Reply #37: Bush and Gore

[ShimokitaJer]

Would Gore have attacked Iraq? No. Would Gore have given a tax cut to the wealthy? No.

But would Gore have increased accountability for corporations? Created a national health care system? Strengthened environmental controls? We don't know, but Clinton didn't and that's the basis on which we had to judge Gore in 2000.

Nader's point was that, as long as the same corporations are the primary donors to both parties, and as long as both parties are content to focus on retaining power (accepting gerrymandering, for example), and as long as both parties fail to enact election finance reform, we're going to see more and more power and money go to the same wealthy and powerful organizations. You can talk about enacting change from within, but Al Gore made NO claims that he would enact change in his 2000 campaign.

It is in the Democratic and Republican parties' interest for the Republican and Democratic parties to retain power, and their methods are getting more and more similar every day. The 2002 election fiasco is evidence of how poorly this strategy works for the Democrats. Many of those who voted for Nader did so out of a belief that both parties are growing more willing to sacrifice their core ideals (can you actually identify any fiscal conservative ideals in Bush's actions?) for a tighter hold on power, and a belief that this change would not come from within.

It remains to be seen whether or not it can with the 2004 candidates.