In their arrogance, Gore's operatives blithely predicted at the time of the Democratic convention that Nader would not be a factor by October. With the aid of the corporate media and the rigged Presidential Debates Commission, everything was done to keep Nader's message from being heard. Although the message did attract a following through massive rallies and Green Party grass-roots organizing, the Gore campaign continued to focus on those issues believed to be critical to winning over the middle class suburban voter. In the process, Gore demonstrated once again his contempt for the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. Now, he has called upon the spokespeople for that wing from Gloria Steinem to Jesse Jackson to John Sweeny to come to his aid in denouncing Nader as a stalking horse for Bush.

A quick review of the Gore campaign and his performance in the debates should make clear that Gore has been the primary cause of his wavering support. The first obvious undermining of his base was the selection of Senator Joseph Lieberman, another dreary Democratic Leadership Council conservative who has excited the right more than the left. Moreover, Lieberman's hardline position on the middle east raised the obvious concerns of the Arab-American community (a key constituency in Michigan), leading to the endorsement of Bush by the Arab-American PAC. Had Gore selected Jesse Jackson as his running-mate, he probably could have prevented this defection and shored up his support among African-Americans and progressives.

After a brief rhetorical nod at the convention to labor and the Democratic Rainbow Coalition, Gore headed off in search of that illusive "centrist" constituency, a constituency made up of affluent suburbanite soccer moms and middle class white males. This latter group has not given its majority support for a Democratic Presidential candidate since Lyndon Johnson. Having proven that he had nothing to offer working class voters concerned about unfair trade, unfair labor laws, and the lack of universal health care, Gore went into the debates assuming his debating skills would demonstrate an intellectual prowess that would wow the viewers. Instead, his smarmy style and policy-wonkiness on arcane and narrow issues only further alienated voters who abandoned both the debate tv viewing audience and the Gore campaign.

Where Gore might have taken the opportunity to offer a real alternative to Bush that could have mobilized disaffected and progressive voters, he again managed to prove that there were more similarities than differences between himself and Bush on a vast array of issues. To wit:

Gore quickly agreed with Bush on the crass and discredited argument that deterrence was the main reason why the death penalty should remain. In the face of irrefutable evidence of the discriminatory and flawed character of the death penalty, Gore's political cowardice has made him anathema to many social justice advocates.

Gore tried to outbid Bush on ways of throwing money at the Pentagon. In the face of a 300 billion giveaway that has confounded even some former military leaders, Gore's Reaganesque pro-military positions and his support for unilateral intervention in a variety of hot spots have driven away significant sectors of the peace movement.

Gore and Bush continued to agree on keeping in place the insane and failed war on drugs, a war that has contributed to victimizing even further young and poor African-Americans and Latinos. Is it any surprise that Gore is having difficulty reaching this disaffected and disadvantaged segment of the African-American and Latino community? (It should be noted, however, that close to 13% of African-American males have been disenfranchised because of criminal convictions, stemming primarily from the racial profiling evident in the war on drugs.)

Gore tried to outmuscle Bush on his foreign policy, showing his utter disregard for Palestinian rights and the lives of Iraqi children and disappointing once more significant sectors of the Arab-American community.

Of course, Gore has tried to reassure feminists that he is pro-choice and gays and lesbians that he would support hate-crime legislation. Yet, why has it taken the Clinton-Gore Administration so long to bring RU-486 to market and why was this done right on the eve of the election? Why does Gore still advocate a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy that has led to even more discrimination and violence against gays and lesbians in the military?

Gore apparently does not have to answer for this or for his support of punitive welfare "reform" legislation that has created more difficulties for poor women and, especially, HIV positive impoverished males. Moreover, by claiming he is for campaign finance reform, Gore has tried to cover-up the massive corporate corruption and control of the Democratic Party and his campaign. Since Gore is more than a willing shill for corporate globalization through his support of the WTO and other undemocratic transnational associations, it should not be suprising that many find him to be a rank opportunist and liar.

It is true that Nader has made important policy statements concerning the rights of labor (endorsing a living wage, urging the repeal of Taft-Hartley, and attacking the WTO and NAFTA), establishing universal health care, reducing military spending, protecting the environment, ending corporate welfare while promoting the general welfare, providing social justice for racial and sexual minorities, and seeking campaign finance and electoral reforms. Obviously, these positions have attracted many people who have taken the time and effort to educate themselves away from the restrictive reporting of the corporate media. Yet, Gore and his campaign staff have only themselves to blame for their miserable electioneering and faltering support. That they now have to rely on progressive surrogates to scold Nader for his temerity at providing a real alternative is a sad commentary on how frightened Gore and his institutional backers are that they may have frittered away the election.

Fran Shor teaches at Wayne State University. He is an active member of the Metro Detroit Greens and a coordinator for “Labor for Nader.” His e-mail address is: f.shor@wayne.edu.

###