Who Won? Who Cares? - Brief Article

I fell asleep on US election night in the knowledge that Al Gore was president. I awoke a few hours later to hear that George Bush had won. In the morning I learned that in fact the world's number one 'democracy' had gotten itself into one fine predicament. No one had won.

The events could not have been more entertaining, but I couldn't escape the feeling that I was watching a mediocre wrestling match whose outcome was already obvious. For while at the time of writing the results are unknown, for anyone concerned with the true state of the planet, the campaign was a chronicle of a victory foretold; a victory for big business, and for a global economic system whose number should have been up long ago.

The two main candidates were backed by larger war chests than at any other time in history; More than $300 million was spent in total -- and that's not taking into account the hundreds of millions of 'soft money' dollars. Corporations were falling over themselves to purchase policy. And policy they will get -- whoever ends up at 116 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Our friends at Monsanto have already stated that 'agricultural biotechnology will find a supporter occupying the White House next year, regardless of which candidate wins the election in November'. The oil and chemical giants have their plans too. 'In Texas,' according to Sustainable Energy and Economic Development Coalition, 'Bush more or less allowed industry heavyweights, including Exxon Corp, to write their own lax rules about oil and chemical plant pollution'. Why should this change in the White House? Meanwhile Gore's long-established links with oil money, as well as their contributions to his campaign, will certainly further their already considerable access to decision-makers.

On the bigger picture -- the global system of 'free' trade, corporate rule and economic globalisation -- the two candidates are also reading from the same script. According to a Bush aide: 'The best way to improve conditions for labour and the environment is to have the economic growth that is produced by free trade.' The Clinton-Gore administration, meanwhile, ratified NAFTA and threw its weight behind WTO agreements. Spot the difference? I can't.

The truth is, both candidates are minimally different sides to the same coin. Neither have paid more than lip service to really pressing issues. Gore is supposed to be the great green, but his track record is hopeless. They say the question now in America is not whether Gore wrote his book, Earth in the Balance, but whether he in fact read it. He has been caught out on too many issues, from global warming to incineration, to be taken seriously. Bush, in a characteristically disingenuous remark, has said that 'every environmental issue confronts us with a duty to be good stewards'. With his home state of Texas ranking number one in every negative department, from toxic waste, cancer-causing chemical contamination and so on, we can safely deposit that little number in the bin.

With citizens of 'the world's only superpower' being asked to choose between Tweedledee and Tweedledum(b), you might think that the candidacy of a third party, with a different set of values, would be met with excitement. Enter Ralph Nader's Green party. Nader appeared on the scene ready to tackle exactly those issues religiously ignored by Bush and Gore. As he put it, 'the two parties just campaign by hurling 30-second television ads against one another after indenturing themselves to the corporate interests by raising tens of millions of dollars from them in return for future favours'. Here was someone willing to talk openly about corporate domination, campaign finance reform and an environmental crisis that puts us all at risk. Result? The establishment tried to block his way and then turned their guns on him.

What Ralph Nader was embarking on, wrote the New York Times, was 'a self-indulgent crusade'. And as if to demonstrate their ignorance of important issues, they explained: 'Whichever side one favours, the Texas governor and the vice president offer as stark a choice on the environment as was ever put on view in a presidential contest.' The same message was repeated on all sides of the establishment, even from some Greens: Nader is a 'spoiler'. Following signs that Nader may have cost Gore victory, the Democrats began pointing fingers at him. Rather than wonder why many Democratic voters were willing to hand Bush the presidency in order to voice their fears, the Gore camp blustered. 'He cost us the Presidency and he's never going to be forgiven for that', said one.

Yet the campaign was a great success for Nader. He achieved what he set out to, and demonstrated that there is a new movement in the US, which is not about to go away. Nader never set out to win the race, only the arguments. And if only one argument has been won, it is that the corporate-financed two-horse race doesn't work.

'Corporations now reward politicians,' says Nader, 'who can deliver environmental votes and opinion without seriously deterring their goals with burden some environmental constraints.'

'Go for the lesser of two evils,' he said, in the most important soundbite of the election, 'and you will end up always with evil.' By the time this magazine is printed, we will no doubt have the clear results. But except out of sheer curiosity, I will not be switching on.

COPYRIGHT 2000 MIT Press Journals
COPYRIGHT 2001 Gale Group