D.C. Dispatch - 2000.07.25

Recent commentary from National Journal:

Social Studies: Al Gore -- Fighting for Reform Without Change, by Jonathan Rauch (July 25, 2000)
Think of Al Gore as the safe candidate. FDA-approved. USDA-inspected. Childproof and flame-retardant.

Legal Affairs: Does the Country Need Legislators Who Wear Black Robes?, by Stuart Taylor Jr. (July 25, 2000)
Were I a lawgiver, I might issue decrees similar to the court's. The question is why the court feels a need to legislate.

Legal Affairs: Prayer and Creationism -- Met With Supreme Hostility, by Stuart Taylor Jr. (July 18, 2000)
It's unclear how and where the Supreme Court can somehow stop its slide down a slippery slope.

Media: All the World's a Chrysler Building, by William Powers (July 18, 2000)
DaimlerChrysler -- eager to seem less German -- plans a "virtual headquarters" in the Chrysler Building.

Political Pulse: Wanna Run? Where Ya From?, by William Schneider (July 18, 2000)
This may be a close election, so a prospective veep's home state could matter a lot.

More from National Journal.

Discuss this article in the Politics & Society conference of Post & Riposte.

Political Pulse:
About the Third (and Fourth) Parties

Nader's threat to Gore is looking much more serious than Buchanan's threat to Bush
by William Schneider

July 25, 2000

Bill Bradley didn't win a single primary or caucus. So why should his endorsement of Al Gore last week mean anything? Candidate Bradley tried to rally liberals to make a statement against Clintonism. His argument? Under President Clinton and Gore, the Democratic Party has lost its ambition. "The Democratic Party shouldn't be in a Washington bunker with you," Bradley said to Gore during a New Hampshire debate. "The Democratic Party should be thinking big things with big ambitions."

But Bradley couldn't get anywhere by challenging Clinton and Gore on the issues. "I want to tell you what we were doing in that Washington bunker," Gore replied a few days later. "We created 20 million new jobs, cut the welfare rolls in half, passed the toughest gun control in a generation, and created the strongest economy in the history of the U.S."

Bradley ended up getting the Paul Tsongas vote: affluent, liberal-minded independents. That's a constituency where Gore is weak right now. He has to compete for that vote, not just with George W. Bush, but also with Green Party candidate Ralph Nader.

Nader is doing something Bradley never did: He's attacking Gore personally. As when he said last month in California, Gore has "basically become a very plastic person who doesn't know who he is anymore, who panders a lot." Bradley had refused to attack Gore personally. Instead, he complained about Gore's attacks on him. "He hit me!" it sounded like to voters.

Why should Nader's challenge be any more serious than Bradley's? Nader's running on the issue of anti-trade, anti-corporate resentment. But there are not a lot of angry voters out there. Moreover, Clinton and Gore's "betrayal" of the Left on trade, welfare reform, and debt reduction has never materialized into a major rallying cause for liberals.

The key issue for Nader isn't how many votes he gets, but where he gets them. When Nader ran for President in 1996, he received nearly 700,000 votes, less than 1 percent of the national total. He got more than 2 percent of the vote in West Coast states where environmental sentiment was strong -- California, Oregon, and Washington. Also Alaska and Hawaii, where third-party candidates often do well. (That's because by the time those states vote, the election is over.) Plus New Mexico, which has an active Green Party. And some liberal enclaves in the Northeast -- Vermont, Maine, and the District of Columbia.

Nader did fairly well (between 1 percent and 2 percent) in southern New England, New Jersey, and New York. Also in the Upper Midwest -- Minnesota and Wisconsin. That's the liberal belt of the country: the Northeast, the West Coast, and the Upper Midwest. It's now the Democratic Party's base. Nader cuts into that base. In 1996, Nader had no impact because Clinton beat Bob Dole by such a big margin. But this year's contest looks a lot closer. Moreover, in 1996, Nader was on the ballot in only 22 states, and he spent less than $5,000. This year, Nader's goal is to get on the ballot in 50 states and raise and spend $5 million. Nader's strength is his image as a consumer activist, that is, a nonpolitician. He's running on a strong populist message -- the abuse of power by big corporations, big money, and big-time politicians. A lot of people who are not liberals respond to that message.

Nader's threat to Gore looks more serious than Pat Buchanan's threat to Bush. Buchanan's negative ratings are twice as high as Nader's. Nader has the image of a consumer hero to many voters, while Buchanan has the image of an extremist. For the first time in many years, we could see an election where Democrats have more problems with the Left than Republicans do with the Right. After eight years of Bill Clinton, conservatives are desperate to win this time, just as liberals were desperate in 1992.

Both Nader and Buchanan have the same objective: to get into the debates this fall. If Buchanan gets into the debates, Bush will insist that Nader be included as well to even things up. When Ross Perot was included in the debates in 1992, his vote shot up. When Perot was excluded in 1996, his vote went down. Debates were also the key to Jesse Ventura's 1998 gubernatorial victory in Minnesota. This much we know: include nonpoliticians in debates and anything can happen.

Nader's complaint about Gore is likely to hit a nerve -- that Gore is a sellout to big money. "Gore is always saying, 'What a rosy economy this is.' Whose yardstick is he using?" Nader asks. "He's using the yardstick of his corporate paymasters. He's become part of the Clinton indentured situation, beholden to big-business donations." That charge resonates with union voters in the Midwest who are angry with Gore over trade. It also resonates with environmentalists on the West Coast who think Gore is too cautious. Anti-corporate sentiment is the one thing that draws union voters and environmentalists together.

Nader's game is to discredit the Clinton-Gore legacy in an attempt to return the Democratic Party to its progressive principles. Exactly the same goal as Bradley had. Gore hopes Bradley's endorsement will keep liberals on board. That was Bradley's message last week: A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush. But Nader has his own message: "The Gore campaign has responded [to our campaign] by saying they're not losing any sleep over us," Nader said. "To which I respond, slumber on, Al, slumber on."

What do you think? Discuss this article in the Politics & Society conference of Post & Riposte.

More from National Journal.

More on politics and society in Atlantic Unbound and The Atlantic Monthly.

William Schneider is the Cable News Network's senior political analyst. He is also a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C., and a contributing editor for the Los Angeles Times, National Journal, and The Atlantic Monthly. His column appears every week in National Journal, a weekly magazine covering politics and government published in Washington, D.C.

For information on National Journal Group publications, see NationalJournal.com.