Let's step back in time for a moment to the train wreck known as the 2000 Presidential election. We know that Al Gore got more votes than Bush. We suspect that if Nader hadn't been on the ballot, the nearly 3 million votes he received, especially the 97,000+ in Florida, Bush v. Gore might have remained just a bad dream. So would have Tennessee's 11 electoral college votes.
But the question I'm pondering is Nader's assertion that there was no difference between the Republican or the Democratic party. That both
are both so marginal on the great issue of the distribution of power and wealth, and the corruption of cash register politics, that whatever real differences they are willing to fight for pale in comparison to the major subjects they are exactly on the same page on.
The Republican's success in 2004, I want to suggest, may be due to the fact that they took Nader seriously. And did something about it.
One caveat before I continue. I don't dispute that September 11 played a major, and possibly the biggest, role in the 2004 election. Politically, in terms of consolidation of power, it was a big spanking Christmas present tied up in a big red bow and plopped into the neo-cons laps. They exploited it to sell the invasion of Iraq and to keep folks just nervous enough to turn off their cerebral cortexes and let their lizard brains do the voting. It was the gift that just kept giving.
But back to Nader. The corporatization of American politics was well-entrenched prior to 2000. Ethical breaches are not the exclusive territory of Republicans. We've got Huey Long and Dan Rostenkowski. James Traficant and Marion Barry. And who didn't snort at the sight of Ted Kennedy sitting on the Judiciary panel questioning Clarence Thomas? Or cringe at Richard Daley, Jr. talk about vote fraud? Bribery, fraud, drunks and dirty old men--the Political Graveyard lists them all.
So while one might argue that there is a question of degree, getting up on our moral high horses and spouting righteous indignation is too easily dismissed as a bunch of pots calling the kettles black.
Republicans, however, have managed to successfully differentiate themselves from Democrats. As Jake and Elwood put it:
They're on a mission from God.
Cynical or sincere, the Republicans had the guts to jump on that fundamentalist bandwagon and ride it into the White House. That small but highly motivated slice of the voting public had reached enough of a critical mass to make it a gamble worth taking.
Now, it's looking like this mission just might be taking them to the loser's lounge, but entertaining as that might be and as much as we should help them along on that journey, that's not really going to win back any seats in 2006 or help us grab the brass ring in 2008.
So, how do the Democrats re-create a political identity that's easily recognizable by the voting public? The obvious one (to me, at least) is civil rights. Let me tell you why I think it can work and why it hasn't.
Civil rights and human rights provide the overarching theme around which all those wonderful, lefty, liberal values can be packaged. Foreign policy--need an exit strategy for Iraq? It's about the right of Iraqis to self-determination. Labor? How about the right to a living wage? Our children have the right to grow up in and inherit an environment which will sustain them, not kill them. The language of rights is the most persistent and meaningful discourse in our political lexicon. Tell a 6th grader he can't yell "fuck you" and he'll tell you you're taking away his freedom of speech.
And here's why the Democrats have started treating civil rights like it was the new third rail of politics. Because they don't have the guts to stand up and say that the GLBT community is as deserving of those rights as any other American citizen. Until we do, we're just
All hat and no cattle.