Daniel ThwaitesTHE WHOLE world is keeping an eye on the contest between Al Gore and George W. Bush. Of course, we have to pay attention to the politics of the single superpower. But there's more. People like a good contest, and though the characters aren't particularly exciting, the race is close.
There is a lot to the Green Party's criticism that the race is between Tweedledum and Tweedledummer. Too often the candidates are interchangeable, and whether its Gore or Bush or Bore or Gush would hardly seem to matter.
Recall the quip that America has one political party with two right wings (courtesy of Gore Vidal, Al Gore's distant cousin). Still, there are some serious policy differences that appear upon closer inspection. And, as so often in politics, it is a matter of choosing the lesser evil.
The Democratic Party is up to its neck in corporate sponsorship and so is seriously compromised on many issues that will matter to progressives. But always the Repub-licans are worse. Here are some. Gore has serious campaign finance infractions, but he now says he will sign legislation that intends to limit the "cash for kind" politics in Washington. Bush will not. Gore and Clinton put the world at the mercy of the hawkish Madeleine Albright, and support among other outrages, policies meant to induce starvation on the people of Iraq and Cuba. But "the Shrub" is even worse. He has made it clear that Reaganite belligerence is his prototype of sound foreign policy, and by choosing Dick Cheney as his vice-president the Shrub sent a strong signal.
Cheney maintains a Cold War view of the world. He even endorsed the brutish illegal escapades of Oliver North in Nicaragua.
Gore has been hypocritical about the environment, but at least he feels the need to be hypocritical. The Shrub would remain true to his record in Texas where he consistently backed polluters against proposed regulators.
Texas is the most polluted State, and Houston has the worst air quality of any city in the U.S.A.
Most issues fall into this pattern. Gore needs improvement, but the Shrub is a bona fide nightmare. Eric Alterman summarises it nicely: "Bush and company threaten to work toward the ultimate privatisation not only of Social Security, Medicare and public education but nearly all of the sustained, generous and democratically grounded social programs the US political system has enacted since the dawn of the New Deal. These are the signal socio-economic achievements of the left going back more than seven decades".
Politicians are perforce ultimately pragmatic creatures who, though informed by ideology, cannot allow that to destroy their populist appeal. Judges have no such constraints. So it is in respect of their judicial appointments that the true ideological commitments of the American politician become plain. Bush has publicly stated that he admires Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, the two most reactionary Justices on the Supreme Court. The President nominates not only Supreme Court Justices, but all of the 852 judges on the federal bench. It is quite likely that the next President will
appoint three Supreme Court judges, a means whereby Bush could soil the nest of American politics for decades to come.
Additionally, the President makes some 3,000 political appointments to the federal government, and despite the rhetoric about "compassionate conservatism", Boy George has nowhere near the commitment that Gore has to diversity.
The Gore decision to keep Clinton out of the race seems insane. Clinton is most successful American politician of the 1990s, somehow able to appeal to very diverse constituents with his omnipresent "feel your pain" take on everything. Americans may not say publicly that they admire him, but it is clear that many of them identify with him.
African Americans have remained solidly behind Clinton. Women too. Last presidential election, Clinton was really able to mobilise women. Whereas he beat Dole by only 44 to 43 among men, he led by 54 to 38 among women. And this despite (or because of?) a reputation that his favourite way to spend spare time is to escape from Hilary and nail some chick. Moreover, his southern drawl and luke-warm liberalism make him acceptable to white males in a way that many other democrats simply are not. Corporate comfort with Clinton, once he divested himself of any ideas about serious health-care reform, has grown to pitch levels.
I think the media and the spin doctors have done a lot for the Shrub.
Prior to the debates, the media hammered home the impression that low expectations were appropriate in his case, but not for Gore. The naive Boy George was so much more inexperienced than Gore, the official story went, that all he had to do was stay in the game and it would be a moral victory.
And that's precisely what happened. Also, quite remarkably, the Shrub has managed to steer clear of harassment about his dissolute youth as against Clinton took heat for smoking a spliff in England.
Let's hope America stays away from the Bushes. Any signal that the disaster of the 1980s might be repeated should raise every hair on every head across the world. Remember? It was Reagan, then Bush in America, Thatcher in Britain, and Mas' Eddy in Jamaica. The whole world needs to stay away from the Bushes.
Daniel Thwaites is involved in teaching and writing.
