Would Carter have dismantled social programs with the same zeal as Reagan? I doubt it, given that Carter's conservatism was more technocratic than Reagan's ideological version. But Carter was gearing up for a new Cold War, was increasingly interventionist overseas, and even reinstated draft registration! How would he pay for all this in a second term? Chances are by cutting social spending, again, at his pace, not Reagan's (but then again, who knows?).
But all this is moot. Reagan would have won and did win. John Anderson had nothing to do with it. The comparison to the Greens is laughable. There was no real Anderson "party" backing him, just a bunch of liberal Repubs and Kennedy supporters who were disgusted with both Carter and Reagan. Nader, on the other hand (and despite Katha Pollitt's claim that all she's seen are a bunch of old hippies), has served as a rallying point for many grassroots activists -- not terribly well-organized or well-financed, I'll admit, but nevertheless alive and very much breathing. Anderson had nothing like this. The challenge for the Greens is to expand beyond Nader (who is 66) and build on the promise of this sometimes chaotic, but highly inspiring campaign.
DP
----------
>From: Dan Epstein <dse at cableco-op.com>
>To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
>Subject: What ever happened to John Anderson?
>Date: Mon, Nov 6, 2000, 3:50 PM
>
>Hi Folks,
>
>I've enjoyed the discussions on this list, and thought I'd contribute
>the latest attack piece on Nader. I'm not knowledgeable enough about
>Anderson and those times to comment adequately except to say that I've
>never heard of him being in the same league as Nader and the Greens.
>Therefore, a comparison is invalid, snide remarks notwithstanding.
>
>Other than that, any comments would be appreciated.
>
>Dan
>
>THE LAST VOTE
>
>By Fred Pelka
>
>What ever happened to John Anderson?
>
>I ask this after reading today's banner headline in the Boston Herald.
>"NADER LASHES OUT AT GORE." Past endorsers of Ronald Reagan, admirers of
>Strom Thurmond and Jessie Helms, and current endorsers of G.W. Bush, the
>editors of the Herald must have laughed themselves silly over that one.
>
>John Anderson, for those too young to remember, was the "progressive
>alternative candidate" who ran for president in 1980. Anderson
>supporters -- environmentalists, Hollywood celebrities, and what were
>then called "limousine liberals" -- told the electorate that there
>really was no difference between Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan.
>Democrats and Republicans, said Anderson, were "Tweedle dee and Tweedle
>dum," (George Wallace liked that phrase, Nader uses it now) and so it
>didn't matter which party won the White House. In fact, they said, a
>conservative Republican victory would be GOOD for the progressive
>movement, since four years of Reagan would so infuriate the American
>people that the 1984 elections would see a massive shift to the left.
>Which is why, I suppose, Reagan received such a thorough thrashing in
>1984, Ralph Nader became president in 1992, and the 2000 elections find
>conservative Republicans and Moral Majority types everywhere on the run.
>
>Anyway, I often asked that question -- whatever happened to John
>Anderson -- during the awful 1980s. I was living in public housing at
>the time, and let me tell you, it was no Green Party picnic. There may
>have been no difference between Carter and Reagan to Anderson and his
>"progressive" friends, but there sure was a hell of a difference to us
>folks in the unwashed masses. Because Reagan, you see, cut the federal
>budget for public housing by more than two thirds. He ended all future
>public housing construction. He eliminated most housing vouchers. In
>short, he made our lives miserable, driving people into poverty,
>despair, and in many cases, homelessness.
>
>I mention all this because I detect a certain -- how shall I put it? --
>whiff of ELITISM from Ralph Nader and his Greens. It is particularly
>evident when Nader says things like a Bush presidency might actually be
>GOOD for the progressive movement because it will "energize" us just
>like James Watt "energized" the environmental movement in the 1980s. (In
>other words, we may have to burn the environment in order to save the
>environment).
>
>Ah yes, my friends and I sure were "energized" by Reagan. I lived in a
>housing complex set aside for "elderly/disabled" residents. Here's what
>happened after Reagan was elected. First, they shut down our health
>clinic, meaning elderly and disabled folks had to hike across town for
>medical care that was also being slashed by budget cuts. Then they fired
>the Hispanic woman who was our security guard, which meant that folks in
>our building found themselves being assaulted in the halls at night by
>neighborhood toughs who figured we were now easy pickings. Then they
>raised our rent, from twenty-five to THIRTY PERCENT of our fixed
>incomes. Which was one reason why progressive activists like Ralph Nader
>had to step over so many homeless folk on their way to anti-nuke and
>Green Party rallies.
>
>So -- where were John Anderson and his supporters? Funny thing, but I
>didn't see a single one of them after the election, coming by to help
>the folks devastated by the election of "Tweedle dee." Not a one.
>
>Fast forward to election 2000, and Ralph Nader's campaign to go down in
>history as the elitist who put G.W. Bush in the White House.
