ON
WITH THE SHOW
Politics
as entertainment – it's the American way. We like a good
show. But the deadly-dull Al Bore is determined to scotch
any possibility of a good time this year by refusing to include
any of the "minor" party candidates in the presidential debates.
Bob Novak gives us the somewhat surprising inside scoop that
Dubya
is eager to go up against Buchanan and Nader, and I'm
liking this guy more every day. According to Novak, "The GOP
candidate has told prominent Republicans that he is not happy
taking direction from the self-appointed bipartisan commission
that sets ground rules for Presidential debates." The arbitrary
15%-in-five-different-polls standard laid down by the event's
corporate sponsors would exclude both Nader and Buchanan,
but "Bush has said privately he would welcome a four-way debate
giving all candidates a chance." But is Bush running his own
campaign, or is he just some kind of marionette – and
who, in that case, is pulling the strings?
IN
PURSUIT OF PURITY
On
the other hand, Gore, the much-vaunted champion debater who
humbled Ross Perot and pulverized Bradley, is quaking in his
boots at the thought of having to face down Nader. Novak quotes
one top Gore official as saying: "The debate is the purest
form of Presidential campaigning. That means the two major
candidates only, with no minor candidates taking up the precious
time." The debate is too "precious" to sully it with the presence
of "minor" irritants to the bipartisan duopoly that runs this
country. Such impurities must be flushed out of the system,
along with all dissent on such issues as foreign policy, immigration,
international trade, and the meaning of American sovereignty
in the age of "globalization." Some issues, after all, are
beyond discussion.
GET
RID OF THE CLUTTER
This
not-all-that-astonishing expression of the ruling elite's
unlimited arrogance and sense of entitlement was trumpeted
on the editorial page of the New
York Times, which singled out Nader as being driven
by "ego" to run for President on the Green party ticket, while
conceding (albeit somewhat reluctantly) that "of course, both
Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Nader have the right to run." How liberal
and open of the Times editorial board to say so. "But,"
they continue, "given the major differences between the prospective
Democratic and Republican nominees, there is no driving logic
for a third-party candidacy this year, and the public deserves
to see the major party candidates compete on an uncluttered
playing field." Why even bother having elections? Why clutter
up the electoral landscape with all those messy, troublesome
parties – why not have just one and be done with it?
NADER'S
NON-ALTERNATIVE
The
great "differences" between the Republican and Democratic
candidates were rightly mocked by Nader in a Crossfire segment,
where Novak gleefully questioned him about the impact of his
campaign on Al Gore's presidential ambitions. But in
an interview with Jim Lehrer on PBS, Nader revealed that
when it comes to the crucial area of foreign affairs –
that most presidential of all issues – the Greens don't
offer much of an alternative to our bipartisan policy of global
intervention. Lehrer hit him early, and hard:
JIM
LEHRER: "Some people have suggested that the most important
issue outside domestic issues in this Presidential election
campaign should be how would you, a candidate for President
of the United States, and I'll ask you this question – how
would you decide when to use this great military force that
we have in the United States of America?"
A
MASTERPIECE
Nader's
answer was a masterpiece of obfuscation. "Well, first of all
I would set a priority of waging peace. . . ." Eh?
What the heck is that supposed to mean? According to Nader,
it means "anticipating conflicts abroad, finding out when
two egos collide and cost thousands of young men's lives like
Eritrea and Ethiopia, which could have been prevented." Now
that's the answer: every head of state on earth ought
to be compelled to undergo counseling, like drunk drivers
and perpetrators of spousal abuse, and maybe we can cure them
of their illness or at least cut down their egos to the proper
size.
ROUND
TWO
No
wonder Nader is doing so well in California. Surely this strikes
the rest of humanity as being somewhat vague, if not altogether
odd, and Lehrer, too, seemed puzzled: after letting Nader
waffle on about "preventive diplomacy" for a few minutes,
he asked the question again:
LEHRER:
"But if somebody is listening to you right now and says
okay, I want to know one thing from you, Ralph Nader, and
that is when would you send my young people, our young people
into harm's way? And when would you not? What criteria would
you use for deciding that?"
NADER:
"Well, let's use the usual phrase: When our essential security
interests and the safety of the American people is at stake."
