Maybe it reflects a different view of electoral politics. Most Gore Democrats were not necessarily voting for their ideal candidate. However, they did not see it as a lesser of two evilsÑthey saw it as a chance to keep the country moving in the Democratic direction that the Clinton administration had started. And in presidential politics a candidate has to appeal to voters from Iowa, Florida and New Jersey as well as Mendocino County. Sure, Al Gore could be criticized for certain of his past or present positions on issues. But on almost every issue that is important to those who care about the environment and social justice, it seemed obvious that the choice of Gore would make a difference.
At least having someone who believes there is such a thing as global warming, supports the Kyoto Accords, and wrote a book on the subject is better than someone who thinks it is a hoax. Having a president who opposes drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is better than having a Texas oilman who wants to drill there and everywhere else he can find a potential supply. Certainly it is better to have a Justice Department of Janet Reno than the anti-abortionist and civil rights critic John Ashcroft or a Department of the Interior under Bruce Babbitt than Gale Norton, a wise use advocate who wants to take us back to the resource policies of her mentor James Watt.
But it's too late to make this argument for the past election. Hopefully, both sides of this dispute can learn from the experiences of the 2000 campaign and make wiser electoral choices in the next election cycle. Progressive Democrats will continue to work within our party to see that the voices of environmentalists, the poor and the oppressed and labor organizations are heard more clearly. If you attend a state Democratic convention you will see that these voices are a strong and influential part of the Democratic party organization at the grass roots level.
Greens and other activists outside the Democratic party structure will continue to work on these issues in their own way. Direct action and environmental advocacy are activities that do not require a political label. Hopefully, we can work together on areas of mutual concern without regard for political party. Obviously in our democracy anyone is free to organize around a Green Party or any other third party. As Democrats, we will continue to try to make our party and our candidates worthy of your votes at the state and national level.
Luckily, the Congress is so evenly split that the Republican agenda will have difficulty being implemented. But that is the pointÑthere is a Republican agenda and it is vastly different from the Democratic agenda, as anyone who watches the Congress closely must know. The differences have effects on poor and working people in this country and they have effects on our environment.
What Democrats feel is that this election shows how important our votes are and how dangerous it is to throw them away because of loose talk about how there is no difference between the Democrat and the Republican. It may not look like it when we are watching the sound bite presidential debates between the candidates, but when they are elected there is a major difference. We are now about to see it played out on the national stage.
On the local level, I hope we can all move on to the next chapter, acknowledging our differences but building on the commonality of our goals and aspirations for a better world to live in.In the aftermath of the recent presidential elections, local Democrats feel a mixture of sadness and frustration...with a good dose of anger mixed in there, too. Part of the frustration stems from missed opportunities of the Gore campaign and the drift to the center that led many environmental and social justice Democrats to vote for Nader. But most of it comes from disappointment at those who fostered the Big Lie that there was no difference between Bush and Gore.
Maybe it reflects a different view of electoral politics. Most Gore Democrats were not necessarily voting for their ideal candidate. However, they did not see it as a lesser of two evilsÑthey saw it as a chance to keep the country moving in the Democratic direction that the Clinton administration had started. And in presidential politics a candidate has to appeal to voters from Iowa, Florida and New Jersey as well as Mendocino County. Sure, Al Gore could be criticized for certain of his past or present positions on issues. But on almost every issue that is important to those who care about the environment and social justice, it seemed obvious that the choice of Gore would make a difference.
At least having someone who believes there is such a thing as global warming, supports the Kyoto Accords, and wrote a book on the subject is better than someone who thinks it is a hoax. Having a president who opposes drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is better than having a Texas oilman who wants to drill there and everywhere else he can find a potential supply. Certainly it is better to have a Justice Department of Janet Reno than the anti-abortionist and civil rights critic John Ashcroft or a Department of the Interior under Bruce Babbitt than Gale Norton, a wise use advocate who wants to take us back to the resource policies of her mentor James Watt.
But it's too late to make this argument for the past election. Hopefully, both sides of this dispute can learn from the experiences of the 2000 campaign and make wiser electoral choices in the next election cycle. Progressive Democrats will continue to work within our party to see that the voices of environmentalists, the poor and the oppressed and labor organizations are heard more clearly. If you attend a state Democratic convention you will see that these voices are a strong and influential part of the Democratic party organization at the grass roots level.
Greens and other activists outside the Democratic party structure will continue to work on these issues in their own way. Direct action and environmental advocacy are activities that do not require a political label. Hopefully, we can work together on areas of mutual concern without regard for political party. Obviously in our democracy anyone is free to organize around a Green Party or any other third party. As Democrats, we will continue to try to make our party and our candidates worthy of your votes at the state and national level.
Luckily, the Congress is so evenly split that the Republican agenda will have difficulty being implemented. But that is the pointÑthere is a Republican agenda and it is vastly different from the Democratic agenda, as anyone who watches the Congress closely must know. The differences have effects on poor and working people in this country and they have effects on our environment.
What Democrats feel is that this election shows how important our votes are and how dangerous it is to throw them away because of loose talk about how there is no difference between the Democrat and the Republican. It may not look like it when we are watching the sound bite presidential debates between the candidates, but when they are elected there is a major difference. We are now about to see it played out on the national stage.
On the local level, I hope we can all move on to the next chapter, acknowledging our differences but building on the commonality of our goals and aspirations for a better world to live in.
Copyright Mendocino Environmental Center 2001
Permission granted to excerpt or use this article if source is cited