|
The
Democratic primary was unusual this year in its tolerance of
multiple
contenders.
Dean
and Kucinich occupied the flank of the populist Left, the latter
more genuine than the former, while Edwards and Kerry represented
the respectable center. Sharpton and Mosley-Braun were more window-dressing
than anything else.
The
Democratic Party, once the party of chattel slavery, has, ever
since President Johnson’s signing of the Civil Rights Act
— a decision he took hoping that Dr. King would then endorse
American policy in Indochina — been at pains to style itself
the modern day equivalent of the Underground Railroad.
But
even though Kerry has edged everyone else out, it appears that
what transpired was a genuinely multifarious competition.
| What
the status quo-loving liberal establishment is really demanding...
is a United States of America that is a first rate power abroad,
and a third rate democracy at home. |
Upon
closer inspection, however, it becomes evident that what really
took place was an intra-party putsch, where the candidate
favored by the rank and file, Dean, was usurped by the candidate
favored by the party elite, literally almost overnight. |
Enter
Ralph Nader.
Although
in theory afforded the same right as everyone else to run for
the presidency, Nader is being denied the privilege in practice.
This not simply because his message cannot be condensed into ticker
tape sound bites, but also because what he represents constitutes
a threat not only to the hegemony of the so-called two-party system
in particular, but to the ruling class’
monopoly on politics
in general.
Imagine
CNN leading with the headline, “Candidate for President
Calls two party system a duopoly,” or, “Nader says
system corrupted by big money.”
Are you imagining? Good, because that’s the only place where
such headlines will be written — in the imagination.
The
corporate media wouldn’t dare put itself through the discomfort
of permitting someone like Ralph Nader, a politician with an intelligent
(and intelligible) political program, the wiggle room to share
his ideas with the American public.
Such
an act of unprecedented benevolence would be the equivalent of
social suicide, because if democracy infects the media and trickles
down to the masses, and by some flight of fancy helps kindle a
yearning for change amongst the depoliticized plebes… It’s
not that difficult to see how everybody’s election night
gala plans might be spoiled!
But
wait. I’m forgetting — this year it’s imperative
that George Bush be unseated at the expense of all else, even
if comes at the expense of participatory democracy.
Who
then shall I choose? Kerry?
The
Kerry who voted for the invasion of Iraq, the carpet bombing of
Afghanistan, the Patriot Act and Bush’s tax cut for the
rich?
It’s
one thing for him to claim he was duped on Iraq, but it's hardly
reasonable to assume he was misled on the remainder. After all,
John Kerry built his reputation on being one of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee’s most aggressive sleuths.
And
what does his election-come-lately objection to the Iraq war consist
of anyway? That it was an affront to the international community,
the same international community which is currently working together
so assiduously to subvert democracy in Haiti and place it under
what C.L.R. James called "the fig leaf of liberalism"
— international trusteeship?
Or
am I too to accept the Manichean argument that Bush is evil?
Yet
that's the same attitude for which the liberal establishment endlessly
ridicules Bush: that he subscribes to a world view
that is annoyingly
simplistic.
To
be fair, I’ll grant that there probably is at least one
extant difference between Kerry and Bush that deserves to be acknowledged.
But since one doesn’t automatically suggest itself, my guess
is that whatever it might be it is probably a difference rooted
in tone, not substance.
If not Kerry, what about Kucinich? Isn’t he a politician
of principle?
He
is, but to his discredit, he’s announced that he will support
the Democratic party nominee whomever it may be, thus negating
or at least temporarily nullifying his own principles.
And
however decent an idea it may be, I somehow cannot see a Department
of Peace coexisting side by side with the Pentagon. That, my friends,
is a contradiction too salient and sour for this citizen to swallow.
Now,
unlike Oscar Wilde’s Jack, Ralph Nader is unquestionably
a liberal. But unlike many if not most of his liberal colleagues,
Nader is no Tory, at least not towards the system.
Tory
after all means loyalist; Nader has demonstrated that whatever
one may think he is — narrow minded consumerist, zealous
gadfly, or uncouth party pooper — one thing he is not is
a loyal adherent to the status quo.
What
the status quo-loving liberal establishment is really demanding,
but doesn’t posses the temerity to say, is a United States
of America that is a first rate power abroad, and a third rate
democracy at home.
Having
once been a liberal myself, and having had the regrettable misfortune
of working as an obsequious intern in the US Congress for a liberal
politician, allow me to share with you the one modicum of insight
I derived from that politically underdeveloped chapter in my life:
If you’re a Democratic Party liberal in America, the key
to maintaining your viability within the system, to paraphrase
Bill Clinton, is to demonstrate to your opponents how pragmatic
and therefore how conservative you can be, thus preemptively deflecting
the accusation that you suffer from the bleeding heart syndrome.
If
you’re a Republican Party conservative, the task is a less
taxing one: remember to talk like a conservative and vote like
one too, for the consensus is yours to lose.
It
is this scandalous truth, as revealing as it is rancid, that provides
not just the most conclusive example of the American political
system’s banality, but is the most compelling affirmation
of its bankruptcy.
And
that is why when Nader is accused by his critics of crashing the
party, one should never think that his accusers a
re issuing the
jibe in jest.
They
mean business. And thankfully so does Nader.
|
advertisement
