Sunday Journal, metro DC
April 2, 2000
Robert Naiman
An Indecent Proposal for Ralph Nader
Gore's proposal for reforming how elections are financed has many skeptics.
Some are skeptical in the time-honored American tradition of dismissing any
idea whose advocates are impure. They prefer an unrepentant criminal to a
hypocrite. Since Gore, by his own account, "pushed the system" in 1996, this
argument goes, we can't take seriously his ideas for campaign finance reform
now.
This would be a pity. Regardless of what one thinks of Gore's proposal, by
trying to break the connection between money and politics it goes to the
heart of what's wrong with our system. And that's probably the main reason
for skepticism: enactment of a proposal such as Gore's would discomfit the
economic interests that largely control the political system. If it's
true -- as critics charge -- that the moneyed interests have undue
influence, then it would be a big surprise if they allowed any significant
reform without a big fight. The difficulty of reforming the system is an
indication of how badly it needs reform.
We need to come up with new levers for pressure. By calling for the
abolition of private financing of political campaigns, Gore has taken a bold
step forward. Gore's good deed will not go unpunished. If Gore, pummeled by
the Republicans and the moneyed interests, backs down, it will be taken as
further proof that nothing can be done. So reformers - regardless what they
think of Gore or his proposal -- have an interest in making sure that Gore's
proposal doesn't get buried.
If we create new levers for challenging the power of the moneyed interests,
proposals to take money out of politics won't be marginalized. Recall that
not long ago it was accepted wisdom that you couldn't beat the tobacco
industry, the gun industry, or the pharmaceutical industry, no matter how
unpopular they were, because they had the money to gridlock the political
system. But citizens won victories against these industries, when they found
new levers to change the balance of forces. Lawsuits brought the gun and
tobacco manufactures to the negotiating table. Protests by ACT-UP forced the
pharmaceutical industry to back down in its efforts to prevent South Africa
from making AIDS drugs affordable.
Critical as it is to improving the prospects for reform on everything else,
it's hard to motivate people for sustained activism on the campaign finance
issue. We need a broad and creative movement for political reform, which has
reforming campaign finance as one of its intermediate goals, and which
develops diverse local organizing strategies for increasing pressure on the
system.
We need to take another look at breaking the two-party duopoly. If there is
any arena of life where free competition should reign supreme, it is surely
in the political process. Yet the two main parties have colluded to stifle
competition by restricting ballot access and participation in debates.
In our winner-take-all system, we face a real problem. The party leaders can
scare people back into the fold by the threat of the other party. Reasonable
people will continue to conclude that they have to vote for the lesser of
two evils.
We have to come up with convincing ways to deal with this argument. The
Presidential candidacy of Ralph Nader on the Green Party ballot provides an
opportunity for considering new strategies.
Media consultant Sam Husseini has advanced an intriguing idea for the Nader
campaign: "Find a Republican you can trust." Many people who want to vote
for Nader but feel obligated to vote for Gore may know someone who want to
vote for Nader but feel obligated to vote for Bush. If they both vote their
obligations on election day, they'll just cancel each other out, and have no
net effect on the outcome of the election - "throwing their votes away."
But, if they both agree to vote for Nader, then they'll add two votes to his
total, without having undermined their preferred lesser evil. There are
other possibilities. Nader and Reform voters could pair off. Or voters could
sign affidavits that they weren't going to vote for the duopoly anyway.
You don't have to be a devotee of Ralph Nader or the Green Party. To cast a
protest vote on election day, just make a marriage of convenience with
someone from the other party who also wants to cast a protest vote. Let's make the
Presidential election a referendum on political reform: find a Republican (or Democrat) you can trust, and vote
for Nader.
Send Email