The Bush presidency has been a predictable setback for the progressive agenda. In the few months since he took office, George W. Bush has withdrawn federal funding for family planning institutions overseas. He has reversed the Clinton administration's stricter standards for arsenic in drinking water. He has rolled back Clinton's worker ergonomic protections. He is pushing through Congress a one trillion dollar tax cut that will mostly benefit the rich. His appointments to head the Environmental Protection Agency and the Interior Department have a record of favoring business over environmental interests. He has withdrawn the U.S. from the Kyoto Protocol. He has reneged on his campaign promise to regulate carbon dioxide emissions and he wants to drill for oil in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. And Bush's presidency is only just beginning. For the rest of his term we can expect more of the same.
Many progressives blame Ralph Nader for this debacle. While Nader received less than three percent of the vote nationwide, Nader did get over 90,000 votes in Florida. If Nader had not run then perhaps more of those votes would have gone to Gore than to Bush giving Gore a clean victory. Of course there is no way to know what would have happened if Nader had not run, but given that it is plausible that Gore would have come out the winner it is natural to ask what was gained by Nader's candidacy and if it was worth it.
In fact, a lot was gained by Nader's candidacy. Ralph Nader generated an enthusiasm for progressive change not felt for a generation. In city after city he filled coliseums such as Madison Square Garden with young people who paid to hear him speak about his vision for the future. Ralph Nader inspired tens of thousands to become activists. As a result of Nader's campaign the Green Party now has over 700 student groups and 35 state Green Parties. The campaign gave momentum to the Green movement which has carried over after the election.
And what did we lose? If we lost the chance to have Al Gore as president then the answer is not much. The Democrats no longer represent the interests of working families. Labor is weaker now than it has ever been because it is hampered by laws that make it almost impossible to form unions in the private sector. Gore failed to endorse far reaching labor law reform. In particular, he failed to call for the repeal of the infamous Taft-Hartley Act. Clinton and Gore gutted welfare for the poor while leaving intact welfare for wealthy corporations in the form of tax breaks, subsidies, grants, bailouts, and giveaways. The U.S. government spends more than three times as much on corporate welfare than on all social programs combined. And we have the Clinton/Gore administration to thank for NAFTA and the WTO. These agreements lack enforceable labor protections. Corporations can now move jobs to countries with lower wages and bust unionization drives with threats to move production abroad. Our workers now have to compete with children making far below the minimum wage. Under the rules of the WTO, the U.S. cannot prohibit products made with child labor.
In spite of Gore's label as an environmental vice president, his record speaks otherwise. He supported both NAFTA and the WTO which have proven to be disasters for the environment. These agreements contain provisions which allow corporations to sue governments if laws or regulations interfere with profit. Challenges or threats from industry under the provisions of the WTO have undermined or threatened to interfere with, for example, the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, dolphin protection legislation, as well as much environmental legislation abroad. Gore has not pushed for renewable energy. Gore has not fought or criticized federal subsidies of nuclear and fossil fuel power which render solar and wind power uncompetitive. Clinton and Gore have given the auto industry an eight year break on reducing auto emissions. Gore did not have the courage to take tough stands against industry because large corporations were paying for his campaign. The Democrats, who raised as much soft money as the Republicans, repeatedly showed their willingness to prostitute themselves to their corporate backers.
The Greens have created an alternative that is truly inspiring. The Greens call for universal health care and laws mandating living wages. They call for a withdrawal from NAFTA and the WTO. They call for full labor law reform to restore the ability or workers to organize. They call for an end to corporate welfare and a crackdown on corporate crime, fraud, and abuse. The Greens call for stepping up environmental protections and aggressively fighting global climate change, including investing in renewable energy. Nader set a new standard for integrity in politics. He refused to accept money from corporations, unions and political action committees and called for public financing of elections to rid the political system of the influence of large corporations.
Ralph Nader may not have won the election, but the fight is just beginning. Nader's supporters know that it will be a long struggle, and if their enthusiasm and dedication are any indication, the Greens are not going away any time soon. The Greens will continue to push their agenda, and will continue to be a thorn in the side of the Democratic Party. History shows that we stand a chance to make a significant impact. The regulation of child labor, the establishment of a minimum wage and woman's right to vote all began as third party issues. It took the prodding of third parties to push the major parties to incorporate these issues into their platforms and enact them. Likewise, the abolition of slavery began as a third party issue. After the election of Abraham Lincoln this third party, the Republicans, became a major party.
Will the Green Party blossom into a powerful force for progressive change? One thing is certain: without organizing a third party there is no chance that the reforms sought by the Green Party will occur. These reforms are strongly opposed by the same corporate interests whose financial support is crucial for a candidate to succeed in either of the two major parties. The choice we faced in the last election was to submit to the two major parties, who both place the interests of corporations above all else, or to support a growing movement of citizens who are fighting for the interests of the planet and its peoples. Greens have no regrets because we know we made the right choice.
