New York Times Democracy Hypocrisy – Go, Ralph, Go!With Pat Buchanan hovering around 5% in the national polls, and getting as much as 10% in key battleground states like Oregon and Wisconsin, he may very well tip the scales to Al Gore in those states, and in the overall electoral college where the election is decided. Most of Buchanan’s support comes from Governor Bush’s base, which has made the Bush campaign nervous. Right-wing groups everywhere are calling for Buchanan’s exit, citing that his egotistical campaign will plunge the country leftward and possibly result in three new liberal Supreme Court justices. Until, finally, a voice of reason was heard this past Thursday when the New York Times defended Buchanan’s presence in the race with a lead editorial titled, "Mr. Buchanan’s Electoral Contribution." "Who once seemed a non-issue has become a very real danger to the Bush campaign, with polls suggesting that Mr. Buchanan’s mighty and hard earned 5% of the vote could nevertheless make the difference in eight states with 70 electoral votes." The Times went on to say, "What opponents call a wrecking-ball candidacy is a matter of principle, not an ego run amuck. We have always defended the new voices in the political system. While we may not like Mr. Buchanan’s viewpoints, he has every right to campaign and receive votes come November 7th even if that means throwing the election to Vice-President Gore." Oops. That isn’t quite what the story was, now was it? Instead, the New York Times wrote a hysterical babbling editorial all but demanding that Ralph Nader exit the race and apologize for his "ego-driven" campaign. Well, where do we start? If the scenario was like the one above – a Buchanan threat to Bush – would the ivory tower, snobby, limousine liberals at the Times written up such a stupid editorial as the one that they did on Thursday? The answer is, of course, no. Remember back in the days of 1992 and 1996 when a third party candidate thought to be drawing more Republican votes than Democratic votes was hailed as a model for democracy? The same kinds of intellectuoids that wrote for such prestigious publications as the Washington Post and the New York Times called Mr. Perot’s candidacy "healthy." What then has changed the Times’ and the rest of the oh-so objective media’s opinion? The answer is obvious – this time, it’s the left-wing elite that is at stake. Now before I continue, let me remind all the conservatives who are still angry from the 1992 election, that it really was not Ross Perot who cost George Bush Sr. the election. Nor was it Pat Buchanan’s supposedly mean and nasty convention speech. Nor was it because of any other excuse GOP apologists have came up with. George Bush lost in 1992 because of George Bush. There would not have been so many defections from the GOP camp had it not been for broken promises, and a horribly run and inept campaign. That being said, Ross Perot was not and is not a right-wingers dream candidate. In 1992 he promoted the same junk he supposedly stands for now, protectionism, campaign finance "reform," and social liberalism. At one point he even said he liked the idea of mandatory military service for all young men, which, despite what the Supreme Court says, is slavery. Perot also drew heavily from the same kind of groups that Ralph Nader is drawing from now – clueless adults who don’t know diddly about politics or the electoral process, flaky college kids, and first-time voters. However, it is hard for any to deny that most if not all of Nader’s support is coming from the Left or from the Clueless. There is no exodus from Republicans who flocked to Perot in 92’ because of a desire to reduce the budget deficit, to Ralph Nader, whose proposals are so socialistic and fiscally irresponsible that they would destroy America’s economic success and ruin the world economy. However, Mr. Nader represents a voting block that goes beyond the clueless and the flaky. He represents a left-wing rebellion in the Democratic Party that is picking up more and more converts, which, is why the ivory tower guideline writers at the New York Times are so scared. For years we have heard ad nauseam about the various splits and wars between so-called "moderate" Republicans (liberal Republicans, RINO’s) and what the Times likes to call the "extreme right" (conservative Republicans). But while the objective sleuths of the establishment press covered this battle with smiles on their faces, they did the best they could to hide from the country the war going on in the Democratic Party. From free trade, to immigration, to military intervention, to welfare reform, etc., the Democrats are hopelessly split. It is more than fair to say that the Left is split more than the Right, which is another reason the Times is terrified because it looks like it will result in the Green Party capturing 5% of the national vote, thus qualifying it for millions in federal dollars. This is great news for conservatives. Unlike the Reform Party, the Green Party has ideological coherency and will not just sit on their duffs for four years until the next presidential election. No, the Greens, who may be a tad bit weird, are true believers in their cause and will actually spend four years building an alternative party to what they consider is Republican-lite. The Democrats could be in major trouble in 2004. I must say, I love the irony of it all. A year ago when Pat Buchanan defected to the Reform Party, the media exploited the split and predicted that a Buchanan candidacy could very well give the election to Gore, in what they were already predicting was going to be the "closest election in years" (even though Bush was up by ten points in the polls at the time and will wipe the floor with Gore come election day). Everyone expected Buchanan to at least hit 5% in the polls and keep the Reform Party viable for 2004, thus further threatening Republicans. Ralph Nader didn’t even jump into the election until February of this year and is now polling in double digits in certain states while the Reform Party is all but dead. Like most conservatives, I do not approve of the federal government subsidizing third parties with millions of dollars if they hit a certain threshold in the polls. I also don’t approve of the fact that the two major parties receive tens of millions more of this same kind of government money from the FEC (Republicans were quick to condemn Buchanan for taking 12 million, but are apparently oblivious to the fact that Bush gets almost six times as much.) The best thing to do, of course, is to end political welfare all together. However, as long as the Republicans and Democrats are going to get multi-million dollar subsidies, then it’s only fair to continue to fund splinter parties. Personally, I think Bush will win with or without Nader’s "help." But the hypocrisy from the Left and the New York Times is astounding. Ralph Nader will most likely achieve his 5% goal and the true believers in socialism for America will finally have a vehicle to push for their agenda. The only other alternative is for the Democratic Party to plunge back leftward and have the likes of Paul Wellstone and Maxine Waters become their spokespeople. Either way, there is no way possible such a radical agenda would resonate with the plurality of Americans, and either way, the Democrats lose.
Bill Barnwell is a freelance journalist and co-editor in chief of www.thepotatoe.com |
October
30, 2000