Nader & debates

Michael Pollak mpollak at panix.com
Tue Jul 4 19:33:24 PDT 2000


It's the Debates, Stupid: Nader May Turn Politics Upside Down

Don Hazen, AlterNet

July 4, 2000

One of the smoldering issues in Nader's campaign is his fight to be

included in the nationally televised presidential debates. With his

remarkable grasp of facts and history, Nader is a formidable debater

who's eager to do battle with Bush and Gore. But the Commission on

Presidential Debates (CPD), the custodian of the debates, has decreed

that to participate, a candidate must have at least 15 percent support

in 6 specific polls. Nader is already polling between 7 and 10 percent

in California, and close to that in several other states, but getting

to a full 15 percent in the next few months may prove impossible. In

light of this, many observers feel that the CPD -- which is controlled

by the Democratic and Republican parties -- has unfairly stacked the

deck against political insurgents.

At a recent speech in Oakland, CA, Nader got one of the biggest roars

of the evening when he confronted the debate issue head on. "The only

poll taken shows that more than 50 percent of the people want both me

and Buchanan in the debates," Nader revealed. "The debates shouldn't

be based on how many people might vote for you, but how many people

want you in the debates." The crowd instinctively understood a

fundamental rule of American politics -- unless you are a self-funded

billionaire, you simply don't have the money for paid advertising.

Instead, you are dependent on free media appearances to get your

message out. And the grand slam of free media is the national debates,

scheduled for October.

The major parties know that if Nader can get into the debates next to

Bush and Gore, his popularity will skyrocket. As Nader told AlterNet

in an informal interview, "Gore is supposed to be this great debater,

but in the infamous NAFTA debate he took on Perot, a little guy who

didn't know how to debate. Now he's got George W. Bush, another

lightweight. If we want to have a real heavyweight debate, let him

debate me. But he won't."

The Nader threat is so potent that it moved the New York Times to a

pre-emptive attack in an editorial on June 30 -- more than four months

before the election. The Times, perhaps out of touch with the country,

used the "classic spoiler" argument, claiming that candidates Bush and

Gore are different enough that voters shouldn't support Nader nor

should he be in the debates because he threatens to take votes away

from Gore.

What inspired the Times to make such an anti-democratic statement? Why

not have an open forum and not treat the voters like imbeciles? Might

voters want to hear what other candidates like Nader and Reform Party

Candidate Pat Buchanan have to say before deciding whom to vote for in

November? And might not Ralph Nader be just the person who can air out

the political system and inspire a national dialogue about the future

direction of the country?

What if Coke and Pepsi Controlled the Supermarket Shelves?

Curiously, the 15 percent threshold set by the CPD is an arbitrary

one, with no basis in tradition or law. Commenting on the rule,

Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura is reported to have quipped, "That's

like Coke and Pepsi saying that you need 15 percent of the market in

order to get your cola on the supermarket shelf."

Ventura should know. He was only polling at 10 percent when he was

allowed into the Minnesota gubernatorial debates in 1998. By the time

the election rolled around, he had captured a plurality and a win. No

debates, no Ventura victory.

A similar phenomenon happened back in 1980, when the League of Women

Voters, who ran the presidential debates then, allowed in third party

candidate John Anderson. Although Anderson eventually lost the race,

he finished with 7 percent of the popular vote.

But the League of Women Voters was pushed aside in 1987 by the CPD,

which established the 15 percent threshold. It's hard to know where

they got that figure. It's a whole lot higher than the only statutory

figure -- the 5 percent threshold that will qualify a candidate's

party for federal campaign funding in the next election.

In fact, there is a movement building to convince the debate

Commission (co-chaired by former Democratic and Republican party

leaders Paul Kirk and Frank Fahrenkopf) to lower the threshold to 5

percent. The progressive long-distance phone company Working Assets is

telling its customers and constituency that the Commission has set up

rules that unfairly restrict the public's right to be informed and

undermine our nation's democratic principles. Already the Seattle

Times and The Christian Science Monitor have editorialized in favor of

including Nader in the debates.

Fahrenkopf argues that the CPD has logic on its side in sticking to 15

percent. In a recent Salon article by Jake Tapper, Fahrenkopf was

quoted as saying, "There are 216 individuals who have filed their

candidacies for president. The question is: Does the candidate have a

realistic chance of being elected?"

So what about the Jesse Ventura situation? Salon quoted Paul Kirk

somewhat confusingly addressing that issue: "It's a matter of

entertainment vs. the serious question of who would you prefer to be

president of the United States? Otherwise you get into 'Wouldn't it be

fun to have X, Y, Z?'" But isn't that precisely the point -- that

Ventura started out as entertainment but was elected because of his

role in the debates?

Voter interest provides another big reason for including Nader.

Limiting the debates to two major party candidates seems to guarantee

a major drop-off in the public's involvement. The media-watch 'zine

Extra! reported that the 1992 presidential debates, which included

Ross Perot alongside Bill Clinton and President George Bush, "were

watched by an average of more than 90 million viewers. Furthermore,

the audience for each debate grew progressively larger -- from a

viewership of 85 million for the first event to an impressive 97

million for the final broadcast." By contrast, the 1996 debates, which

featured only Clinton and Bob Dole, attracted "an average of fewer

than 42 million households -- with the second debate drawing a far

smaller audience (36 million) than the first (46 million)." Inviting

Nader to participate could inject some badly needed enthusiasm into

the election -- maybe even bolstering voter participation in November.



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list