IV. The Pro-Imperialist Candidates Contend
The Gore/Lieberman Campaign The Gore/Lieberman continuation of the Clinton/Gore plan is difficult to carry out; the campaign must
try to synthesize a broad pro-imperialist united front. It must appeal to the Reagan Democrats and the socially conservative and racist white voters while solidifying the black and Latino core base—all the
while simultaneously running against and courting big business. Gore began by running to the Right in the primaries, attacking Bill Bradley for his unequivocal support of affirmative action,
and picking Joe Lieberman, in another overture to the party's Right. By the August convention, Gore could see that his effort to appear more conservative than Bush was failing and his liberal base was
dispirited; he dusted off the racist populism theme which appeals to the white working class family as well as the liberals. This brand of populist campaign rhetoric demands that he rail against easy
targets—the HMO's, the tobacco companies, the drug companies, and the oil companies (especially ironic when in fact he has been on the Occidental Petroleum dole since he was a kid and has his hand in every
corporate coffer and trough). The large corporations understand that at election time the Democrats, with the larger working class and minority base, have to attack them as a ritual, but they continue to
contribute large sums of money to both the Democrats and the Republicans. "Big business" understands that Gore and Lieberman are completely tied to the corporate agenda, and they will all get along just
fine—indeed, many corporate giants believe they will fare better—if Gore and Lieberman are elected. Since our central strategic demands are focused to combat national exploitation and oppression
by the United States, we were initially pleased when we learned of Gore's choice of Joseph Lieberman for vice president—not knowing very much about him. We are deeply and personally motivated to fight the
anti-Semitism that grips many nations, including the United States. But after some investigation, it became clear that Lieberman is a dangerous conservative who is hated by many Jewish progressives and even
moderate liberals in the Congress. The facts speak for themselves. Lieberman was elected as U.S. Senator from Connecticut by defeating an independent liberal Republican Lowell Weicker. Lieberman was
supported by arch-conservative William F. Buckley. Lieberman red-baited Weicker for his courageous stand to lift the blockade of Cuba, "You're closer to Fidel Castro than to Ronald Reagan." He has been one
of the leaders of the conservative, pro-business Democratic Leadership Council caucus in the Democratic party. When Lieberman was nominated, DLC chair Al From gloated that this was another step in the DLC's
takeover of the Democratic Party. Lieberman has been an aggressive opponent of self-determination for Palestine, and if elected, will be a force to further sabotage negotiations between Israel and the
Palestinian Authority. Lieberman, and Gore's Harvard mentor, Marty Peretz, are Israeli hawks in the Netanyahu mold. As Michael Lerner, editor of Tikkun magazine pointed out, "the documentation of
Israeli torture of Palestinians, the denial of human rights, and the oppression of another people were all irrelevant and uninteresting" to Lieberman. Rather than illustrating religious freedom and an
advance for civil rights, Joe Lieberman's aggressive display of his orthodox Jewish religious beliefs interjects religion into politics in ways that are hailed by the religious Right and insult all liberal
commitments to the separation of church and state. The Gore/Lieberman team can unify their pro-corporate/working family constituencies by positioning their administration as aggressive in
defense of U.S. national economic interests in foreign affairs. When criticized by Bush as being soft on military spending, Gore retorted hawkishly that it was George W.'s father who first tried to reduce
military spending after the fall of the Soviet Union—shortly thereafter the Clinton/Gore administration volunteered a plan to increase the Pentagon budget. To dramatize his intent to lead U.S. military
aggression, Gore bragged in his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention that he and Joe Lieberman "broke with our party to support the Gulf War," essentially attacking those Democrats who had
the courage to try to stop the Bush/Powell/Schwartzkopf massacre. This was tantamount to warning the idiotic delegates who were applauding their own castigation that they can expect another eight years of
"triangulation" if Gore gets elected. While the issue has subsided in the campaign because the bipartisan militarism leaves little room for debate, we can make no mistake in understanding Gore's intentions.
The Bush/Cheney Candidacy As we have said, we see
George W. Bush and Al Gore as sharing the same fundamental aim of sustaining U.S. imperialism. But their tactical plans are significantly different. Bush proposes a more bellicose international stance, and
domestically has shown he will move against people of color in a coordinated and vindictive manner. George W. is attempting the sleight of hand formerly practiced by his father, CIA director
and then president, George Bush. He is a "compassionate conservative" who wants to lead a "kinder, gentler America." Just like his father and Reagan who kicked the hell out of people of color for twelve
years, George W. is super-tough on the death penalty, military aggression, and free-market economics, which secures the white men who are the base of his support. His efforts at moderate and centrist
Republican themes—such as the embarrassing staged minority night at the Republican convention—is calculated to appeal to white working class women and minority voters who tend to favor Gore on healthcare,
social security, and abortion rights, the voters he must draw in order to win. But any fantasy of Bush's centrism masks a hard Right wing political program. Bush will try to create a virtually
unregulated economy, in that he and Dick Cheney are, as Nader says, corporations masquerading as people. Bush virtually pledges the destruction of every major regulatory agency—the EPA, OSHA, Food and Drug
Administration, and the anti-trust and civil rights divisions of the Justice Department. Dangerous drugs will be put on the market sooner, Microsoft will get off with a slap on the wrist, and every cop in
the U.S. will be able to abuse with impunity. The oil companies, to which both Bush and Cheney are joined at the hip, are already salivating about exploiting presently restricted off-shore oil reserves that
will generate excess profits and excess ecological damage. And many of the high-tech companies, such as Cisco, Dell, and Oracle, despite getting rich through Clinton and Gore, are aggressively contributing
to the Bush/Cheney campaign. If elected, Bush will offer federal support for the growing Right-wing racist movements that have attacked bilingual education, affirmative action and minority
youth. And the Civil Rights division will, as it did under Reagan, focus on the "rights" of white people suffering "reverse discrimination." Bush will fight for school vouchers and will attack teachers and
teacher's unions in order to undermine public education and build popular support for a privatized and balkanized school system. George W. Bush's record as Governor is frightening on the
question of the death penalty alone. As Governor, he has refused to overturn any of the more than 100 executions on his watch, even when it was shown in one case that a defense attorney was drunk during a
defendant's trial. He prefers to hold the record for the most executions in any state in the U.S. He will bring this approach to the presidency. While Gore is a true military hawk,
supporting Clinton's move to bloat the U.S. military budget, Bush has continually claimed the Gore/Clinton administration has defunded the Pentagon, giving us some idea of the military buildup he intends. This racism, male supremacy, and saber rattling has served Bush well, and reinforces our observations about the fundamentally reactionary nature of the U.S. electorate. Recent polls show that
even with Gore's efforts to placate the white male electorate by playing down his most minimal support for civil rights and women's reproductive rights, Bush holds a massive twenty point lead among white
men, and his support is growing among white married women, those most influenced and at times intimidated by the white men to whom they are married. The Nader forces have often, in their efforts
to justify their candidacy, tried to minimize or at times obliterate the differences between Gore and Bush. A cold sober look at George W. should cut through such facile analysis, Bush and the Republicans
are overt reactionaries of the most dangerous sort, and the electoral feint to the center makes them even more so, for their worst damage of course will be done if they are elected. |