Should We Fear Bush in Office?

This is an article I posted to rec.music.artists.ani-difranco on 08/05/2000 in response to comments about how it would be better to have Gore in office than Bush.
The scary thing is that in some ways I think some things will be safer
with Bush in office. 

Both Bush and Gore are going to sell our environment up the
river. Both of them are going to support logging on public lands, both
of them are going to support oil drilling on public lands, both of
them are going to support the use of dioxin and heavy metal emitting
incinerators as "alternative green energy" and give tax breaks to the
people who build them.

Neither of them will really support a useful universal health care
program. Neither of them will make any moves to restrict the ever
growing "free trade movement" and the export of american union jobs to
third world sweatshops. Neither of them will touch the WTO or World
Bank. Neither of them will support any kind of campaign finance
reform. 

Neither of them will cause Roe v. Wade to disappear as has been
suggest but both of them will degrade by bits and pieces a woman's
right (it is now twice as hard for a woman to get an abortion in
America as it was when Clinton took office). Since supreme court
justices have to be cleared by Congress there is no way to know what
kinds of justices will get appointed by either Gore or Bush. In the
past republicans have appointed some liberal and moderate justices and
democrats have appointed some conservative ones. All the retiring
Justices are conservatives, so even if the court gets "stacked" with
conservative justices nothing will have "gotten worse". 

But Gore has the endorsement of the Sierra Club and many labor
unions. If he gets in office, these organizations will feel "safe" and
they will not watchdog his every move and they will not mobilize
massive public campaigns against him because they would fear a) losing
his already ineffective support b) weakening his already worthless
position. On the other hand if the opponent Bush were in office then
every progressive organization in this country will be on red alert
for 4 years. _Nothing_ will slip through unnoticed or unquestioned (as
_so_ many things have with the two-faced Clinton in office), there
will be massive public outcry at any bad moves that Bush makes. And
Bush is a politician. He doesn't want to get voted out of office, and
he doesn't want his Party voted out of office...and most importantly
the congress that provides his support will not want to get voted out
of office. 

So I say, go to the polls and vote democrat for all your senators and
representatives and local politicians. Make this country a democrat
country but vote for Nader because you want change and because the
democrats can't take your support for granted. 

If enough of us vote for Nader he will win. Thats how it works after
all. And with a close 3 way race Nader only needs 34% of the vote!

If not enough of us vote for Nader the country will still be
changed. The greens will get millions in matching funds for the 2004
race, the greens will get easier access to the debates for the 2004
race, the greens will get easier access to the ballots for the 2004
race, and the democrats will be forced to start being more progressive
in their policies if they want to stop losing elections. 

We have to take the long view on this. If every 4 years we make a
short-sighted 4 year decision, "what will be the least bad of the two
choices for the next 4 years", then the choices will keep getting
worse and worse. If we make a long-sighted decision, "what will
strengthen the progressive movement in this country so that one day we
can put a progressive president in office and elect a progressive
congress and really get things changed", then the choices can only get
better. 

For those reading who may have missed previous discussion on this
stuff please read these:
http://www.michaelmoore.com/aint.html
http://www.commondreams.org/views/072600-105.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/views/072000-104.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/news2000/0721-01.htm
http://www.fair.org/extra/0002/debates.html
http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2000/07/24/tomo/index.html

And remember, before the debates Jesse Ventura (*) had 7% in the
polls. The debates helped put him over the top to _win_. Ralph Nader
has 8% in the polls right now. Lets work to get him in the debates.

(*) I do not support all of Jesse Ventura's politics but I do
recognize him as a major third party success story and he gives hope
to the movement even if I don't share his views on other things.