by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright July 9, 2000
All Rights Reserved.

either of the conventional parties offer any real differences today," said Ralph Nader, longtime consumer advocate and now Green Party presidential candidate, referring to the profusion of banality now inundating voters. Called 'the spoiler' by Democrats worried that Nader might usurp votes from Al Gore, his shopworn message won’t change too many minds. Falling short in the personality department, his buzzwords about 'corporate greed' and 'gross polluters' play well to the tabloids, but offer no real solutions other than failed experiments with socialism. Reinventing the cigar store Indian, Nader actually makes Gore look more charismatic. Nader’s robotic style underscores how fanaticism and quirky obsessions drive his ascetic lifestyle and inexplicable political ambitions.

       While no one really gives Nader a chance, his tired themes make entertaining noise in an otherwise lifeless election cycle. Like in the primaries where Senators Bradley and McCain spiced up the race, Nader will also have no real impact in November. Gore’s vulnerability has nothing to do with Ralph Nader or his politics. Voters drawn toward Nader wouldn’t vote for either traditional party. Few people other than radical non-conformists find his views or personality appealing. Always beating the same horse, Nader’s been heard for more than 30 years. Why all the talk now about him siphoning off votes from the Democrats? Does anyone really expect disgruntled Republican and Reform Party nominee Patrick J. Buchanan to usurp George W. Bush? Hardly. Like Nader, Buchanan is just part of the media circus hoping for better ratings. Democrats should thank Mr. Nader for accentuating Gore’s charisma and reminding mainstream voters why Nader has never held any public office.

       Failing to see what really counts, Nader reminds voters that substance gets boring all too fast. Talking the talk, Nader represents a temporary bromide to tabloid-TV’s sagging ratings, now that Elian Gonzalez no longer occupies the nightly news. Sure he’s a clever debater, but so far only Mr. Nader is afflicted with the obsessions he’s pushing on the electorate. In case anyone’s noticed, that same 'corporate greed' against which Nader rails is responsible for the best economy and lowest unemployment in U.S. history. Yes, there are exceptions, but overall Nader’s impact on election 2000 will be far less than Perot’s in 1992. Out of step with the times, most Americans are looking for ways to share in the 'corporate greed' Nader seeks to dismantle. While Nader fixed his sights on GM, he’s tongue-tied about the Clinton administration’s historic boondoggle against Microsoft.

       Unlike Buchanan, Nader hasn’t figured out that there’s no substitute for charm, popularity, and, yes, personality. Just ask Pat Buchanan how he changed his xenophobic message. No longer quoting Mein Kampf, Buchanan’s trying to remind voters that American sovereignty isn’t for sale. Few can disagree with that. While some talk about a 'global village,' protecting American interests should be the government’s top priority. Ironically, Buchanan’s opposition to NAFTA—for its loose border policies—seems to be fizzling now that Mexico’s new reform-minded president Vicente Fox plans to keep Mexican workers on his side of the border. Whether you see it Buchanan’s way, his amusing wit and charm make him far more appealing than Ralph Nader, whose lifelong crusade against capitalism seems sadly out of touch with today’s world. At least Buchanan’s not afraid to poke fun at himself, or, for that matter, to discuss wide-ranging foreign policy.

       Nader’s correct when he observes the narrowing gap on substantive issues between the Democratic and Republican parties. Addressing the needs of voters, both parties are trying their utmost to respond to focus groups, reminding politicians that pandering to the extremes doesn’t get you a ticket to the White House. What’s wrong with both major parties showing less extremism? If third-parties applied a little more of the same common sense, then mainstream voters wouldn’t be frightened off. More people would listen to Nader if he didn’t make sweeping generalizations about the evils of American business. If Buchanan hammered his patriotic themes without pandering to white supremacists and other disenfranchised groups, he’d carry his message a lot further. Unlike Nader, he’s got the Teflon traits needed to attract mainstream voters. Paying attention to the same focus groups, both Nader and Buchanan could take their marginalized campaigns beyond the fringes.

       Dueling personalities, both Al Gore and George W. Bush are improving their images and chances of moving into the White House. Matching up evenly, both candidates have their assets and liabilities. Neither have a knockout punch and both rely heavily on media experts and consultants to shape their presentations. Whether it’s Bush’s 'smirk' or Gore’s stiffness, analysts are splitting hairs trying to determine who has the personality edge. Issues aside, both Gore and Bush are telegenic, evenly matched on looks and presentation. While Bush seems a little more spontaneous, his Achilles heel still remains his mediocre performance in the Republican primary debates. Personable and down-to-earth, he seemed a little too glib when answering tough questions. Gore, on the other hand, appeared a bit too Poindexter-like, while he dismantled Bradley on most issues. His challenge continues to be one of balancing his prodigious intellect with an energetic and human presentation.

       Both mainstream candidates need to ignore the media sideshow now hyping Nader and Buchanan’s role as spoilers, realizing that neither of them is likely to usurp more than 5% of the vote. Including either Buchanan or Nader in this fall’s debates shouldn’t have much impact on the November election. If anything, it helps Bush by defusing Gore’s attempt to show off his formidable debating skills. It could also help Gore by demonstrating his sense of humor while responding to the extremist and incendiary barbs from Nader and Buchanan. Gore’s biggest challenge will be to restrain his predator-like instincts to attack the outrageous aspects of his opponents’ diatribes without seeming mean-spirited or arrogant. For Gore and Bush, showing good wit and humor assures that they won’t shoot themselves in the feet by taking things too seriously. Presidential personality requires candidates to take the heat without lashing out. Showing grace under pressure still carries more weight than scoring all points.

About the Author

John M. Curtis is editor of OnlineColumnist.com and columnist for The Los Angeles Daily Journal. He’s director of a Los Angeles think tank specializing in human behavior, health care, political research and media consultation. He’s the author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2000 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.