The Anti-Gore
by
George Szamuely
New York Press

11/1/00

It was just a matter of time before The New Republic delivered Ralph Nader the ultimate insult. He is – and we might have expected this – an anti-Semite, according to an editorial in last week’s issue, appallingly scurrilous even by the magazine’s abysmal standards. Nader in 1960 wrote an article for American Mercury. Apparently, this now-defunct magazine had also published anti-Semitic pieces. Given Nader’s Lebanese parentage, not to mention his recent suggestion that the United States had been less than evenhanded in the Middle East ("In this conflict you cannot take sides and be an honest broker. The U.S. is taking sides"), and little more needs to be said about him.

As they see the White House slowly slipping from their grasp, desperation seems to have taken hold of the toadies and flacks of the Clinton era, so they launch hysterical vituperations against Nader. Nader is "stealing" votes that rightfully belong to Al Gore. According to The New York Times, Nader’s "willful prankishness" is a "disservice to the electorate," which must be denied the right to vote for whomever it wants. "He calls his wrecking-ball candidacy a matter of principle, but it looks from here like ego run amok."

Really? It is hard to think of two candidates who agree on as little as Gore and Nader. Al Gore’s entire political career has been dedicated to the pursuit of repression at home and the use of force abroad. The Al Gore that Nader supporters are being instructed by Democratic Party heavyweights – Gloria Steinem, Jesse Jackson, Rob Reiner, Martin Sheen – to vote for is someone who favors the "Three Strikes You’re Out" law. Gore also supports extending the death penalty to "drug kingpins, murderers of federal law enforcement officers, and nearly 60 additional kinds of violent felons." Gore would also want to pass legislation requiring criminal defendants "in drug-related crimes who are awaiting trial [to] get off drugs to stay out of jail." In other words, Gore is in favor of imprisonment before trial.

Gore has also urged a crackdown on juvenile crime. He wants to use the FBI "to break up violent teen gangs." He is in favor of laws to ensure that convicted violent juveniles are banned from owning guns for life. Gore also wants to pour more federal money into the nation’s courts. He wants to continue Clinton’s COPS initiative that ostensibly sought to fund 100,000 new cops nationwide. But he wants an additional 50,000. And as if that were not enough, he wants to fund the hiring of an additional 10,000 prosecutors. Gore also proposes tougher penalties for those who commit crimes in front of children. "If you commit violent crime in front of a child, you should pay an even higher price for it, more time in jail, because you have traumatized a child, because you have started a cycle of violence." Gore also wants to enact federal legislation establishing "gang-free zones." There would be curfews on specific gang members, a ban on gang-related clothing and the legal authority to break up gangs once and for all.

Gore is a fervent advocate of "hate-crimes" legislation. Gore has also proposed a Crime Victims’ Bill of Rights, which includes a constitutional amendment guaranteeing such rights for crime victims as being heard in the sentencing process or being notified of a perpetrator’s release. In another piece of Gore-proposed legislation, crime victims would also have the right to take time off work to attend legal proceedings.

Gore is not on record as having voiced any objections to such Clinton administration violations of civil liberties as the federal wiretapping law. Nor has Gore spoken out against the FBI’s Carnivore Internet snooping system.

Al Gore loudly proclaims his opposition to racial profiling. Yet he is not averse to certain kinds of racial profiling. In 1997, as head of the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security, he recommended heightened scrutiny of airline passengers. The commission advocated the establishment of a nationwide computer profiling system to keep personal data on all passengers. Airlines, according to Wired, would thus be able "to compare travelers’ personal data to profiles of likely terrorists." Not surprisingly, Arab-Americans have been the most vociferous in denouncing this policy, since they have been its most frequent victims.

The hero of Hollywood boasts that he intends to spend $50 billion more on defense over the next 10 years than George W. Bush. He intends to go ahead and build a national missile defense system – something, the Russians insist, that violates the 1972 ABM Treaty. Gore plans to continue maintaining sanctions on Iraq irrespective of the suffering it has caused for 10 years.

Gore is proud of having championed air strikes against the Serbs; of bombing a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan; and of having, in December 1998, urged Clinton not to let up in his bombing of Iraq. Gore wants to expand NATO and to station U.S. troops in the Balkans indefinitely. His campaign website states that he "has fought tirelessly to strengthen Israel’s defense capabilities, ensure Israel’s qualitative military edge… and promote a robust and constant U.S. role in the peace process." Evidently he sees no contradiction between the two policies. Moreover, Al Gore "has long supported strengthening Israel’s deterrent capability and increasing U.S.-Israel defense cooperation, including the Arrow missile defense program and the Tactical High-Energy Laser." The term "deterrent" is unambiguous – it refers to nuclear weapons.

Nader probably has more in common with George W. Bush than he does with Al Gore.

Read George Szamuely's Antiwar.com Exclusive Column

Archived Columns by George Szamuely from the New York Press

The Anti-Gore
11/1/00

Who’s to Blame?
10/17/00

Milosevic Robbed
10/10/00

He Dared To Differ
10/3/00

Closed Ballots
9/19/00

Kicking Dick
9/5/00

Whore on Drugs
8/29/00

Soros' World
8/22/00

The Good Lieberman
8/15/00

Nader-Buchanan 2000
8/8/00

W's Oil Warriors
8/1/00

Rupert's Hillary
7/25/00

The Veep's No VIP
7/18/00

Hollow Mexico
7/11/00

Death of Innocents
6/27/00

NATO's Home Free
6/20/00

Poll Attacks
6/13/00

Israel's Powerful Friends
6/6/00

Defense Against What?
5/30/00

God Bless Rehnquist!
5/23/00

Long, Hillary Summer
5/16/00

Communicating Power
5/9/00

Law as Ordered
5/2/00

What Threat?
4/25/00

Peculiar Yet Brave
4/18/00

Closed to Debate
4/11/00

Arrogance of Power
4/4/00

Prison Love
3/28/00

Gore's Oil
3/21/00

Rough Justice
3/14/00

Race Race
3/7/00

Al the Coward
2/29/00

Intruder Alert
2/22/00

McCain's Money
2/15/00

Haider Seek
2/13/00

Out of Africa
2/1/00

Prosecute NATO
1/25/00

Villain or Victim?
1/11/00

Intervention, Immigration, and Internment
1/5/00

Home-Grown Terrorism
12/28/99

Who Benefits?
12/21/99

Laws of Return
12/14/99

Embassy Row
12/7/99

Selling Snake Oil
11/30/99

Chinese Puzzle
11/23/99

That Was No Lady, That Was the Times
11/16/99

The Red Tide Turning?
11/9/99

Pat & The Pod
11/2/99

United Fundamentalist States
10/26/99

Let Them All Have Nukes!
10/19/99

Liar, Liar
10/5/99

Gangster Nations
9/21/99

Puerto Rico Libre – and Good Riddance
9/14/99

Leave China Alone
9/2/99

A World Safe for Kleptocracy
7/7/99

Proud To Be Un-American
6/23/99

All articles reprinted with permission from the New York Press

 

Back to Antiwar.com Home Page | Contact Us