So like I said I would, I voted for Ralph and felt good about it. I even wore all green to the polling place, hoping some idiot poll worker would challenge me so I could make a stink. But no such luck. The Invisible Man proved to be a fairly irritating standard bearer for the Greens, with his refusal to campaign (though he warned us from the beginning that it was up to us if we wanted to make anything of his candidacy). Lloyd Dangle's "Troubletown" cartoon showed an anguished voter confronted with Bill, Bob and Ross, then turning to Ralph in the final panel, only to be told that he would not accept any votes "out of principle."He had counted on getting something like the free media Ross the Boss got in '92, but was effectively blacked out, except for very occasional ridicule and abuse. After early polls showed him getting as much as 5%, he was simply left out of the polling data. On election night, the networks usually left all 3rd partiers but Ross off their totals, even to the point of counting only the two parties' totals as 100% in some races, no matter how much others were accruing. For instance, in Alaska, the Green Party candidate for Senate got 13% (and spent only $4000), while the Democrat got 10%. Is this the first you've heard of that?
In the end, Ralph got over a half million votes and came in fourth with about .6%, ahead of the Libertarians, even though the Greens were only on the ballot in 22 states (thanks to post-Perot ballot-access restrictions). Ralph got 4% in Oregon, 3% in Alaska and Hawaii, 2.5% in California, New Mexico, Maine, Washington DC and Washington state.
Imagine what he could have done if people actually knew he was running. Despite the grudging mandate for the status quo, I actually believe there's an untapped potential for a progressive politics-in the vaccuum left by the Duopoly's failure to address the question of stagnating wages and living standards. In a recent issue of The Nation, an article by Joel Rogers and Bruce Colburn, "What's Next: Beyond the Election," attempts to chart a course for the Left to move into something besides dismal failure. They tick off a list of reforms that polls show a majority of Americans would support and neither party will advocate. Among them: a progressive tax code (what a concept!), further increases in the minimum wage, higher environmental standards on business, equalizing education funding, single-payer health insurance, campaign finance reform, and yes, bullet trains.
Colburn and Rogers go on to suggest that the Left emulate the examples of the Christian Coalition and GOPAC: Find constituencies willing to fund these reforms, then get off their butts and organize, walk precincts, train candidates, et cetera. I'll believe it when I bloody well see it, but anything is possible. I know that US politics is cyclical, and sooner or later something's got to give. Of course, the only time the cycle turns to reforms on that scale is after a huge economic downturn. Which is not impossible.
In the meantime, we've got the Bill and Newt show until one or both are scandalled out of office, and they certainly deserve each other. I'm sure I'm not the first to say that I would have greatly preferred President Dole and a Democratic Congress, but that was as likely as Sinatra duetting with Courtney Love on his next album. My track record on prognostication is uneven at best, but now is as good a time as any for second term predictions. When Clinton was elected I predicted he would definitely be elected to a second term, that he would preside over a very modest economic recovery, and would involve us in very minimal overseas bloodshed. When Bush was elected I predicted he would involve us in a major war, preside over economic downturn, and fail to win reelection. When Reagan was elected, I predicted that he would appoint "hacks" to the Supreme Court, balloon the budget deficit, and lead us into hyperinflation (reckoning without the willingness of the Japanese and the Saudis to finance our deficit spending). In 1980 I predicted that John Connally would be the GOP nominee for president. In 1972 I predicted that Nixon would not finish his second term because of Watergate. In 1971 I predicted that George McGovern would be the Democratic nominee for president (when he was at 5% or so in the polls) and would go on to defeat Nixon. So, the envelope, please:
I predict that Clinton will appoint hacks to the Supreme Court. I give 50/50 odds that he will not finish his second term, due to resignation, impeachment or death (whether by assassination like JFK or "natural causes" like Harding). I predict that he will preside over economic downturn, with, again, 50/50 odds that the next recession will be more severe than the last. I predict at least a modest increase in overseas bloodshed.
Hope I'm wrong.