Ventura

Steve Perry sperry at usinternet.com
Fri Nov 6 08:24:08 PST 1998


Having read Micah's piece again under a lesser head of steam, I think I appreciate better what he was trying to say. I still think it's misleading to call this a left vote, for two reasons: One, though Jesse took votes from both his opponents, he pretty clearly took *more* votes away from the Republican Coleman. Two, it would be more accurate to say of the Ventura voters that he drew to the polls a lot of people who likewise might have been drawn to a candidate of the left IF there had been one.

Part of my strong gut reaction to calling this a triumph for the left (as opposed to anti-establishment sentiment in general) is that I was out among the Wellstone voters in '90 and I was out among the Ventura voters in '98. Wellstone did win on the strength of his perceived left populism; with Jesse the picture is much more fragmentary and hard to read.

Another consideration. You should also realize that if we on the left start calling this a win for the left, it only fuels the argument for Minnesota exceptionalism--that what happened with PW and JV could only happen in Minnesota with its liberal tradition of blah blah blah. It sends a message to lefties and pwogs across the country that's dispiriting as well as just plain wrong. Minnesota has had a Republican governor for several years now, and this year voters gave control of the state House to Republicans as well. Minnesota liberalism is a myth now; ever since rural poverty began rising precipitously and the cities began to attract poorer people and people of color from around the Midwest, the old liberal consensus here has quickly eroded.

It was the *campaigns* of Wellstone and Ventura that were exceptional--as noted earlier, they both used the same ad guy, a key figure in both races--and there is no reason at all that their success can't be duplicated elsewhere.

---------- From: Steve Perry Sent: Friday, November 06, 1998 9:31 AM To: 'lbo-talk at lists.panix.com' Subject: RE: Ventura

This is an interesting piece, but there is one rather basic problem with Micah's use of the exit poll data to show a lefty skew in the Ventura vote: The one key datum he omits is that according to exit polls of ALL voters, if Jesse had not been in the race, the Republican Coleman would have received 47 percent of the vote, Humphrey 39; 12 percent overall said they would have stayed home. (There were several other minor candidates on the ballot, which is why these numbers don't add up to 100.) There are lots of ways to spin numbers, I realize, but exactly how this warrants the conclusion that "Ventura's vote... leaned distinctly to the left" is pretty hard to see. I mean, Jesus, if you take out the segment who say they would not have voted at all in a race sans Jesse, you've got the Republican winning by a 10-12 point margin.

It was a profoundly anti-establishment vote, yes, but to try and see a left-populist angle in Jesse or the majority of his voters is pretty dicey. Yes, he's against school vouchers and for repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, but he also says that most poverty programs should be replaced by the efforts of churches and private charities. You can make Jesse the new hero of the left, if you like, but you will look pretty goddamn dumb in short order. Better to applaud Jesse for the intelligence and opportunism of his campaign, which has a lot to teach outsider candidates everywhere; and the voters themselves for their thorough-going rejection of major party business as usual. But they weren't voting left. Sorry.

---------- From: Doug Henwood Sent: Friday, November 06, 1998 8:09 AM To: LBO-talk at lists.panix.com Subject: Ventura

[A memo on the Jesse "The Body" Ventura victory in Minnesota by Micah Sifry, formerly of The Nation and now of Public Campaign, a group promoting campaign finance reform. "Clean money" ballot initiatives based on their model passed in Massachusetts and Arizona Tuesday. This is the unedited draft of a piece that should appear in Salon imminently.]

If this was a "Seinfeld election," an election about nothing, then how

do you explain Jesse Ventura's stunning victory in the Minnesota

governor's race last Tuesday? Even the 47-year-old former Navy Seal

and professional wrestler turned talk-radio host and small-town mayor

seemed at an uncharacteristic loss of words. "Ask them," meaning the

voters, he told reporters the day after the election.

Actually, looking at the voters is a good place to start. Ventura won

the three-way race against Republican Norm Coleman and Democrat Hubert

"Skip" Humphrey III by a vote of 37 to 34 to 29 percent, respectively.

But the day before the election, the Star-Tribune/KMSP-TV Minnesota

Poll showed him tied with Humphrey at 29 percent each, with Coleman

leading at 36 percent. What happened?

A huge surge of new voters, many of them newly enthusiastic young

people, showed up at the polls. And Minnesota allows voters to

register to vote as late as election day. At one precinct in St. Paul,

120 of the more than 600 people that voted were new registrants.

Turnout exploded. According to state election officials, it was like a

presidential election was taking place. Typically, about fifty-three

percent of eligible voters come out for a mid-term election in

Minnesota, but estimates of Tuesday's turnout were running at sixty

percent and higher. Twenty-eight percent of the people who voted for

Ventura said they wouldn't have if he were not on the ballot,

according to exit polls. And it was the mobilization of these

"unlikely voters," as I predicted a week ago in Salon, that made all

the difference.

