Reasonable Appreciation

I think it's best to begin this piece by making a rather obvious distinction: the National Alliance Party shares close to zero sympathies to the political positions of activist and former Green Party presidential nominee Ralph Nader. When one examines even the general viewpoints of Mr. Nader, they are clearly way out of line with both the American way of life, and the concerns of most of the mainstream population. But while that may be true, I feel inclined as a member of this organization to reach out and show him the respect garnered by even the wisest who promote values similar to those of our viewpoint. 

Despite being considered irrelevant by both parties at the onset of the 2000 Presidential election, Nader ascended to a position of the so called "spoiler," after his campaign for chief executive gathered an impressive 2.74% of the popular votes. Since the man's campaign received such a large number of its ballots from the State of Florida, Democratic strategists have since contended that his presence on the voting papers cost Vice President Al Gore the general election.  

I feel this is unfair on many accounts, and simply surmises to a juvenile sore loser attitude from the DNC, which could not even take the presidency from George W. Bush in 2004, despite their tremendous advantage, and Nader's far lesser portion of the votes. These can briefly be covered by including Gore's weak campaign, the presidential debates commission, and Nader's own message for the year 2000. 

Perhaps in an admirable attempt to avoid the "no clear definition" characteristic given to former President George H.W. Bush after the Republican's copying of Ronald Reagan's image to win in 1988, Al Gore distanced himself, rather disastrously, from Bill Clinton's administration of America. Considering the Arkansas Democrat's tendency to present a record of messy and unsettling personal relationships, as well as the South's aversion to such public behavior, this might actually be viewed as wise, accept for the fact that the Vice President's alternative was nothing short of weak and ineffective. 

And so Al Gore became the paladin for environmental protection in the United States, leaving behind the strongest issue for his candidacy in that year: the 3 trillion dollar surplus left by Bill Clinton. The merits of the money reserves can be debated, but no matter what is said, it made a terrific ploy for a strong and difficult to beat campaign. Instead, Donna Brazile, Gore's manager, allowed him to pursue a reckless and shoddy plan which was doomed to fail against the charismatic pro-tax cuts Texas governor, George W. Bush. Fused together, the following ad reveals just how out of touch Gore's message felt to a public in which less than 10% today feel protecting the planet is an important issue (Gallup Poll). 

As the election came around to presidential debates, little action was taken by the Democratic Party to help include Mr. Nader, despite his insurgent strength in choice polls and in battleground states. Not surprisingly, the commission for debates, controlled by both former party chairs of the two major electoral factions and a large number of corporations, refused to allow Ralph Nader to attend any of their three sessions, and even went as far as to deny him a seat despite his registered invitation and ticket for attendance. According to commission rules, candidates must poll at least 5% in several national questionnaires before being admitted, and Nader did not qualify with enough support. In minced terms, he was not relevant to the equation--accept that he became very relevant as soon as his movement hurt the Democrats. 

Ever since Al Gore conceded the race to George W. Bush, the Democratic Party has attempted to slander the man for his hopeful candidacy, absolutely avoiding how his message drew members of all parties and ideologies to cast their ballots for him in 2000. As noted before, Nader's views can seem ridiculous at some corners, yet his message for the turn of the century was to forge a strong alliance between the people and honest businesspeople in America. The Democrats failed to deliver their historical populist message, and neglected to use the strongest element of advantage: the Clinton surplus. What should have been an easy victory turned into a milestone of defeat as the party scrambled to realign, and failed again, in 2004. 

Ralph Nader may never become president, nor should anyone hope he does, yet the man deserves our respect and consideration. Standing firm against two of the largest and most powerful parties in the United States is not cakewalk; it requires tenacity and an iron resilience against the opposition. For all his work, Ralph Nader has seen even his closest friends betray him for the Democratic Party, yet a stronger force is allied with him: countless Americans who desire fundamental change in the system of government. 

David Marino

National Alliance Vice President for Campaigns

     

A Plea for Limitations

If the recent legislation and bills passed by both houses of the American Congress show only one thing, it is that the government has not only become isolated from the people, but also addicted to a fountain of rich and self refreshing power. As luck would have it, the lower body is constricted to 2 year terms, a condition which has successfully led to the sweeping of many congresspeople from power, and the transfer of those lawmaking responsibilities to new and less corrupted hands.

Unfortunately, while these tenants remain true for House members, the upper legislative body of our country seems almost entirely insulated from these ever changing electoral lines, primarily given to the simple reality that the terms of its members are staggered, with lengths extending beyond reasonable acceptance for such a country.