A
SURPRISE
Ah
yes, "the usual phrase" – not exactly what we were expecting
from this purported maverick, who claims to represent a real
alternative to the usual suspects. Isn't this the same rationale
trotted out by American Presidents to justify intervention
from Iraq to Kosovo and a lot of places in between? Nader,
obviously flustered, then started talking about "preventive
diplomacy" again – only this time he gave a concrete
example that practically had me standing up and cheering:
"For
example, looking backwards there were ways to have deterred
the Japanese; there are ways to signal to the Germans. Historians
have shown that. We have just got to be more rigorously attuned
to that. If we abhor the use of violence, except as a last
resort of self-defense, we will be seriously focused on how
to deter it and how to prevent it."
RALPH
NADER ON THE PEARL HARBOR QUESTION
Atta
boy, Ralphie! It's good to see that, although you haven't
mentioned Kosovo once in any public speeches or comments,
I'm glad to see that you're not afraid to stand with Pat Buchanan
on the World War II question. I'm puzzled, though, that Nader's
foray into World War II revisionism has so far gone completely
unremarked on, while Buchanan's very similar thesis –
as explained in his book, A Republic, Not an Empire
– provoked a blizzard of smears. Though Nader attacks
corporatism and even the international bankers of the IMF
in militantly populist terms, how many articles have we seen
in The New Republic comparing
him to Father Coughlin and Huey Long and likening his
movement to the Spanish Falange? Will we now be treated
to the spectacle of Norman Podhoretz accusing the Green nominee
of anti-Semitic tendencies – and if not, why not? Nader
will not get the Buchanan treatment for the simple reason
that he goes along with the rest of the gang on the vital
foreign policy issues of the day. Bosnia, the Middle East,
our system of alliances, and, most of all, the universalist
conception of a one-style-fits-all capital-D Democracy as
the apotheosis of human evolution – Nader goes along
with it all, and thus represents no real threat to the foreign
policy Establishment.
A
TRIP DOWN MEMORY LANE
Without
the so-called minor parties, this presidential election year
would surely be a colossal snooze, and as usual the Libertarian
Party makes its own unique contribution to the general air
of merriment. The LP nominated investment counselor and author
Harry Browne to head the top of its ticket, and their convention
was the subject of a three-day CSPAN marathon, with gavel-to-gavel
coverage of this momentous event. Having been a member in
the 1970s and early 1980s, it was old home week for me, as
the same familiar faces, somewhat the saggier for age, made
motions and struck postures as if the world had stood still
since 1979. Amid the points of order and the seconding speeches,
two incidents stood out. The first: a roll call vote on the
question of whether a soldier in the armed forces of the United
States has the right to quit his job. Listening to one LP
stalwart after another get up and explain why all contracts,
even those with the government, must be followed to the letter,
made me remember why I walked out of the party in 1983. Apparently,
things have gotten much worse. The exasperated voice
of one delegate, a young fellow with a British accent, who
calmly explained why he certainly hoped the bombers of Belgrade
would walk out in protest reflected my own sentiments exactly.
With extraordinary foresight, the wise founders of the Libertarian
Party arranged it so that it takes a two-thirds majority to
amend the party platform: the amenders, in this case, had
a majority but not quite two thirds. The older and more experienced
and educated cadre managed to pull it off this time,
but how much longer can they hold out against the average
LP member who thinks Bill Maher and Jesse Ventura are major
libertarian theoreticians?
SECTARIAN
SELLOUT?
The
second aspect of the LP national convention that struck me
was the use made of Carla Howell, the Libertarian Party candidate
for US Senate from Massachusetts, a square-jawed young woman
with short hair and a way with a bromide. She is the lone
candidate running against Senator Ted Kennedy – thanks
to the LP's challenge to the Republican candidate's petition
signatures, Jack E. Robinson was ruled off the GOP ballot.
Considering the big fuss made about the difficulties of achieving
ballot status, and the many onerous obstacles put in the path
of third parties by the state – a constant theme of LP
speakers – the hypocrisy of this highlighting of Howell
was breathtaking in its blatant dishonesty. Never once did
anyone allude to just how it happened that Howell was the
only other candidate for Kennedy's seat. Furthermore, Ms.
Howell's speech to the convention was a study in ideological
as well as political sleight-of-hand, for she made a big point
of calling for the abolition of the income tax and the elimination
of the IRS – while reassuring her audience that the shortfall
in revenues would be made up for with tariffs and other taxes.
