Actually, I'd say the current situation is the fault of "Third Way" democrats.
It's nothing new that Republicans in the US attack the value of government and deride the ability of government to improve people's lives. What is new in the last decade is tht the Democrats - led by Clinton and Gore - have largely agreed with the Republican diagnosis of how bad "big government" is, and joined the Republicans in deriding the ability of government to have a positive impact on people's lives, (A good example is how Clinton - seeking a short-term political advantage in negotiating the budget in congress - popularized the notion that Social Security, arguably once the most effective and popular US government program of all, is actually a soon-to-be bankrupt failure).
Since the opinions of the two national parties set the bounds of national opinion (at least in the major newsmedia), it's not particularly suprising that after a decade of both parties agreeing on the "government bad" position, and no major public figures disagreeing, large portions of the public are anti-government.
In any case, Gore is as New Democrat as they come; he is if anything more "moderate" as President Clinton, despite the article's implication that he's more liberal than Clinton. I'd say Gore's failure this year (if he fails) represents the limits of the Third Way strategy, not the need for more of the same.
: Should they be answering the charge of big government by being more
: explicit about the influence of big money on the whole election contest?
I have no idea what they could do to rescue the situation. But it would help if he didn't completely blow the third debate as he has the second.
Here's an excerpt from a comment of Michael Moore's on the sitation after the second debate...
************************* My good friends who are "Gore" supporters have been miserable all day. They could not believe how he just sat there and, other than pointing out the rotten state of child health care in Texas, let "Bush" go on and on, never challenging his facts or his record. All the polls agreed -- the people thought "Bush" won, and, more frightening, they started to like him and see him as "presidential." For the first time, a lot of people saw the distinct possibility of a George W. administration.
So, as you can imagine, the e-mails started pouring in immediately.
"Mike! Back off with this Nader thing! Gore is going to lose!"
Yes, he might. But, let me ask you -- is this Ralph Nader's fault or Al Gore's? Did Ralph Nader tell Gore to sit there like a wimp last night? Did Ralph Nader tell Gore to just agree with whatever drivel came out of Bush's mouth? Did Ralph Nader abandon the working class backbone of the Democratic Party for 8 years? Why the hell do you think Bush is ahead in most polls "during the greatest economic prosperity in our history?" Voters NEVER want a change when the economy is "booming." NEVER! So why do you think this is happening, my fellow members of the computer and Internet elite?
Because the average working stiff has seen little or none of this so-called prosperity! They are working their collective ass off, living from paycheck to paycheck. You can buy this baloney that "50% of the public now owns stock", but the truth is that just 5% -- the richest 5% -- of the citizens in this country own 75% of all the stock! So, don't act surprised if Joe Blow is not that interested in continuing the party that Clinton and Gore have been throwing for Wall Street.
I am sorry things have turned south for Gore. As I have said before, I have met the man and I believe him to be a decent and good person. But he and his partner lost their way a long time ago. And now he is paying the price. This has NOTHING to do with Ralph Nader. It has everything to do with having the courage of your own convictions. ********************************
--BD