nomics with democracy is a more strenuous order. Yet this, too, was under discussion in the New Hampshire primary. Ralph Nader, the consumer advocate who campaigned as a “None of the Above” write-in candidate, drew large crowds throughout the state. In the end, he ended up with a disappointing 6,3111 votes \(2 percent of sage was at least heard and considered. Nader based his campaign on a bill of particulars he calls the Concord Principles. “This is the document that will separate the corporatists from the conservatives, the democrats from the plutocrats,” he declared at a “Voter Revolt” rally Feb. 14 in Boston. Nader urged his listeners “not to allow politicians every four years to avoid the fundamental issue of politics, which is the proper distribution of power in a democracy.” All candidates promise to turn the country around and get the economy moving again, he said. “But they can’t deliver, even if you believe them.” After the speech, I asked Nader for his view of the Paul Tsongas “pro-business” argument. “He’s basically a representative of the Republicrat party.” Nader said. “He’s a fusion candidate for Republican-Democrat. Look: massive mergers and acquisitions, and he wants to weaken the antitrust laws. Massive corporate crime and he wants to limit the liability of members of the boards of directors of corporations. Massive evidence of the stupidity of nuclear power. And he’s still for nuclear power. Massive giveaways by Reagan to corporations, all kinds of things like tax breaks and tax reductions and corporate welfare, and he wants to give them more.” Nader, of course, is not a believer in “industrial policy,” which he refers to as “Aid to Dependent Corporations.” From the Nader perspective, the political economy is already so far out of balance that it would be foolish to pretend business and government in deeper partnership would create all the bountiful policies Tsongas and Clinton foresee. Nader’s Concord Principles are an attempt to map out a different road. He envisions a “tool box” of measures for a “new initiatory democracy,” including worker control over pension funds, shareholder democracy, better public control over public lands and the airwaves, measures to protect voters from having their voting powers weakened, and better civics education for schoolchildren. His Concord Principles don’t address in specifics the task of restructuring the U.S. economy. But they bring a spirit of democracy that is usually missing from the visions of Democrats who hope to lead the way, arm in arm with business, to the new technocracy. “Everything in terms of democratic recovery and resurgence comes from spending more time as public citizens so we can enjoy our lives better as private citizens,” Nader said in Boston. “And spending more time means starting to think independently, to think civicly, not to think corporately, not to grow up corporate.” He urged citizens not to send a message but to “send a movement.” New Hampshire Notebook \(k1 WHY HARKIN LOST: If the nation’s first primary were held in, say, Illinois \(and why not? It would be more representative of have had a chance. But his massive TV ad blitz got him nowhere in N.H., especially with the tagline “I’m the only real Democrat in the race.” N.H. has no historical tradition of populism the midst of a severe recession, Harkin couldn’t light any fires. A populist without people behind him begins to look like a demagogic liberal. He seemed unable to talk to those who weren’t already converted; he had no interest in re-thinking the Democratic argument. “People say to me, ‘Harkin, you’re a throwbaCk to Johnson, Truman, Kennedy, Roosevelt.’ I said, yeh, and you know what? When we ran those fellas we won, too, didn’t we?” But that was then. WHY TSONGAS WON: He got to N.H. first; he impressed voters as a fundamentally decent and honest man with a gentle and self-deprecating sense of humor. Voters looked to him as a safe alternative when doubts were raised about Clinton. \(kb, WHY CLINTON HUNG ON: He is relentless with his “middle class” message. He impresses an audience with his command of policy details. He’s capable of playing the “tough on welfare” card to conservative audiences \(along with his pro-death ing idealistic themes of unity and renewal to the libs. Said one businessman who supported Bush in ’88, Clinton has “a dynamism that catches … a charisma.” WHAT WAS Pat Buchanan up to, anyway? Many Democrats looked on with wonder. The Buchanan TV spots were far rougher on Bush than anything Democrats sent up. How could it but weaken Bush for the fall, helping the Democrats? Was this about 1996, and who would be ready to stand tall against Quayle? At a Manchester dinner in honor of Ronald Reagan, Buchanan packed the hall with his boisterous backers; Bush and Reagan applause. Also present were other future hopefuls: Jack Kemp and Phil Gramm \(who gave that same odious speech, including the Dickie Flatt test … “somehow he just never quite gets all the ink out from under his fingerBOB KERREY took to quoting Gov. Ann Richards, often recalling her line about Ginger Rogers and Fred Astaire. Kerrey made more frequent feminist appeals than the other Democrats. “Women in America are dancing faster and faster backwards,” he said. BOB KRUEGER, Railroad Commissioner and noted expert on Texas electability, popped up in N.H. to barnstorm with Paul Tsongas. Kind of an odd couple when you stop to consider that Tsongas played a cen tral role in lobbying for a natural gas pipeline from Canada to Connecticut that obviated the chance of serving the Northeast with a domestic source, such as, perhaps, from Texas… MARIO CUOMO’S write-in effort netted 6,577 votes out of 167,819 Democratic tery why the idea of a draft won’t die. Most Democrats who hear a Cuomo speech understand that Cuomo is in a league by himself when it comes to articulating the Democratic case. After his celebrated speech at Harvard six days before the N.H. primary, some veteran reporters were grumbling that it’s sad to see Cuomo flirting so shamelessly with hopeful Democrats. Why does he do it? The answer is simple. Why should a great athlete sit on a couch all day? He wants to show what he can do. Cuomo’s great talent is for moving a crowd, making them feel the awful weight of the legacy of Reaganism, and making them imagine a sensible, humane alternative. He loves the roar of the crowd. MOVIE STARS LINE UP. According to the Boston Globe, as of late January, Bob Kerrey had in his camp Willie Nelson, Sally Field and Debra Winger. Bill Clinton had Burt Reynolds, Blair Brown and Richard Dreyfuss. Tom Harkin had Ed Asner, Mike Farrell and Roseanne Arnold. Jerry Brown had Linda Ronstadt, Martin Sheen and Talia Shire. Paul Tsongas had none. 6 FEBRUARY 28, 1992
You May Also Like
The documentary in Falfurrias is sinister and spiritual.