Tariffs? Since when does the LP advocate tariffs? If
you're going to organize a political party supposedly dedicated
to pure libertarianism, instead of working within one of the
major parties – or even within one of the major "minor"
parties, such as the Reform party – then what's the point
of selling out, especially when nobody's buying?
LENORA
AND THE MAHARISHI
The
Reform Party nightmare drags on, with the Stop Buchanan movement
sputtering badly – and the gaggle of wackos, weirdos,
and tinpot party bosses aligned against Pat showing signs
of increasing desperation. Lenora Fulani, the erstwhile Commie
cult leader who turned on her ex-friends in the Buchanan Brigades,
has traded in her pitchfork for a flying carpet: her recent
endorsement of John Hagelin, the Transcendantal Meditation
Party candidate who has set himself up as the only alternative
to Buchanan, should be enough to sink his candidacy.
NOTES
FROM UNDERGROUND
Speaking
of Hagelin and his party of flakes, an alert reader sent me
some very interesting information about Rob Roth, Hagelin's
press secretary and a big honcho in their TM party organization.
My correspondent is convinced that this is the same Robbie
Roth who was in his graduating class at Bayside High School
in 1966 – named "handsomest boy" in the school yearbook.
Roth went on to Columbia University where he became a leading
member of the Students for a Democratic Society chapter on
campus: he later joined the Weather Underground, a group of
violent political psychopaths who went on a bombing campaign
in which they mainly succeeded in bombing and maiming themselves,
although they managed to take a few innocent bystanders along
with them. Roth was ultimately put on the FBI's most wanted
list, an honor that is nowhere listed in his official biography.
He surrendered sometime in the 1980s, and my correspondent
recalls that he was given a suspended sentence. If this is
the same Roth – and I wonder how many reporters will
follow through on this one, while writing stories about Hagelin
that don't even mention his intimate connection to TM? –
then the "yogic levitation" cult is the perfect place for
him. In this case, the odes to Fidel Castro and Robert Mugabe
coming out of the mouth of the Maharishi, Hagelin's supreme
guru and acknowledged mentor, begin to make a twisted kind
of sense.
SPAMMING
FOR HAGELIN
Hagelin's
campaign is spamming
people with email, urging them to vote in the free-for-all
anybody-can-vote Reform Party national primary in order to
"stop Buchanan" – by voting for Hagelin and his cult
of cosmic levitation and warmed-over New Leftism. Jim
Mangia is still screeching about "brownshirts" and gleefully
predicting that the Long Beach convention will turn into a
"brawl" – he hopes. Meanwhile, the Buchanan organization
continues to pick up grassroots support from the Reform ranks
and beyond, with his poll numbers rising and the prospect
of his nomination looming ever larger on the Republicans'
radar screen – potentially as much of a problem for Bush
as Nader is for Gore.
LEFT
AND RIGHT, UNITE AND FIGHT FOR A DEMOCRATIC ELECTION
Together,
the two campaigns, Buchanan and Nader, must work together
when they can to challenge the biggest monopoly of them all
– not Microsoft (although I'm sure Ralph would love to
get his hands around Bill Gates' neck) but the Republicrats
(or is that Demopublicans?), the two wings of that same bird
of prey so jealously guarding the electoral process. What
is needed is a joint national crusade to open up the presidential
debates and expose the bipartisan monopolists who will stop
at nothing to destroy the competition before it has a chance
to even develop. What the US ruling elite is getting away
with in this country would not be tolerated today in Mexico
– taken together, operating in tandem they are far worse
than the PRI.
THE
GREAT EXCEPTION
All
across the world, we are told, people are moving toward democracy
and the creation of a truly liberal society on a global scale.
The values of the Enlightenment, of equality before the law
and democratic procedures are supposedly acknowledged everywhere,
with the Leninist project in ruins and all other competitors
such as fascism completely discredited. Some theoreticians
of a particularly rarefied sort have even proclaimed that
we have come to "the end of history," so final and uncontested
is the victory of the democratic spirit. How is it that these
ideologues seem to have overlooked the one great exception
to this supposedly universal (and inevitable) trend –
the United States of America? Funny how that works. . . .
|