>
>Now, there are a LOT of things that scare me about Bush. I worry about
>how he says Scalia and Thomas are his favorite Supreme Court justices,
>especially when I consider that the next president will appoint at least
>two and possibly FOUR new justices. Scalia, of course, is the justice
>who has publicly called for overturning Roe v. Wade. Bush, asked about
>that, told CNN that this was "only one reason" why he likes Scalia so
>much. But, says Nader and the Green Party, not to worry. In the same New
>York Times piece wherein Nader waxed enthusiastic over James Watt at
>Interior, he told us that he doesn't believe Republicans are serious
>about overturning Roe v. Wade. Boy, am I relieved! I mean, not only is
>Nader the John Anderson of 2000, he's a mind reader as well! So all you
>women out there concerned about the right to choose -- lighten up! Ralph
>Nader and the Green Party have it all figured out, and Gloria Steinem,
>NOW, the National Abortion Rights Action League, and all those other
>feminists and pro-choice activists urging Nader to end his campaign are
>just plain wrong. Silly girls.
>
>But let's set aside reproductive choice (Gore is pro-choice, Bush is
>anti), drilling in the Alaska wilderness (Gore is against, Bush is for),
>privatizing Social Security (Gore is against, Bush is pro), extending
>the Hate Crimes Act to include gays/lesbians and people with
>disabilities (Gore says yes, Bush says no), "Right to work" union
>busting laws (Gore is against, Bush is for), affirmative action (Gore is
>for, Bush is against), school vouchers to drain money from public
>schools (Gore is against, Bush is for) and a massive tax cut to benefit
>the wealthiest one percent (Bush is for, Gore is against). What has me
>worried personally is the Bush vow to amend the guts out of the
>Americans with Disabilities Act. I just happen to be a person with a
>disability. Most of my friends are persons with disabilities. And we
>worry about George Bush. And we wonder why Ralph Nader and the Green
>Party are so determined to play Russian roulette with OUR civil rights.
>
>A little background here: the Bush Republican Party in Texas wants to
>"amend" the ADA to exclude people with "contagious diseases," "behavior
>disorders" and "learning disabilities." "Contagious diseases" is code
>for HIV/AIDS. It just burns Republicans up to think that some landlord,
>corporate boss, or bank can't evict, fire, or refuse a mortgage or car
>loan to somebody just because they're HIV positive. Not wanting to
>appear to be the bigots they really are, they came up with this
>"contagious disease" language that would leave vulnerable to
>discrimination not only people with HIV/AIDS, but also people with
>tuberculosis, hepatitis, herpes, maybe even polio. Just think -- your
>boss might be able to fire you just because you have herpes. In the same
>way, people who take medication for depression could be evicted from
>their apartments, if their landlord thinks that "crazy people" shouldn't
>live out in the community. That's what Bush wants to do.
>
>Gore, by contrast, says he'll veto any attempt to weaken the ADA. Which
>is why, all else being equal, the man has my vote. But of course, not
>all else is equal. Not unless you happen to be white, male,
>heterosexual, non-disabled, non-union member, and college educated to
>boot. In other words, not unless you happen to be a member of the Green
>Party.
>
>Someone once said, of English politics, that there may be only a
>marginal difference between Labor and Tory, but millions and millions of
>people live inside that margin. Or, as Molly Ivans said, shit flows
>downhill. Meaning, if Bush wins, Ralph Nader, Michael Moore, and most
>everyone else in the Green Party won't suffer one whit. To them, the
>outcome of this election makes no difference at all, because they are
>IMMUNE. But to me, and to my disabled brothers and sisters -- not to
>mention people of color, gays and lesbians, people with HIV/AIDS,
>working people who AREN'T college educated, elderly people who rely on
>Social Security, etc. etc. etc. -- to all these people the outcome of
>this election will make all the difference in the world.
>
>So again I ask -- what ever happened to John Anderson?
>
>Well, he drifted around a few years, and then in 1984 he endorsed Walter
>Mondale, who four years earlier had been a junior partner to "Tweedle
>dum." In other words, a mainstream Democrat. In other words, Al Gore.
>
>And where will Ralph Nader be in four years?
>
>Impossible to say. But we do know some things for certain:
>
>Ralph Nader will NOT be forced to have a child against his will.
>
>Ralph Nader WON'T lose a job or a chance at a college education because
>of the end of affirmative action.
>
>Ralph Nader WON'T be living in public housing.
>
>Ralph Nader WON'T lose his job or home solely because he has a
>disability.
>
>Probably, Ralph Nader will write another book and then go back out on
>the TV/campus lecture circuit. His Green Party enthusiasts will go back
>to their classes and their middle class careers, stepping over folks
>like me on their way to their rallies and fund-raisers.
>
>Leaving the rest of us to pick up the pieces.
>
>Post script one: John Anderson managed to siphon off just enough votes
>in Massachusetts to tip the state from Jimmy Carter to Ronald Reagan.
>The editors of the Herald were mighty pleased. Ralph Nader, according to
>the New York Times, might give NINE states to G.W. Bush. I bet those
>Green Party folks are just so proud!
>
>Post script two: I received a form letter from the Green Party today
>asking me for a thousand dollars for Ralph Nader. I guess that's what
>they mean by "grass roots organizing."
>