Alter It, Man

I admire Eric Alterman's political writing, respect his opinions, and look forward to his biweekly column in The Nation almost as much as I look forward to the alternating column of Katha Pollitt (whose politics, happily, are as progressive as her poetics are moderate). But I've grown tired of Alterman's ad hominem* filled arguments against Ralph Nader's candidacy.

In the latest Nation, Alterman refers to "Republican stooge Ralph Nader and his misguided supporters," in what essentially is a throw-away sentence that wouldn't be in the column if he weren't hellbent on getting a dig in. Now, I don't intend to vote for Nader this time, because I'd like to see Kerry beat Bush by as wide a margin as possible. Nonetheless, I support Nader's candidacy, and even see it as necessary. I don't think progressives in swing states would best be served by voting for him, but that's up to them.

(Actually, what I'd really like to see is a Wayne's World-like "Scooby Doo" ending where Kerry wins the election but then pulls off a mask and turns out to be . . . Dennis Kucinich, and everyone laughs as Edwards says "Ah shucks, Dennis," and Congress is cool with it, and the Supreme Court is cool with it, and Dubya-n-Cheney are charged with war profiteering, and al Qaeda disbands, and third-world slavery and first-world serfdom are finally abolished, and borders cease to exist, and above us only sky . . .)

Bush's unrelenting, far-right attack on the environment and his arrogant and negligent foreign policy (unnecessary war in Iraq, outright dippiness regarding North Korea) are enough to justify a vote for Kerry. But then how can I claim Nader's candidacy is also necessary? Part of the answer is hinted at in Alterman's own column when he bemoans "the Democrats' weakness in Congress." The Democrats are weak because they've been pandering to the so-called center for way too long. Most supported NAFTA; most accepted The Patriot Act without so much as a chirp; most refuse to stand up for relationship rights, reproductive rights, or even workers' rights; most could not rise to the challenge of the Enron scandal because they themselves had taken Enron money; most were quiet as Bush passed on the Kyoto accord, passed on the biological warfare treaty, passed on the International Criminal Court (lest we have no Guantánamo Bay); most have raised no voice against the increasing presence of religion in policy-making, as with stem-cell research and "the morning after pill"; ALL stood by silently as Tom Ridge was rewarded a new, couchy position, when he should have been booted for civil rites violations in his treatment of protesters before the 2000 Republican convention (The Nation reported on this story in the first year after it happened, but it's never made it to the mainstream media); the beatdown goes on and on.

The underlying problem of all these issues, the complicity of the Democrats, can only be truly resolved by dismantling our two-Party duopoly. America's antiquated republican-model democracy is failing, has failed. Regime change? Better a paradigm change. Only by running a national campaign which threatens a Party that needs to win, and whose long-term health may be at stake, is there even a remote chance for this issue getting the attention it deserves. Our government is not adequately representative. If it were, there's a good chance we wouldn't be saddled with those first two urgent problems which force a vote for Kerry. It's a cycle perpetuating itself. Nader is one of the few patriots willing to challenge the bipartisan hegemony which stands in the way of progress, of justice. Don't tell me he's egomaniacal for running. An egomaniac wouldn't take on an absolutely winless situation. He gets shit on from all sides. He's acting on principle in a land where public officials have washed all principle from their hands. His crusade is of a fundamentally democratic nature that will never have "the right time," because the establishment doesn't allow for it.

As Lani Guinier puts it: "our system of representation, based on winner-take-all elections, means that a majority of citizens in the nation at any given moment are not represented by people whom they chose to represent them and are thus alienated from meaningful democratic participation." Clearly something—it's almost to the point of anything—must be done to force one of the major parties to call for electoral reform. Instant run-off voting would be an improvement, but a system of cumulative voting would be the most fair, democratic, and truly American.

* Worried about using "ad hominem" as a noun, I turned to the super duper American Heritage Dictionary (which I just learned can be accessed online here). Not defined yet as a noun, it is mentioned in the usage note: "Ad hominem has also recently acquired a use as a noun . . . This usage may raise some eyebrows, though it appears to be gaining ground in journalistic style."

My Own Private Conspiracy Theory

I've been harboring my own private conspiracy theory for a while now, guess I'll drop it here in the semi-open. I haven't seen this one put forth anywhere else, but then most of my news on the Iraq atrocity comes from sources, such as The Nation, that aren't likely to print unfounded, hence irresponsible, statements about the government no matter how much they disagree with the current policy-makers. But I can do it. Here it goes: The Dubyadministration decided it was the right time to attack Iraq, not because they believed Iraq was hiding weapons of mass destruction, but because they knew there were none.

True, the Senate intelligence committee didn't come to this conclusion in their congressional report. But who really believes that the CIA is going to let a congressional inquiry learn anything that the CIA doesn't really want them to know? The CIA has taken a lot of hits for mistakes that clearly should have landed on Dubya's chin. We've had almost three years of pin the tail on George Tenet, even still after his resignation. My scenario actually offers some solace to Americans because it means the CIA is less inept and more, well, let's say "pernicious"—in its archaic sense. Besides, playing the butt that gets kicked isn't all bad for them. As if in a game of Texas Hold ’Em (we know how much certain powers-that-be love card-game metaphors) where you want to project a table image quite different from the way you actually play, the CIA allows themselves to be presented as an incompetent, disorganized organization, when you know they're not that bad off.

There's also the fact that the Dubyadministration contains known, long-standing hawks on Iraq, most notably Donald Rumsfeld, who have been itching to go there for some reason. The whole profile of the situation fits with the Dubyadministration, which constantly tells the people the opposite of what they plan to do. The big example here is the "Clear Skies" Clean Air Act, which has all but dismantled environmental regulations and let a number of large corporations off the hook for long-overdue fines. But there's also the less recognized Dubyadministration push to limit the number of workers who qualify for overtime pay, even as Dubya himself continues to portray himself as the good buddy of America's working class.

Anyway, knowing that casualties would be minimal because there were no WMD, the
Dubyadministration figured on a short, soaringly-popular war. This helps explain Dubya's premature masquerade on the battleship in May 2003—the point's been made by many others, but every time I think about it I'm taken by the idea that it's so long, over a year now, since our President declared "victory" in "the battle of Iraq".