Conghaileach
27th November 2002, 17:00
The Mid-Term Elections
Giving Bush a Free Ride Spelled Ruin
by Ralph Nader
Dissident Voice
November 10, 2002
The mid-term elections are over. After spending hundreds of millions of
business dollars, the Republicans now control the Senate and hold on
to the House of Representatives. It is amazing that the Democrats did
not do worse. They had decided months ago on a strange strategy --that
they were going to defeat the Republicans by not criticizing their
belligerent leader, George W. Bush.
In their ads, literature and debates between Senatorial and
Representative candidates, mention of Mr. Bush by them was to praise
not to challenge, or to expose the hypocrisy, and the damage to
American workers and consumers by this corporation President.
Listening to the debate from around the country on C-Span radio, I was
astonished to see Democratic candidates in tight races eager to show
their support for Bush's 2001 tax cut for the wealthy, for the give-a-
way war resolution authority on Iraq, and for Bush's federal drive to
take over the historical role of the states in personal injury law by
restricting Americans' right to their full day in court.
And what did Senate Democrat candidates such as Jean Shaheen in New
Hampshire and Senator Max Cleland of Georgia get for their support of
President Bush? Why he roared into their states on Air Force One and
campaigned against them, as he did against other Democrats who voted
with him on these and other Republican litmus paper tests.
The morning after election day, reporters asked Senator majority
leader, Tom Daschle why the Democrats lost? He replied, because the
Democrats were "up against a very popular President." That's a self-
fulfilling point. Asked the same question, Democratic Party Chairman
Terry McAuliffe answered: "Because they [the Republicans] outspent
us." But it was Republican House speaker who gave the accurate
response: "Because the Democrats did not have a message."
At a time of rising unemployment, a shaky economy, and growing
Republican deficits, it would seem that the Democrats had
opportunities. Yet while the Republicans were shamelessly touting
ending the estate tax for the 4000 estates a year that are in the
multi-million dollar category, the Democrats were not highlighting the
desperate need for raising the federal minimum wage (now about a third
less in purchasing power than it was in 1968!) and extending
unemployment compensation benefits.
Most Democrats, with the prominent exception of the late Senator Paul
Wellstone, took a dive on making Republican softness on corporate
crime a major issue, coupled with solid reform proposals to crackdown
on corporate scandals that stole billions from pension funds and 401ks
and cost many jobs. (See Citizenworks.org).
Namby-pamby was the Democratic routine on the increasing millions of
Americans without health care coverage and on the staggering
inefficiency, waste and greed of many giant HMOs and the drug
industry.
Although the Democrats had in their possession finely tuned economic
stimulus plans, they tied their own by declining to go after a bloated
military budget (now half of the U.S. government's entire non-
discretionary budget) and the tens of billions of dollars in yearly
corporate welfare subsidies and handouts.
Instead, the Democrats' economic agenda was the raising of big bucks
from business interests -- a sure way to silence championing the
peoples' necessities.
When the Democratic Party adopts a look-a-like strategy vis-a-vis the
Republican Party, some of their voters may prefer the real thing and
vote Republican. After all, only a shift of less than three hundred
thousand votes in key states would have given the Democrats control of
both Houses of Congress.
Amidst the din of endlessly repeated political television ads, it
wasn't made very clear that the Democrats were going after the
Republicans on down home consumer protection issues, such as insurance
and food safety and affordable housing. Environmental positions
regarding cleaner air and water were not prominent either.
Lessons for the future? Don't give your major political opponents a
free ride between and before elections. Challenge the corporate
takeover of elections, including the sudden surge of political
television advertising paid directly by industries like the big price-
gouging drug companies. And get down to the neighborhood level with
visible stands for the people.
Otherwise the Democrats will become even better at electing very bad
Republicans.