In younger days of our government, senators where chosen by state legislatures, a process which almost completely secured that there would be no inexperienced or overtly partisan members in the body. Granted, senators in the past held strong views, yet they new their duty, and stood to defend their state and country's interests above all else.

Now the tables have turned, leaving the people facing a difficult challenge in keeping senators both in line with the people, and moderating the loyalty which they express towards their party on national issues. A good example is Senator Amy Klobuchar, a district attorney who came to the Senate in 2007 despite having little experience besides in the legal divisions, and has developed a strong record in support of generally left-wing policies. Alongside her, former comedic clown and author Al Franken has put forward an equally partisan leaning in the chamber, and his term still does not end until January 2015.

At the outset, there is nothing essentially wrong with states choosing boisterous or passionate senators, but the length of office for these individuals is far too much in relation to the powers they hold. In traditional parliamentary systems, the upper chamber cannot wield so much power that it is allowed to try the executive branch, pass legislation, and send federal money to economic projects.

In the United States Senate, members are almost super-powerful, fully capable of voting strictly along party lines for four years, and then only choosing to serve their constituents effectively once the last twenty-four months before their reelection are in full view.

To serve the interests of the people, these ridiculously long sessions of service must end. To allow an individual who wins a mere three elections, perhaps due to poor opposition, to serve nearly two decades is over the basic limits of good government. As citizens we must demand more accountability, making our upper house fixed to 4-year terms of office for its members, a harsh consequence for members who have sold out the people they claim to represent. That must be our duty in 2011: to secure and new, and more foundational structure in which no one party can exercise mob rule over the decisions which affect our nation's future.

Andrew Rimmer

National Alliance Vice President for Communications

Public (Self) Service

To call 2009 and 2010 a bland year of elections would require almost a zero capacity of understanding of recent events, and the shifting of alignments for political purposes. From the party switching, to the independent runs, it almost seems as if the two party mold will finally be dented--albeit in the wrong manner. And to find a prime example of this, it is necessary to look at the self preserving election choice of Governor Charlie Crist of Florida. 

There is little surprise to be found in Crist's decision,which reflects upon the less than stellar career he has experienced in the public eye. Following a stint in the state senate, the the future governor was crushed in a statewide race for the Federal Branch, losing by 26% to popular incumbent Democrat Bob Graham. Discouraged but unfaltering, Crist ran for the newly created education commissioner spot, staying only long enough to raise his profile to win the Attorney General's race on a strong state ticket in 2002.

Still not a senator but not willing to let his momentum end, he gallivanted towards the governor's mansion, riding a wave of GOP popularity provided by well accomplished Governor Jeb Bush, first elected in 1998. Using several high profile figures including Arizona Senator John McCain as support, Crist took the executive seat with a decent margin, and settled in patient expectation of what was to come. 

Following a near hit at the vice presidential nomination in 2008, when he quickly married in anticipation of the occurrence, Crist began to slowly reveal that his poster boy conservatism was no longer needed, and should be left behind in the age of Barack Obama's Administration. From the stimulus to wavering on healthcare, Crist has turned on most every conservative issue to help him win independents and moderates for his bag. 

And finally, as Mel Martinez announced his retirement, it became the Governor's hour. No longer interested in reelection, Charlie Crist chose to have yet another go at the Senate, this time as the favorite for victory. For a while, it seemed as if it would carry him, but then, something maddening happened. Courageously fighting as an underdog candidate, State House Speaker Marco Rubio began catching up, Crist's lead dwindling to a meager five point advantage heading towards the April 2010 filing deadline.

Crist panicked, frightened by the prospect of losing the prize for which he so long salivated about, and to a man no older than 40 no less. Now trailing by the same numbers by which he once lead Rubio, Crist jumped ship to save his imperiled career: running instead as an independent. 

The truth is, there is no passion or meaning in Crist's independent run. No great movement for third way representation, nor an organized effort to change government. A disgruntled loser, unwilling to face defeat, vying for a way to revitalize his shallow legacy.

Of course, there is no conservative ideology left behind here. Crist's recent actions have made him "Gulf Cop," the man who can save Florida from the government, as well as British Petroleum. Now he is the teacher's union advocate, and not the budget trimming hawk he was only 24 months ago. He is now Charlie Crist 2.0, back for moderate vengeance against the people who chose to put him second in 1998, and in the GOP primary of 2010. 

Regrettably, Crist joins a decent number of politicians doing the same in their own interests instead of that of the people. He leads in the race by drawing support from both sides, even while he once decried many of the citizens who are placing their trust in him. If we are to have open and free government, then officials like Governor Crist must be bounced out and sent packing; reducing the toxicity and speed with which their actions spread in our nation's capital.