THE DENOUEMENT OF AL GORE
PART 2: CHOICE AND CONSEQUENCE
bryan beller (11.01.00)

You may have noticed that in part 1 of this political literary catharsis -- which, if you haven't yet read, is highly recommended before going any further -- I have barely mentioned George W. Bush. It's not an accident. This campaign isn't even about him. He's like Chauncey Gardner in Being There. He is only there as a non-offensive alternative to Gore. Gore having made himself sufficiently offensive, Bush became viable.

Ralph Nader has intimated that there is no difference between the candidates. Yes, in many ways he's right, most notably in that they both feed from the same trough of soft money in order to finance their campaigns. But to take Ralph's statement as blanket gospel is just wrong. What's really disturbing is that Nader, the Mr. Integrity of the race, knows it as well. He's too intelligent not to. Does he really think that Bush and Gore would make the same appointments to federal agencies (such as the Department Of The Interior and the EPA, both areas of his immediate interest), to federal judgeships across the country, to the Supreme Court? I doubt it. It would be more intellectually honest of him to say so, and remain unbending in his views regardless of that fact. Saying that Gore's position on environmental issues is better than Bush's is not the same as kissing Gore's ring and handing over his Green Party supporters to a man he sees as morally bankrupt. But Nader is nothing if not an absolutist.

As for Bush, hey, I like him too. As Molly Ivins (Dallas Star-Telegram columnist and leading W. authority) has said, "I like a lot of people. They shouldn't all be president." Let's not mince words -- this guy is the dumbest man to be nominated for President by either party for as far back as I can remember. The thought of him negotiating peace agreements between Israel and the Palestinians sends shivers down my spine. But give him this -- he's been consistent in his shallow affability, in his strength on education and weakness in foreign affairs, and in his desire for a more bipartisan environment in government (believe it or not, his record in Texas proves this). He doesn't have a history of flip-flopping. As a matter of fact, it appears that the only position he's drastically changed in the last ten years is whether or not to hit the sauce.

But he's a vessel, whether he knows it or not. The Christian right, the N.R.A., the three-headed Congressional monster of Tom DeLay, Dick Armey and Trent Lott, and plenty of other conservative bugaboos are waiting silently in the wings, knowing that keeping their mouths shut for the next ten days is good for them. If W. gets elected and he means what he says about compassionate conservatism and bipartisanship, he'll have to spend a good portion of his time fending off eight years of pent-up, unrealized right-wing policies. For our sake, let's hope he's up to it. If he doesn't mean it, swing Bush voters will have fallen for the scam of a lifetime, and will only have themselves to blame.

Finally (at last), there's my own personal decision. I like to see myself as an economic moderate and a social libertarian. Congress, one way or the other, will be split practically right down the middle this year, so I'm not too worried about any radical economic plan getting through, no matter who's president. Social issues, however, such as the separation of church and state, and a woman's right to a legal abortion ("right to choose" is such a pathetically weak phrase; just come out and say what the hell you mean), are largely impacted by judges and federal appointees, and I'm not taking any chances on Bush in that department. So Bush is out.

Nader is a great man who should be remembered long after he's gone as the most effective advocate for consumer's rights in the history of the country (and perhaps the world). Additionally, some of his positions are compelling, especially on campaign finance reform and his opposition to the death penalty. But speaking as a part of management for a small business in California, I have seen firsthand the damage that senseless regulation and government bureaucracy can do, even at the state level. I'm one who didn't agree with the government's lawsuit against Microsoft, and under Nader that would surely be only the beginning. There must be checks and balances against business to prevent excesses and protect lives (ever hear of a company called Firestone?), but Nader would serve the country better if he weren't part of the government, don't you think? If he really means what he says that every vote must be earned, he has to be taken in his totality. People who believe that the country as a whole benefited economically during the past eight years cannot justify a radical redirection of government's role in the economy, be it domestic or international, and remain intellectually consistent. I don't particularly care for Al Gore, but that doesn't mean I'm just going to go running home to Nader. The man has earned my respect, but not my vote.

As for the biggest Nader issue -- whether or not a vote for Nader can potentially help elect Bush -- that's between you and your conscience. No one can make that decision for you, and I would be offended by anyone who tried to do so.

Is Pat Buchanan still running?

This whole election has been one of the most dispiriting events in politics I've yet to witness. Both Gore and Bush are lesser men than people desire. Congress is a cesspool of self-interest on both sides. It can be argued that government is in such a state of disrepair that no matter what your positions happen to be, none of them will ever be realized until government gets the hell out of the way -- or, in other words, is downsized to its bare necessity. If this concept interests you as it initially interested me, you should go to www.harrybrowne.org and check out the website of the Libertarian candidate for President, Harry Browne. I saw him on C-Span last week during a debate among third-party candidates, and he stood out from the other kooks onstage (as well as Bush and Gore) as the most sensible and intelligent of all the candidates running this year. You would do well to read his specific positions on the issues, as some of them may not make you want to vote for him, but they'll certainly challenge your view of the way things are and ought to be.


Here's a good one. If Clinton were running again, would I vote for him? Absolutely. He's a highly effective advocate of certainly not all, but a majority of the things I believe in, and frankly, I don't care what he does with his dick during his off hours. Lost in all of the noise about impeachment, sex and morals is the incredible strength of character it must have taken not only to withstand such a pummeling, but to take it and come out on top anyway. The man simply refused to bottom out, somehow knowing that no matter how viciously he got kicked down, it would only make his rise back up that much sweeter. The day will come when Clinton is looked upon as a peculiar genius, a political animal non pareil, to whom big-time Democratic candidates will come for advice. Think the rehabilitated Nixon of domestic political strategy, minus the stigma of a real scandal. A Bubba Godfather, if you will. As long as he's alive, a President's political skills will be measured against his, and most likely found wanting.

But he's not running, and I'm wavering between Gore and Browne, mainly because I think that government as a whole, in its current form, is a broken machine. Also, I believe that the so-called War On Drugs is one of the great crimes committed against the American people in the history of the Republic, and Browne is the only candidate speaking rationally to this issue (as well as several other issues). Believe me, I have a conscience to grapple with as well. The thought of a Bush presidency is unnerving to me, but if Gore wins this year he'll get killed in 2004 anyway, and maybe the candidates will be better then if Gore loses now. The fact that I'm even considering not voting for Gore is just one example of how pathetic a campaign he's run, how hollow a man he is, and ample evidence that an accurate measure of the man -- for better, worse, and everything in between -- counts for a lot in the voting booth. Like many Gen X voters, I was his for the taking. He just never really showed up.

One way to look at it is to say that, if only I knew who Gore really was, this column might not have been written. But I'm afraid that there's a better way to say it: over the past six months, he has told me who he really is. Over and over again.