bush. Both were financed almost entirely by �Big Business� corporations, a practice firmly and repeatedly admonished by the Green Party. Nader bellows that �We must end the dominance and corruption of our political system by the influence of big money. We need public financing of public campaigns, and free radio and TV time on the publicly owned airwaves for qualified candidates�They (the corporations) have got 22,000 full time lobbyists and 9,000 political action committees (in Washington DC). They put their own people in their agencies. That�s what�s going to distinguish the realistic difference once you set aside the rhetoric of the two parties.�
Ralph Nader is not for sale, and the importance of such a concept becomes increasingly lucid after witnessing Gore/Bush. Millions of corporate dollars and thousands of lobbyists have a stranglehold on American Democracy, which serves as Nader�s motivation in refusing the soft money that funded the campaigns of Gore and Bush. An entirely clean campaign eliminates the influence of special interests and allows the ideals of Democracy to assume a position at the forefront.
While the country has resigned itself to four years under Bush, their remains the increasing prospect of Green Party development. In the near future we may see a federally funded third party fronted by Nader, who will be allowed to participate in presidential debates and gain the type of exposure that prompted Perot to capture 30% support in the summer of 92. In the meantime, we�ll all have to listen to Ralph Nader repeat, over and over: �I told ya so�.