for
11/04/2000
This year's election is an interesting one, and not in the sense of it being the first of a new millennium. Let's play the scenario out:
After eight years more better than worse with moderate Democrat Bill Clinton, Texas Governor George W. Bush and Vice President Al Gore are fighting for the middle. This clears the way for a more extreme third party candidate to gain prominence; it becomes Green Party candidate Ralph Nader, on the strength of the always liberal college and "grassroots" votes, rather than conservative Pat Buchanan, who's support base would still be happy to have a Republican back in the White House, and will thus side with a "winning team." The vote is close, and the third party tips the scale.
To look at it in an interesting way, because the country leans slightly more to the left at this juncture, it gets a right-leaning President.
The vote is close, all through election night, but by 8:30PM it's clear that the scale has tipped. The undecided vote has fallen slightly in favor of the Republican candidate, the major electoral states have gone to Bush, and the victory is wide enough that no one need talk of a Congressional runoff and the mess that that would cause. George W. Bush is the new President of the United States.
The entire thing is a coup for Nader, and here the results become harder to predict. Will the Green Party manage to get 5% or more of the vote in any critical mass of states? If so, it gets on the ballot next election, and receives federal matching funds in the next Presidential race--essential to becoming a true third party.
And here problems arise. For whatever reason, there are certain numbers that the human psyche prefers. The Amish of Pennsylvania Dutch country have learned that villages of over 200 citizens tend to fragment into camps, and that it's best to strike off and start a new village when the population start to approach this number. Smaller social or family groups have been found to max out at seven members; again, the social groups tends to break into factions when they go over this number. The entire concept of duality is explainable easily: two sexes, two hands, two eyes--the human brain prefers this number. It's also essential to majority rule.
And this is why, throughout our history, the most stable political systems have been built on two parties. The Whigs weren't joined by a new party, they were replaced. Only one major party emerged to fill the power vacuum after the decline of the Federalists, though many tried. (And that's basically where you get your modern political parties.) In other countries, several political parties are often present, but they tend to break down into two coalitions. Two, for the above stated or for whatever reason, is a number that democracy understands--it's clear enough why, and hardly something to be feared.
So the question is begged; what does a Nader showing mean to American politics, and it's future? I promised I wouldn't get into any millennial discussion, but the calendar's rollover into a new thousands' place does tend to frame time as the living numbers that it is. America has been in existence less than a quarter of a millennium; the ancient Assyrian empire in Mesopotamia lasted almost five times as long, and it changed faces many times. In the grand scheme of things, where will the American Empire rank in the great civilizations of history? How long will it last? What will be the Fall of America?
But on a lesser, though still painfully full time scale, what will our country's political flavor be on the 100th anniversary of my birth, 2080 (to choose a date)? How will it differ from post-Cold War, post-Nixon, post-Regan politics? What political parties will exist, and what will they stand for?
If there's one thing I'd like to carry with me into old age, it's the idea that the world is tough, and will be just fine. To wax conservative as I get older (past the simple moderation that comes from beginning to glimpse how much more complex everything is than we thought when we were younger), and yearn for the "good old days" is to ignore the progression of time. How ever the future majorities break down, one shouldn't fear them.
So will Nader be the catalyst that causes the next "snap dragon" of a political party, and eventually establishes and new duality? Unlikely. He's not even in line to scare up as many votes as H. Ross Perot's Reform Part did in the last incumbentless election. The chance exists, especially after a Bush Presidency, but I find it unlikely.
It's time to clear up a few things, now that we're two days before Election Day. George W. Bush is a very intelligent man. Al Gore's famous exaggerations are a bad joke that went too far. Everything in a Presidential race is calculated, and everything needs to come from the heart in some way. If you talked to either man, one on one, you wouldn't be nearly as worried about this country's future as you might be from seeing them through sound bites.
I at first thought I might, but now I've decided to leave my personal endorsement, and my reasons for it, out of this essay. If you vote, just remember to vote with your head and your heart, because they're two sides of the same thing.
Touch the Toast