Why the Lesser of Two Evils Won't Cut It

Well, here we are. After two years, half a billion bucks, a forest of press releases, a tsunami of polling data, an avalanche of TV ads, a pile-on of punditry, and enough hype to burn a new hole in the ozone layer, America's political, financial, and media establishment is proud to present you a choice of (cue the trumpets): Al Gore and George W. Bush. Miller Lite or Bud Light. Mighty small beer.

Imagine you had a desire one day to quaff your thirst with a good, strong brewski. So you belly up to a bar in hopes of getting a yeasty taste of the brewer's art, maybe a fine dark beer with plenty of malt, a good head, and some real punch to it. Instead, the bartender of the establishment informs you of your choices: "Miller Lite or Bud Light?" You'd walk out! And that's exactly what about 60 percent of the American electorate will do on November 7th, either not voting at all or finding third-party choices that offer some real oomph for their vote.

Of course, the establishment has rushed forward in the last few weeks of the election to pretend that their Gore–Bush offering is a collision of ideologies, a clash of titans, a slugfest of differences! (The New York Times wailed in an editorial that Green Party candidate Ralph Nader and other third-party contenders were doing a disservice to the Republic with their assertions that Al and George are Tweedledumb and Tweedledumber, and lectured its readers that the Democrat and Republican really, really, really represent the "clear-cut choice" that Americans deserve in this millennial presidential election. Really? What did we do to deserve this?)

In Dubious Prattle

If you watched the second presidential debate (and not many did -- it drew the second-lowest number of viewers in the history of TV debates, beating only the Clinton–Dole bore-off in 1996), you would have been perplexed by the establishment media's insistence that these two pugs are all about giving us a clear-cut choice.

From issues of foreign policy to the question of drilling for natural gas in the pristine wilderness of Alaska, Gore and Bush said the equivalent of "I agree with you" 40 times in this so-called debate. Even milquetoast moderator Jim Lehrer finally asked in exasperation: "Is there any difference?" You could almost hear the clicks of TV remote controls across the country, switching in unison to the baseball game, as Gore responded, "I haven't heard a big difference in the last few exchanges," and as Bush replied, "Well, I think it's hard to tell."

Nader was right on target when he described the debates as "an interminable tedium of platitudinous dittos, garnished by relentless evasions and marinated in cowardly escapes from challenging the entrenched corporate interests." (This is why we needed Ralph in the debates -- a little pointed humor, not to mention substance, would've done wonders for the ratings.)

17 Cents Worth of Difference

Still, the media drumbeat has continuously pushed the theme that Gore–Bush is a matchoff of profound differences that should satisfy the need of the masses for democratic choice. A writer for Slate, an influential on-line magazine among the political cognoscenti, took Nader to task for his insistence that Gore–Bush are in lockstep on the basic corporate agenda.

The writer pointed to the congressional fight over increasing America's minimum wage as his -- aha! -- proof that Gore's Democrats and Bush's Republicans are miles apart on whom they represent. He was taking issue with the old contention that there's "not a dime's worth of difference" between the parties -- and technically, he's right.

Let's do the math: Republicans are willing to hike the $5.15-an-hour minimum wage by a buck, but they want to phase it in over three years -- 33 1/3 cents per year. Democrats, however, are adamant that this is inadequate. They also support a $1 increase in the hourly wage, but they insist that it be phased in over two years -- 50 cents per year. So there you have it: There's actually 17 cents worth of difference between the two parties.