Ralph Nader is America’Äôs leading consumer advocate. He is the founder
of numerous public interest groups including Public Citizen, and has
twice run for President as a Green Party candidate. His latest book is
Crashing the Party: How to Tell the Truth and Still Run for President
(St. Martin’Äôs Press, 2002)
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles/Nad..._DoomedDems.htm (http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles/Nader_DoomedDems.htm)
Giving Bush a Free Ride Spelled Ruin
by Ralph Nader
Dissident Voice
November 10, 2002
The mid-term elections are over. After spending hundreds of millions of
business dollars, the Republicans now control the Senate and hold on
to the House of Representatives. It is amazing that the Democrats did
not do worse. They had decided months ago on a strange strategy --that
they were going to defeat the Republicans by not criticizing their
belligerent leader, George W. Bush.
In their ads, literature and debates between Senatorial and
Representative candidates, mention of Mr. Bush by them was to praise
not to challenge, or to expose the hypocrisy, and the damage to
American workers and consumers by this corporation President.
Listening to the debate from around the country on C-Span radio, I was
astonished to see Democratic candidates in tight races eager to show
their support for Bush's 2001 tax cut for the wealthy, for the give-a-
way war resolution authority on Iraq, and for Bush's federal drive to
take over the historical role of the states in personal injury law by
restricting Americans' right to their full day in court.
And what did Senate Democrat candidates such as Jean Shaheen in New
Hampshire and Senator Max Cleland of Georgia get for their support of
President Bush? Why he roared into their states on Air Force One and
campaigned against them, as he did against other Democrats who voted
with him on these and other Republican litmus paper tests.
The morning after election day, reporters asked Senator majority
leader, Tom Daschle why the Democrats lost? He replied, because the
Democrats were "up against a very popular President." That's a self-
fulfilling point. Asked the same question, Democratic Party Chairman
Terry McAuliffe answered: "Because they [the Republicans] outspent
us." But it was Republican House speaker who gave the accurate
response: "Because the Democrats did not have a message."
At a time of rising unemployment, a shaky economy, and growing
Republican deficits, it would seem that the Democrats had
opportunities. Yet while the Republicans were shamelessly touting
ending the estate tax for the 4000 estates a year that are in the
multi-million dollar category, the Democrats were not highlighting the
desperate need for raising the federal minimum wage (now about a third
less in purchasing power than it was in 1968!) and extending
unemployment compensation benefits.
Most Democrats, with the prominent exception of the late Senator Paul
Wellstone, took a dive on making Republican softness on corporate
crime a major issue, coupled with solid reform proposals to crackdown
on corporate scandals that stole billions from pension funds and 401ks
and cost many jobs. (See Citizenworks.org).
Namby-pamby was the Democratic routine on the increasing millions of
Americans without health care coverage and on the staggering
inefficiency, waste and greed of many giant HMOs and the drug
industry.
Although the Democrats had in their possession finely tuned economic
stimulus plans, they tied their own by declining to go after a bloated
military budget (now half of the U.S. government's entire non-
discretionary budget) and the tens of billions of dollars in yearly
corporate welfare subsidies and handouts.
Instead, the Democrats' economic agenda was the raising of big bucks
from business interests -- a sure way to silence championing the
peoples' necessities.
When the Democratic Party adopts a look-a-like strategy vis-a-vis the
Republican Party, some of their voters may prefer the real thing and
vote Republican. After all, only a shift of less than three hundred
thousand votes in key states would have given the Democrats control of
both Houses of Congress.
Amidst the din of endlessly repeated political television ads, it
wasn't made very clear that the Democrats were going after the
Republicans on down home consumer protection issues, such as insurance
and food safety and affordable housing. Environmental positions
regarding cleaner air and water were not prominent either.
Lessons for the future? Don't give your major political opponents a
free ride between and before elections. Challenge the corporate
takeover of elections, including the sudden surge of political
television advertising paid directly by industries like the big price-
gouging drug companies. And get down to the neighborhood level with
visible stands for the people.
Otherwise the Democrats will become even better at electing very bad
Republicans.
Ralph Nader is America’Äôs leading consumer advocate. He is the founder
of numerous public interest groups including Public Citizen, and has
twice run for President as a Green Party candidate. His latest book is
Crashing the Party: How to Tell the Truth and Still Run for President
(St. Martin’Äôs Press, 2002)
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles/Nad..._DoomedDems.htm (http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles/Nader_DoomedDems.htm)