Democratic machine’s inability to soul search may prove costly

On October 11th, the Clinton campaign finally brought out the big gun, Al Gore, to try to quash support for third party candidates. Al Gore is not the ‘big gun’ because of a passionate following of supporters or great charisma: he has little of either. Rather, it is because of his close election loss in 2000, which the Democratic Party and their allies in the corporate media have successfully spun into a cautionary tale of the dreaded “Nader Effect.”

As the fable goes, Al Gore was on the brink of winning on the election when a stunning last minute reversal of fortunes in Florida flipped the state Red and gave George W. Bush the presidency. Voters, that otherwise would have gone to Gore, picked Ralph Nader, the progressive Green Party candidate, singlehandedly costing Gore the election. This story has had amazing staying power despite being disproven over and over again.

{mosads}At best, Nader’s candidacy was one factor among many that led to the election results. Al Gore had also lost his home state, which is quite unusual. 200,000 registered Democrats in Florida voted for Bush over Gore. Additionally, and this is a real gem that almost no one mentions, exit polling showed that a slight majority of Nader voters in Florida said they would have voted for Bush over Gore. Had Nader not run, Bush actually would have won by more votes.

Putting aside a poor Supreme Court decision and all the absurd shenanigans that took place in Florida under Governor Jeb Bush, the Democratic Party had two options. One option was to engage in some serious introspection.

Why had so many registered Democrats voted for Texas conservative? Why did many voters view Gore and Bush as two sides of the same coin? Why did Nader choose to run and why did many progressive voters choose him over Gore? What was wrong with the Democratic Party that prevented it from holding the White House despite 8 years of a strong economy and a fairly popular outgoing Democratic president?

Had they taken this route, they might have learned a few things. They might have learned that the triangulation of Bill Clinton, a neo-liberal with some very Republican-style economic policies, had left the American Left feeling quite betrayed. His deregulation of the Wall Street, destruction of Welfare programs, free trade deals, and policy on crime drove progressive voters away from the Democratic Party.

Bill Clinton’s personal indiscretions had also given Bush a big opening with so-called family value voters. Al Gore’s complete lack of passion and unwillingness to embrace progressive issues didn’t help either. Finally, Gore’s decision to pick a hawkish, conservative Democrat for a running mate drove away those interested in a foreign based on peace and international law. These answers would have forced the Democratic Party to do some serious soul searching, change their ways, and try to win back voters in the future.

Instead, they chose another option: blaming Ralph Nader and those who voted for him. This explanation allowed the Democrats to ignore the tough questions and refuse to make any significant changes to their positions and mode of operation.

They could keep their corporate donors, continue to support massive military spending, push free trade deals, etc., and continue their rightward drift while pressuring voters on the left with the threat of a even worse scenario: a Republican president. Any talk of left-wing dissent could be immediately stifled by name-dropping Nader, blaming and intimidating voters, rather than trying to win them over by giving policy concessions.

Now, in 2016, the two major parties have created the perfect storm. After a tough contest, the Democratic establishment was able to defeat the most powerful insurgent campaign in the history of the party, nominating the most establishment candidate in the party’s history: Hillary Clinton.

The consummate centrist, she is despised by the Left almost as much as she is by the Right. Having used some shady, strong-arm tactics, huge corporate donations, and more than a little help from the supposedly neutral Democratic National Committee, she alienated many of her primary opponent’s supporters.

Compounding these issues, she also picked a fairly conservative vice-presidential pick, appointed a corporate lobbyist to run her transition team, and had worked to win over Republican neo-conservative war-hawks — the perfect recipe for a strong left-wing, third party campaign.

Simultaneously, however, the Republican Party has nominated the most loathsome (from a left-wing perspective) candidate in recent history. As a result, the threat of the “Nader Effect” is that much more powerful, regardless of it false logic.

And so, Hillary Clinton brought Al Gore on the stage to make the case to the progressive voter, discouraging them from voting for a third party and teach them “the lesson of 2000.”  If only he and the Democratic Party had learned the right lesson and done and required self-analysis, he could have turned to Hillary Clinton and given her a lesson instead.

Ron Widelec is a history teacher in NYC and a progressive activist on Long Island, NY.

The views of Contributors are their own and are not the views of The Hill