Maisha Elonai Elonai is finishing her
last quarter as an English student at UCLA. Like a good columnist,
she’ll stick her nose in anybody’s business. Feel free to return
the favor at [email protected].
Click Here for more articles by Maisha Elonai
From almost three million miles away, asteroid SG344 speeds
toward Earth. Comets and asteroids have been regarded as portents
of evil since the Middle Ages, and scientists affirm that this one
also could be bad juju for our planet.
Only 5,450 miles away in the city of London, the Nov. 7 Los
Angeles Times reported that surgeons operated to separate conjoined
twins, dooming one child to save the other. That event, too, could
be read as an omen of ill at hand.
At home, my father silently adheres his Nov. 7 “I
voted” sticker to the roll of toilet paper in our master
bathroom. I know what he means: this was the election of our
discontent.
Hanging over the country like an incoming asteroid, the Election
2000 dispute does not bode well for our next president. Throughout
their campaigns, George W. Bush and Al Gore have seemed barely
distinguishable in the public eye: both have been generally
portrayed as bumbling centrists. And like those babies in London,
the surviving candidate will probably be haunted by the specter of
his unelected twin for a long, long time.
From almost three million miles away, asteroid SG344 speeds
toward Earth. Comets and asteroids have been regarded as portents
of evil since the Middle Ages, and scientists affirm that this one
also could be bad juju for our planet.
Only 5,450 miles away in the city of London, the Nov. 7 Los
Angeles Times reported that surgeons operated to separate conjoined
twins, dooming one child to save the other. That event, too, could
be read as an omen of ill at hand.
 Illustration by CLEMENT LAM/Daily Bruin At home, my
father silently adheres his Nov. 7 “I voted” sticker to
the roll of toilet paper in our master bathroom. I know what he
means: this was the election of our discontent.
Hanging over the country like an incoming asteroid, the Election
2000 dispute does not bode well for our next president. Throughout
their campaigns, George W. Bush and Al Gore have seemed barely
distinguishable in the public eye: both have been generally
portrayed as bumbling centrists. And like those babies in London,
the surviving candidate will probably be haunted by the specter of
his unelected twin for a long, long time.
But despite general frustration with the election process, the
political left has a lot to learn from this vote.
“The Democrats have to figure out that you can’t
alienate the base of your constituency,” my friend says with
ardor. “That’s why I’m voting for
Nader.”
His disgust with moderation was shared by many liberals this
year, which is probably what earned Ralph Nader most of his
2,709,232 votes, or 3 percent of the national total, according to
CNN.com as of Monday, Nov. 13. But at what cost to the country?
At the end of the second ballot count, Bush held a 388-vote lead
in the state of Florida. The state of New Mexico, which early
predictions assumed favored Gore, has been thrown to the Texas
governor by a narrower margin. The Bush camp also has considered
calling for a recount in states which Gore won by less than 6,000
votes, throwing Iowa and Wisconsin’s electoral counts into
question.
Not only has Nader failed to receive the number of votes
necessary to earn federal funding for the Green party during the
next presidential race, but he has detracted enough votes from the
Democratic party that Gore now has slim chances of assuming the
presidency. The political pundits probably were right when they
argued that a vote for Nader was a vote for Bush.
If Gore does not win the state of Florida by some miracle of
absentee ballots, the Texas governor will step into office. Our
next president will be the man who saw 131 prisoners executed in
his state during his five-and-a-half-year tenure. He will be the
man who was against enforcing the 1997 standard for smog and soot
stated in the nation’s Clean Air Act. He will be the
federalist with the power to veto national legislative packages
expanding civil rights.
Most likely, he will appoint replacements for a few justices on
the already conservative Supreme Court. Most likely, he will be
working to pass or halt legislation with the aid of a
Republican-dominated Congress.
Was the vote for Nader really worthwhile? Bush’s election
could mean a Democrat’s worst nightmare ““ total
Republican domination of the federal government.
