A Vote for Gore is a Vote for Bush
- September 6, 2000
Opinions : Editorial
A Vote for Gore is a Vote for Bush
by Paul Glover
During his U.S. Senate career (1985-93), Al Gore voted to approve
conservative anti-abortion justice Scalia to the Supreme Court. At heart a
"pro-lifer," Gore received an 84 percent approval rating from the National
Right to Life Committee for anti-abortion votes he cast while in the House
(1977-85). By contrast, the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action
League rated Gore's House career decidedly anti-choice. Among the 30 votes
the group scored against Gore was his "yea" in 1984 to define the word
"person" under four existing civil rights laws to include "unborn children
from the moment of conception." NARAL characterized that as a move toward an
"all-out prohibition on abortion."
This year, Gore has NARAL's endorsement only as a presumed lesser evil,
because his "position has changed." Indeed, the abortion issue has seen many
surprising turnarounds. The Senate's Democratic majority on the Judiciary
Committee approved anti-abortion justice Clarence Thomas. Democratic
President Clinton appointed anti-abortion justice Breyer, Democratic
President John F. Kennedy appointed anti-abortion justice White, while Roe v.
Wade was written by Republican President Nixon's appointee Blackmun, with
concurrence of Nixon's appointee Burger. Republican President Bush appointed
Souter, one of the most liberal current justices, who wrote the reaffirmation
of Roe v. Wade in 1992. Republican President Eisenhower appointed liberals
Brennan and Warren. Democratic President Truman appointed conservatives
Burton, Vinson, Clark and Minton. And so on.
Voters cannot be assured Gore will protect the Supreme Court. However, were
Al Gore elected, you can be sure we'd have Executive endorsement of (or
acquiescence to) GATT, NAFTA, WTO, death penalty, Star Wars, nuclear arsenal,
arms sales, prison-industrial complex, "50,000 more police on our streets,"
fat cat elections and ever-greater lesser evils, clearcuts, mining of public
land, oil spills (Occidental), Oil Wars, crackdown on legal protest, no
national health plan, tax breaks for rich, higher taxes for middle class,
welfare repeal, ever-more children in poverty, War on Drugs, union-busting,
corporate-sponsored education, Iraq embargo, the School of the Americas.
By now, Clinton's presidency should have taught progressive voters that a
cute smile can mask bitterly conservative willingness, after elections, to
sell out environmentalists, labor, middle-class taxpayers, small businesses,
African-Americans, and women.
Had progressives begun twenty years ago voting our own platforms (ecology,
social justice, nonviolence, grassroots control) rather than fearing greater
evils (which we got anyway), then today we'd have a strong electoral
challenge to the devastation noted above.
Your choice is not whether this devastation will continue, but whether it
will continue with the Green Party established as a national party (needing
5% of total vote), with federal matching funds, helping to raise stronger
challenges to corporate government.
Editor's Note: For more information contact:
Green Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader: http://www.votenader.org
New York State Green Party: http://www.greens.org/ny
Tompkins County Green Party listserv: write to majordomo@..., send
message: subscribe green-l <your e-mail>
Nader vs. Gore debate: write to NadervsGorefirstname.lastname@example.org.