|
|
 |
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
 |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
The
Reform Movement is Failing to Manipulate Voters 03-11/12-2000:There is no question but that John McCain helped do in his own campaign with his attacks on the religious right. Perhaps he adopted this misplaced strategy because he was giving in to his anger at his far right opponents for their own attacks. But it is also possible that McCain unconsciously defeated himself because he was afraid of attaining the prize of the presidency. There is at least one other behavior -- his tendency to say offensive things that get him into trouble -- that has this same self-defeating quality. The question now is where, if anywhere, does McCain go next? If he is up to the challenge, he will now seek the nomination of the Reform Party or even the Green Party, with a campaign to create a government of national unity that will focus on the cause of reform. Linking up with a ragtag bunch like the Reform Party isn't very appealing, of course, and it might not do wonders for McCain's image, at least in the beginning. And the Green Party is hardly a good fit for McCain. But these are among the few alternatives that will allow a credible reform candidate to get on the ballot. If McCain takes the other route open to him, and supports George W. Bush, it would mean abandoning the very principles he is supposed to stand for. It would be a loss -- for the reform movement and for McCain -- since Bush has become the most important defender of the corruption of contemporary politics. While McCain considers his options, Ralph Nader is campaigning for the Green Party nomination by speaking the controversial truths that McCain has left unsaid. Despite his limitations, Nader has to be counted as the single most important founder of the reform movement in America. His description of the way people have been disenfranchised in their role as citizens, workers, taxpayers and consumers offers a coherent vision of the problems we face that goes far beyond McCain's focus on campaign finance reform, the tax code and the debt. Nader's February 21 statement announcing his candidacy for the Green Party is a good example of the depth and scope of his vision. It offers a comprehensive reform program many people will find appealing even if they also find the tone and some of the particulars farther to the left than their own politics. In the statement, Nader accuses the two parties of being "two heads of one political duopoly, the DemRep Party" that feeds "at the same corporate trough" and "does everything it can to obstruct the beginnings of new parties." "Over the past twenty years, big business has increasingly dominated our political economy," Nader says in the statement. "This control by the corporate government over our political government is creating a widening 'democracy gap.' Active citizens are left shouting their concerns over a deep chasm between them and their government." Unlike McCain, who says the same thing in other words, Nader fleshes this out with a detailed program for change in many sectors of America's government and economy. Also unlike McCain, Nader takes his imagery not from old-fashioned patriotism connected to service in the armed forces, but from another source -- the 1960s and 70s. He contrasts our current situation with "the legislative milestones in civil rights, the environment, and health and safety of workers and consumers seen in the sixties and seventies. At that time, informed and dedicated citizens powered their concerns through the channels of government to produce laws that bettered the lives of millions of Americans." If elected, Nader says he will bring about a flowering of citizen action groups to press for another era of reform like the one we saw then. Where McCain would inspire people to engage in old-fashioned patriotic activism, Nader would inspire the creation of hundreds of Nader-style activist groups, with a legislative agenda for controlling business that goes far beyond anything McCain envisions. But, unlike McCain, Nader doesn't have a chance of being elected, not only because his positions are too far left for many voters, but because he is unable to project an image of himself as a political leader that inspires the electorate to support him. Nor has he shown any interest in doing so in the past. Having descended into the debased world of political campaigns, he has refused to lower himself to its tactics and standards. This is, without question, Nader's greatest failing as a leader and it has helped limit the potential of the reform movement over the past two decades. After all, great -- and good -- political leaders have always recognized that if you want to lead large groups of people, you have to inspire them and appeal to their emotions, not just win them over with the better argument. That means you have to manipulate them, not with factual lies but by using the interpersonal skills we all use every day to win each other over. When translated into politics, that includes everything from the ability to give a charismatic speech and know what to say in what context to the willingness to run negatively-toned advertisements that are legitimately critical of your opponent. Whether Nader will rise to the occasion by successfully lowering himself into the world of politics this time remains to be seen. While the Nader campaign couldn't be reached for its perspective in time for this column, history suggests he won't. It is instructive to compare his limitations in this regard to McCain's. McCain too suffered from a failure to adequately manipulate voters after his defeat in South Carolina. Some say he lashed out at the right after that defeat because his sense of honor was affronted by the dishonesty and unfairness of its attacks, and not only against himself. Whether he was acting self-destructively or out of a misplaced sense of honor, it is clear that his personal limitations ensured his defeat. So the reform movement now has two leaders who are restricted by their honor and by personal limitations when it comes to their ability to manipulate voters. They are among a growing number of reform leaders, including Gary Hart and the late (much admired) Paul Tsongas, who have been unable to lead a movement for change because they lacked some essential ingredient for national leadership. Another is Bill Bradley who, like Nader, is a serious idealist on the left who doesn't communicate well with voters. Unlike Nader, he comes out of traditional politics and so, at least, made an effort to package himself for voters. But he too was done in by his own limitations. If there is good news in all this, it is that Al Gore has now taken up the banner of campaign finance reform, and Bush wants everyone to believe he is a reformer, as well. But both are entrenched in the system of money and the misuse of power. What Gore says as a campaigner -- and does as vice president -- over the coming months, will give us a better position to judge his true position.
Note 1: McCain's message is that we should should " answer a higher calling for our nation and for our selves" and "'pierce the veneer of outside things' and live out the authentic meaning of freedom in our daily lives...." You can read more of it, here. McCain is open to the claim that he is overly sentimental while an uncharitable observer might say that Nader is trying to bring back a lost golden age with the last stand of flower power. Both are idealists. McCain would be living up to his ideals if he were to run as a third party candidate. ----------------- Note 2: There seems to be a problem with the privacy statement on Nader's site. It says: "We will share your personal information with others only if you give permission." That sounds like you have to "opt in" for your information to be shared. But the statement also says, "Online donors may choose not to have their name and address distributed to other organizations at the time of their donation by selecting the opt-out feature on our contribution page, or they can remove their information from our list at any time by contacting the campaign." (This statement isn't shown in the images below, although a similar one is shown.) Nader's organization is apparently interpreting not opting out as giving permission. The two aren't the same. See images of the privacy statement and opt out feature. --------------------------- Newsweek.com Ken Sanes |
|
|||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||