If Bush ascends to the presidency, the Democrats will have
learned the hard way not to alienate their constituency, but voters
will be doomed to the consequences of their ideology as well. We
can kiss protection for gay rights goodbye, and we might as well
forget about the retirement benefits that our generation should be
guaranteed by federal programs like social security. Bush has been
eyeing those issues with distrust since early in his campaign.
Never mind the popular opinion that a Gore-Lieberman
administration would be exactly the same as a Bush-Cheney
administration. There still are differences between compassionate
conservatism and moderate liberalism.
Voters just have to skim over candidates’ public
statements and voting records to figure out what those differences
are. That task is not as difficult or time-consuming as it sounds.
A quick search on the candidates’ own campaign pages or
impartial Web sites like www.vote-smart.org reveal surprisingly
potent political stances.
George W., for example, has come down hard on the age-old issue
of abortion. In the first presidential debates he directly stated,
“I am pro-life,” and he agreed that he would support
legislation to overturn the FDA’s recent approval of the
abortion pill RU-486.
Gore, on the other hand, said that he would appoint justices to
the Supreme Court with “a philosophy that would uphold Roe v.
Wade,” and he agreed to support the FDA’s approval of
the pill.
But if abortion seems like a hackneyed election issue, try this
on for size:
During the first presidential debate, Gore stated he would be
reluctant to introduce military involvement in a foreign country.
Bush, on the other hand, believes that the United States must have
a “strong diplomatic hand with our friends in NATO” and
use “pressure and diplomacy” to resolve international
affairs.
With crises exploding in Yemen, continuing in the Middle East
and settling in Yugoslavia, the subtle difference between these two
statements could create disparate policies toward U.S. diplomatic
relations with foreign countries that would influence the need for
military intervention.
The candidates have different domestic policies too. If elected,
Bush said that he would refuse public financing of Congressional
elections. Gore would support campaign finance reform by sending
legislation to Congress producing just such a result.
Bush wants to cut taxes and avoid federal “strings.”
Gore wants to keep taxes that support federal “aid.”
The programs their policies impact will affect our education, our
wages, our prospects in the private sector, our health care, our
national security, our future family lives and our eventual
retirement.
It will make a difference who is elected president, so voters
should take care to temper their political ideology with a
smattering of pragmatism and spend time researching their
candidates. If voters had wanted even a moderate liberal in place,
they should have saved their crusade against centrism for a race
that wasn’t as close.
But all of that is all over now.
The American people have cast their ballots. Because of their
so-called “moderate” policies, Democratic big-wigs
probably will have to grin and bear four years of being stifled in
every branch of government by the conservative majority.
Nader voters will have to swallow legislation force-fed them by
newly-elected Republican overlords while their political ideology
eats dust.And those liberals who did vote for Gore and didn’t
get their wish, well, we’ll just have to bite the bullet and
watch the election’s national consequences rush at us like a
charging elephant.
With any luck, by the next presidential race, Democrats will
turn back toward the left and liberals will turn back to the
party.But despite general frustration with the election process,
the political left has a lot to learn from this vote.
“The Democrats have to figure out that you can’t
alienate the base of your constituency,” my friend says with
ardor. “That’s why I’m voting for
Nader.”
His disgust with moderation was shared by many liberals this
year, which is probably what earned Ralph Nader most of his
2,709,232 votes, or 3 percent of the national total, according to
CNN.com as of Monday, Nov. 13. But at what cost to the country?
At the end of the second ballot count, Bush held a 388-vote lead
in the state of Florida. The state of New Mexico, which early
predictions assumed favored Gore, has been thrown to the Texas
governor by a narrower margin. The Bush camp also has considered
calling for a recount in states which Gore won by less than 6,000
votes, throwing Iowa and Wisconsin’s electoral counts into
question.
