By
Sheila Bapat
Ralph Nader is making waves.
The Green Party frontman is slipping in the polls, but still drawing crowds, according to yesterday's New York Times. His reformist image and message are provoking the ridiculous idea that the two big party candidates are exactly alike.
Nader is a true anti-establishment candidate who has caught many a liberal's eye. But an extremist like him will obviously make Gore and Bush look alike.
Much of the mainstream press has latched onto the idea that we're choosing between evil twins. Pundits think they're being keen and clever when making such an observation. One television commentator recently said, we have two candidates that aren't like apples and oranges, but rather red apples versus green apples.
No, no, no, no, no.
Even though Nader says so, and even though the press think it's punchy to say so, it's wrong. A Gore administration would be very different from a Bush administration.
On a basic level, the candidates are similar people. But just because they both went to Harvard and both of their fathers were politicians does not mean they will be pressured to do the same kinds of things if elected to office.
The best way to figure out what kind of candidate you have is to figure out who his key supporters are. And in this respect, Gore and Bush couldn't possibly be more different.
Probably the most significant job of the next U.S. president is appointing three justices to the Supreme Court. And Gore and Bush certainly aren't going to appoint the same kind of people.
Gore is depending upon women's groups for support, and is likely to appoint justices who support a woman's right to choose.
Bush is depending upon pro-life and religious groups for support, and he is likely to appoint justices who lean farther right.
In fact, a president's power to appoint is far-reaching, from federal courts to ambassadors. The president influences the path that the government takes just because of his power to appoint.
It could be argued that if it were a Republican instead of a Democrat who appointed officials within the Justice Department, Microsoft would not have gone down.
Of course, there are similarities between what the candidates have to do to get elected. Raising money and pushing propaganda are a given.
But it is also a given that both will have to change their images while campaigning. Both are merely playing the "capture the middle" game to win the White House seat. But the fact that they have to play this game proves that they are not similar, that they have to use strategy to try to convince swing voters that they can represent them.
It is true that candidates become more moderate once they take office; Clinton certainly proved this. But Clinton still did token Democrat things as soon as he took office that would not have happened if a Republican had won.
It has become fun, punchy and popular to say both parties, and both candidates are the same. In doing so they trivialize politics, mislead voters about differing policy issues and make two ideologically driven candidates seem like they are one in the same.
Nader's image is making them seem alike, and he seems to be providing an exciting alternative to people who are tired of both parties.
But he is also misleading the public by insinuating that both candidates are alike.
Clearly, there are still key differences between both parties, particularly on social issues. Claiming that both are the same undermines this fact.
And the press might find it punchy. It seems clever, and fits in with the trend of being fashionably cynical.
America needs to ignore the punch and look at the facts.
