The Wake

Democrats are still feeling the burn from the razor-thin margin by which Al Gore won the popular vote in the 2000 presidential election, and republicans would like us to forget the tenuous circumstances that brought us under the leadership of George W. Bush. So, in order to squeeze the most votes out of the lump in the political bell curve, the two major parties have made the current race into a fight for the elusive swing voter. In a mad scramble toward the moderate, democrats and republicans are leaving their ideological stalwarts out in the cold.

The democrats had a chance to nominate a candidate who might really have changed things in Washington, D.C. They could have changed millions of lives for the better (indeed, saved millions of lives) by working for universal health care and civil rights – things that should be on the liberal agenda. Instead, Dean and Kucinich ate Iowa’s dust as so-called “liberals” settled for a guy who wants to make health care slightly more affordable and allow second-class unions for gay couples.

When did democrats decide they were no longer the party for the poor and marginalized?

You’ve probably heard the phrase that many democrats employ to warn their über-liberal friends of the dangers of voting their conscience: “a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush.” What you may not realize is that conservative Republicans are hearing a similar warning from mainstream friends. Now, I didn’t even know that there were conservatives running against Bush until I picked up the current issue of “The Minnesota Patriot,” a student-run conservative newspaper that started showing up around campus last spring. Page 10 features a debate over whether conservatives should support the president or vote for Constitution party candidate Michael Peroutka “out of principle.” Alex Newman, defending Bush, actually invokes the phrase “a vote for Peroutka is a vote for Kerry.”

And it’s not just idealistic students whom mainstream republicans would like to reel in. The libertarian magazine “reason” recently ran a Bush-slamming issue that featured a short profile of Libertarian candidate Brian Doherty.

The problem is not that Bush is too liberal – no one in her right mind would accuse this extreme pro-lifer and supporter of regressive taxation of that. But he has abandoned his party’s small government, inwardly focused roots in favor of a big-brother/crusader approach. Instead of shrinking government as a good republican should, Bush has increased federal spending by $400 billion. Instead of advocating privacy, he signed into law the USA PATRIOT Act to increase government surveillance of citizens. Instead of avoiding involvement in foreign affairs whenever possible, he has us mired in an unpopular, pre-emptive war with no UN support.

And, far from promising a recovery to old-time conservativism, the Republican National Committee showcased the party’s future modification at their convention earlier this month, spotlighting moderates such as Rudy Giuliani and Govs. George Pataki and Arnold Schwarzenegger. There’s even chatter of a 2008 presidential nomination for the former big apple mayor. Surely, as Joyce Purnick wrote in the New York Times, the nomination of a pro-choice, pro-gun control, gay rights supporter would make waves in the party.

Or would it? It seems that party big wigs from both camps are counting on the complacency of party loyals as they woo the swing vote. How far can they go before a third (or even fourth, fifth and sixth) party starts looking like a good idea to more voters?