Not only has Nader failed to receive the number of votes
necessary to earn federal funding for the Green party during the
next presidential race, but he has detracted enough votes from the
Democratic party that Gore now has slim chances of assuming the
presidency. The political pundits probably were right when they
argued that a vote for Nader was a vote for Bush.
If Gore does not win the state of Florida by some miracle of
absentee ballots, the Texas governor will step into office. Our
next president will be the man who saw 131 prisoners executed in
his state during his five-and-a-half-year tenure. He will be the
man who was against enforcing the 1997 standard for smog and soot
stated in the nation’s Clean Air Act. He will be the
federalist with the power to veto national legislative packages
expanding civil rights.
Most likely, he will appoint replacements for a few justices on
the already conservative Supreme Court. Most likely, he will be
working to pass or halt legislation with the aid of a
Republican-dominated Congress.
Was the vote for Nader really worthwhile? Bush’s election
could mean a Democrat’s worst nightmare ““ total
Republican domination of the federal government.
If Bush ascends to the presidency, the Democrats will have
learned the hard way not to alienate their constituency, but voters
will be doomed to the consequences of their ideology as well. We
can kiss protection for gay rights goodbye, and we might as well
forget about the retirement benefits that our generation should be
guaranteed by federal programs like social security. Bush has been
eyeing those issues with distrust since early in his campaign.
Never mind the popular opinion that a Gore-Lieberman
administration would be exactly the same as a Bush-Cheney
administration. There still are differences between compassionate
conservatism and moderate liberalism.
Voters just have to skim over candidates’ public
statements and voting records to figure out what those differences
are. That task is not as difficult or time-consuming as it sounds.
A quick search on the candidates’ own campaign pages or
impartial Web sites like www.vote-smart.org reveal surprisingly
potent political stances.
George W., for example, has come down hard on the age-old issue
of abortion. In the first presidential debates he directly stated,
“I am pro-life,” and he agreed that he would support
legislation to overturn the FDA’s recent approval of the
abortion pill RU-486.
Gore, on the other hand, said that he would appoint justices to
the Supreme Court with “a philosophy that would uphold Roe v.
Wade,” and he agreed to support the FDA’s approval of
the pill.
But if abortion seems like a hackneyed election issue, try this
on for size:
During the first presidential debate, Gore stated he would be
reluctant to introduce military involvement in a foreign country.
Bush, on the other hand, believes that the United States must have
a “strong diplomatic hand with our friends in NATO” and
use “pressure and diplomacy” to resolve international
affairs.
With crises exploding in Yemen, continuing in the Middle East
and settling in Yugoslavia, the subtle difference between these two
statements could create disparate policies toward U.S. diplomatic
relations with foreign countries that would influence the need for
military intervention.
The candidates have different domestic policies too. If elected,
Bush said that he would refuse public financing of Congressional
elections. Gore would support campaign finance reform by sending
legislation to Congress producing just such a result.
Bush wants to cut taxes and avoid federal “strings.”
Gore wants to keep taxes that support federal “aid.”
The programs their policies impact will affect our education, our
wages, our prospects in the private sector, our health care, our
national security, our future family lives and our eventual
retirement.
It will make a difference who is elected president, so voters
should take care to temper their political ideology with a
smattering of pragmatism and spend time researching their
candidates. If voters had wanted even a moderate liberal in place,
they should have saved their crusade against centrism for a race
that wasn’t as close.
But all of that is all over now.
The American people have cast their ballots. Because of their
so-called “moderate” policies, Democratic big-wigs
probably will have to grin and bear four years of being stifled in
every branch of government by the conservative majority.
Nader voters will have to swallow legislation force-fed them by
newly-elected Republican overlords while their political ideology
eats dust.And those liberals who did vote for Gore and didn’t
get their wish, well, we’ll just have to bite the bullet and
watch the election’s national consequences rush at us like a
charging elephant.
With any luck, by the next presidential race, Democrats will
turn back toward the left and liberals will turn back to the
party.