Editorial 2.6, June 2000, by Deirdre Helfferich The Invisible Mr. Nader Ralph Nader is on the campaign trail again, and despite the best efforts of the media to downplay the news, he’s actually getting a) lots of money (although, of course, he can’t claim the megabucks from large corporate donors that Gore and Bush are getting), and b) widespread support--even the United Auto Workers’ Union is considering endorsing him. Mr. Nader is the presidential candidate for the Green Party, and he’s campaigning with a vengeance, visiting all 50 states. He was even in Anchorage recently, and got interviewed by the local public TV station, KAKM, for Anchorage Edition. But then the station manager axed the interview at the last minute, in the interest of avoiding having to air equal time for other politicians vying for the same office (really--who wants to listen to Gore and Bush again?). But curiously, they aired 30 minutes of Don Young that night--and we know how apolitical he is. Nice and neutral. Because nobody’s declared against Young yet, nobody needs to worry about equal time--as though it would actually be a problem if the presidential candidates all rushed in before the 7-day limit to get their time slot on KAKM. Right. So a ruckus was raised in Anchorage, and the station manager is running around with egg on her face, a thoughtful article by John McKay (a media attorney) and lots of letters to the editor appeared in the Anchorage Daily News, and the Anchorage Press wrote an interesting editorial on the whole mess. But it is a curious slip-up. Granted, KAKM misinterpreted the equal-time law and now stands corrected. Still, why is somebody like Don Young, Republican, considered not very scary and somehow not political, while somebody like Ralph Nader, Green, is? And why do the national debates, supposedly the arena for airing issues and finding out who thinks what, exclude everybody (most of the time) who isn’t a Democrat or a Republican--and therefore the ideas that those others represent? Why are they so, well, undemocratic? Well, the way I see it, it’s like this: When third-party candidates are included, the thing that counts is substance, not glitter. And glitter is what the two main parties thrive on: pure Hollywood. Actual substantive issues are death to the modern air-bread presidential candidate. If other candidates were there, the main candidates might have to field real questions, and--horrors--give real answers. Of course, we might just get more bland candidates giving more of the same bland answers. But I don’t think so. Why? Because third-party candidates don’t have the money to depend on makeup and hair spray--they have to depend on facts and the issues that brought their constituencies together. Third parties exist because the main parties aren’t addressing the needs of the public. Look at Jesse Ventura--not my ideal politician, but he certainly trounced the other gubenatorial candidates in Minnesota. Somebody like him would make Gore and Bush look like limp lettuce on soggy toast. And we can’t have that--it would ruin the sound bites of campaign spin doctors. And imagine what would happen if a Libertarian or a Green party candidate were there, too? Gads--we might actually get to witness a debate! European democracies have been working just fine with multiple parties represented. The idea of alliances between parties is unheard-of in the U.S. (except to keep third parties out of the picture). The U.S. presidential debates used to be hosted by the League of Women Voters, who actually did invite John Anderson, an independent, in 1980. Then the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) was set up in 1987 (by, oddly enough, the Democratic and Republican National Committees), supposedly as a nonpartisan organization, but in reality as bipartisan (read: Democrats and Republicans ONLY--all others need not apply). Ross Perot, Reform Party candidate, was on the ballot in all fifty states and the District of Columbia in 1996, and had won 19% of the popular vote in the 1992 presidential election, throwing quite a scare into the two major parties and forcing some actual discussion of issues that year. However, this impressive showing was not sufficient to convince the CPD that he should be allowed in the presidential debates. Perot wasn’t exactly a thrilling speaker (I heard him down in Olympia, Washington, in ’92 and wasn’t impressed), but even so, he shook things up. So it’s very unlikely that somebody as articulate and clean as Ralph Nader will get within spitting distance of the debates, because he’d knock the socks off the public, and the Republicrats and Democans, who are only superficially distinguishable in many people’s eyes, would fade into the wallpaper. However, despite the availability of public funding for national candidates (Perot had received almost $30 million in 1996), national media coverage (and local, judging by the KAKM fiasco) is only available to candidates from the biggest two parties, practically speaking. And national coverage is supported by large corporations, such as Anheuser-Busch, Phillip Morris, and Bank of America, who also give large amounts of money to the two major parties. Which amounts to censorship, practically speaking, on behalf of the political interests of these and other large corporations. This throttlehold on the public’s choices is being challenged at the state level. For example, Maine has passed the Clean Elections Act, which encourages campaigning via generous public funding and thus bypasses the traditional routes for money-raising (and thus favor-owing). Other states (Arizona, Missouri, North Carolina, Oregon, Vermont, etc.) have passed or proposed similar measures that cut special interests out of the picture and bring campaigns--and candidates--back to the people. Hey--maybe we should do something like that here in Alaska. The Libertarians, the Greens, and all those independents out there might have a fighting chance to be heard. Wouldn’t it be nice if public funding, campaign laws, and media coverage at the national level operated in a similar way, and we could get away from the stupidity of the current presidential campaigns? But don’t hold your breath. No matter what you think of them, Nader and all the other alternative candidates will probably remain invisible this election. The new millenium is not yet here. | ||
 | | |