The shape of Ventura's vote was as important as its size. He did well

with all the age groups except those over 60, and won a whopping 46

percent of the 18 to 29 year olds. (Does this mean that Generation X

agrees with the Ventura radio ad where he declared that "The n

you can pare down the influence of money on the political system,"

said Todd Paulson, executive director for Minnesota's Common Cause.

"It's the closest thing I've ever seen to a revolution."

And the major party candidates had no idea what hit them. On Election

Night, as local reports showed Ventura in the lead with half the votes

counted, Humphrey told people at his non-victory party "We're just

coming around the corners. I think they're going to be showing a

Humphrey victory." Across town, Coleman was telling his supporters to

"keep the faith." Uh-huh. A day later, Dane Smith, the Star-Tribune's

chief political reporter, said that local Democrats and Republicans

had gone into hiding. "We can't find any of them today," he told NPR's

All Things Considered. "They're not answering their phones."

Apparently, the revolutionary character of Ventura's campaign has a

lot of people freaked out, especially the media elites who keep

telling us that there are only two flavors to choose from in politics,

Bland A and Bland B. And their condescencion has been open.

Interviewing Ventura, NBC's Tom Brokaw asked him if he should be

addressed as "Governor Jesse Ventura, or Governor Jesse `The Body'

Ventura." You could almost hear the snickers from the control room.

The New York Times front-page story on his win couldn't resist poking

fun at his roots in the pro-wrestling business either. Robert Scheer,

a columnist for the Los Angeles Times and a limousine liberal if there

ever was one, said on his radio show on KCRW that "The people of

Minnesota should be spanked for letting this happen." Even Hillary

Rodham Clinton piled on with a disdainful reference to Ventura's

"traveling road show." This isn't an attack on Ventura's lack of a

detailed platform for what he will do as governor. It's a

nose-held-high sneer at someone who didn't come up the conventional

path, didn't go to an Ivy League school, likes to party and doesn't

apologize for it_and whose success just proved how narrow-minded the

elites really are.

"The conventional analysis we're fed is that people are happy with

politics and they like the politicians they have," says Patrick

Caddell, onetime political adviser to a host of maverick Democrats

ranging from Jimmy Carter to Jerry Brown. "Jesse Ventura suggests

that's not true. The fact that he won is like a can opener. It says to

other people in other states `why can't we have people like this?'.

It's a dangerous example. His candidacy represents a threat to the

established order, and so it's not surprising to see elites try to

marginalize him at every point."

One political leader who takes Ventura very seriously and respectfully

is Paul Wellstone, the senior senator from Minnesota, who has also run

and won two populist campaigns for office. (Not to mention that he is

also a longtime wrestler, albeit of the amateur college variety.)

"What I most appreciate about his campaign and victory is the

downright anti-establishment part of it," Wellstone told me in a

November 5 phone interview. "The message was `look, you gatekeepers

who supposedly decide who can run, and who is viable and who is

serious and who can win -we're going to take you on.' I like that. I

also appreciate the political reform part [of Ventura's message],

which was very much for real." When I told him liberals like Robert

Scheer wanted to "spank" Minnesota, Wellstone immediately replied

"That's ridiculous. That's a huge mistake. That's the same elitism

that looks down on people, and gets liberals into big trouble that

they deserve to be in."

Wellstone was looking forward to sitting down with Ventura's

staff_they've already called him to set up a meeting_and working

together on areas of common agreement. But he expressed some concerns

about the content of the Governor-elect's program, noting that

populism has historically taken many forms, not all of them friendly.

After acknowledging Ventura's opposition to corporate welfare, his

support for public schools and his environmentalism, he pointed to

some worries. "Please remember that during the campaign he also said

to students in higher education, in community colleges, that if you're

smart enough to get to college you're smart enough to pay for it.

Community college students not needing help? Jeez! And he also said

that he doesn't see a role for government to make child care more

affordable. He's also talking about massive tax cuts while reducing

class sizes. I'll be interested in seeing how you do that, how you

invest in a commitment to children starting school ready to learn." I

noted as well Ventura's announcement during the last weekend of the

campaign that he opposed the idea of requiring government contractors

to pay a "living wage," a hot issue in Minneapolis right now. "If

those are the policies," Wellstone said with a growl, "I look forward

to a vigorous debate."

In the meantime, the genie is out of the bottle_and the two major

parties are going to have a hell of a time stuffing it back in.

-------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 7799 bytes Desc: not available URL: <../attachments/19981106/f014e9fa/attachment.bin>



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list