posted 10-06-2000 05:45 AM PT (US)        

He mentioned Nader only to say that Nader was too far left to build a coalition and Buchanan was too far right to build a coalition. Then Jesse Ventura explained that his success in winning Minnesota was the fact that he was a centrist in a state that had one of the most liberal senators and one of the most conservative senators. This meant that he had the opportunity to fill in the centrist gap.

I believe Jesse Ventura is planting the seeds for a future presidential run and he is counting on the youth to push him there. He is quite forthright in speaking for the need of a third party. But he is distancing himself from the left and right third party candidates. This way, when he does run, no one will look back and say, "Wait a minute, you're a lefty. Or you're a crazy right-winger." No, Jesse will be able to make a credible argument that he is a thorough centrist.

For instance, it would not have been really difficult for Jesse Ventura to request the WWF to arrange an audience for either Pat Buchanan or Ralph Nader, especially since the major parties declined. Jesse is in it to win it for himself. Maybe there's really nothing wrong with that because that's how you get ahead in politics.

posted 10-06-2000 11:13 PM PT (US)            

Jesse: against capital punishment, for legalized industrial hemp, for decriminalized marijuana, against death penalty, against corporate welfare (including welfare), took no PAC or soft money in his '98 run, is for "free" trade with China and NAFTA.

So we disagree with him strongly on trade issues... does that make him Gore or Bush? Granted that makes him closer to the two, but he's his own man. He reserves the right to his own opinions, and I reserve the right to disagree with him. Give him some credit for his progressive beliefs while you're at it. For example, he's pushing a commuter light rail system through the Minnesota congress despite Republican opposition.

posted 10-07-2000 08:05 AM PT (US)            

-I think that right now my impression is that JV DOES realize that the Presidency is essentially his for the taking if he wants it [in the future], but I also think that he realizes [based on his comments] that it's a job that can really tie you and your family down in grotesque ways. You really can become a caged bird, in a gilded cage. It's a beautiful, coveted, trap to become the person that "plays America" on the world and domestic stage. But it is also one of the highest status accomplishments that a person can achieve. He will have to decide if he would rather attempt to be a Colin Powell style big-shot [everyone hangs on their opinions, endorsements, and actions and they are larger than life for NOT RUNNING in the face of being in obvious HIGH demand----and they KNOW their limitations]; or go for being a Reagan-style big shot [they run and become even more of an icon after becoming president]. I really don't think that Jesse knows which he wants yet. And he has the luxury of deciding on his own terms---the more he acts like he won't the more the people want him. Perot whipped up a lot of frenzy by holding back too, though I think that he WANTED to be President from the git go---and was just playing up his outsiderness to maximum effect. Jesse, I think, has no need to decide yet because he does not need to make the sale. He is in the unique position of having the public practically beg him to run. But, more importantly, I DO think that he intends to be an opinion leader/major player in progressive politics and reform regardless.

--What it will be interesting to see is if his "movement" is strictly personality-driven [as it is now] or if he works to put legs under it. He could make a place for himself in history without working on the foundation, as so many do---he does not need the foundation to be elected. Personality-driven 3rd parties wither and die once the Personality goes away. A mark of true vision and integrity will be if he works to build the movement for empowering the peoples' voice with bedrock reform and birthing new tools---vs. simply working for some short-term token populist policy and becoming a big shot.

--I don't think he's bought and paid for. He's the type of guy that realizes that beyond his personality, his whole schtick is about being a "straightshooter". Not that he doesn't dig money. I think that he genuinely gets off on being a "political high plains drifter". He loves painting the establishment red and punching holes in hypocrisy. Nothing idealistic, it's just what gets his ego off even more than money---how many people/candidates are powerful enough to do what is right and *get away with it*? That is a demonstration of power that could really scratch some egos' itches. He has "image currency" and a power that a Bob Dole, Jesse Jackson, or Ted Kennedy could never buy! That is a level of power even beyond simple greenbacks, and I think he knows that he'd be a fool to squander it [though he may get around to it later]. The main time that he looks stupid is when he tries to be funny. Occasionally he is, and the public cuts him a lot of slack, but he tends to say things that are kinda ignorant when he tries to get laughs.

--As for the issues, the future of alternative politics and progressive vision seems like it sitting ther on the table for whatever collective is willing to break from dogma and ideology enough to seize it. And Ventura has more than simple financial flexibility---he has a flexibility of vision available to him, too. He isn't all wrapped-up in partisan leftness/rightness/etc [centerness, too for that matter]---which are handicaps these days and will become increasingly so. They are ancient 20th century history, only useful to manipulate ancient voters from the 20th century. It's a new game. And the traditional parties----including the Libertarians etc---- are so busy trying to fit in a certain ideological mold that they alienate the bulk of voters that are practically begging for *pragmatic*, non-utopian change. The voters aren't comfortable with ideological extremes and they are sick of candidates telling them that ideologies are a good basis for making legislative decisions. Let's face it: good decisions are outcome driven, not driven by leftness/rightness, conservative/liberal identity. I think that Jesse realizes that the "new center" [for whatever that term is worth] is about progressive with the emphasis on *progress* [balance, forward vision, goal-oriented, stable, strength AND love, security AND freedoms etc]. Not progressive with the emphasis on *liberal*. The people want different solutions to different types of problems. And they know that all the groups out there now offer pieces but none has the whole picture right. Jesse is verbalizing the closest to what that "whole picture" is, right now. Good ideas make good policy. The "new center" is not going to be between right and left----but be a different place outside of this artificial, misleading, and limiting construct----the "center" should simply be where the best ideas are that are best for the interests of the people---AND the economy [which is out of balance in favor of the wealthy right now----disguised as the economy]. The real battle, as Gore Vidal said on Cspan, is between the corporate, concentrated wealth of the "haves", vs. the "have-nots"----as it always has been in history. The struggle is vertical, not horizontal. It's class, not really race or religious moral values etc. And developing a clear, down-to-earth message that allows the public to re-awaken to this should be a top priority for all of us, IMO.

--As for the Free Trade part, Jesse thinks that if we don't keep involved and relevant in the world economy we will pay a different and even larger price later. Which seems true. I don't know why no one speaks to the problem of just how exactly are we going to maintain a "level-playing field" [which he claims to be for] if human/worker's rights are not part of the package from the outset? Until that question is resolved, workers here and elsewhere will be undermined. I'm not sure what he knows, or is thinking, that makes him beleive that this process will correct for that in the future.....? The concept of engagement is correct, but the concept of maintaining a commitment to people AND profits is correct too---and missing.

posted 10-07-2000 09:46 AM PT (US)            

I think that what you are saying about the weakness of his position on "free trade" is essentially what I was trying to say. And I can't figure out why no one ever confronts this issue in Q&A formats like that one or anywhere else? I'd simply like to hear the answer if they have one. So I think we agree on that. The only thing that I can figure other than the fact that the corporate interests are pushing it for their own profits and out of greed---which I don't doubt is the case----is that the strategic plan is that by seducing these oppressive, adversarial govts into economic bed w/ us, we will get them "hooked" on the prosperity and the people will then demand to be "more American" in other respects as well.....? Kinda removing the big face-saving showdown that turns into cold wars. The problem is that I think that it could as likely come back to bite us [the working class] in the ass as the corporations are going to be "addicted" to expanding profits/markets lots sooner than China is going to want freedom for its people. Dunno.....but I have to think that the behind-the-doors discussion of this [which I believe Ventura was clued in on]is about more than just advancing the corporations. I think it was rationalized at a deeper strategic level than that, regardless of the reality of its outcome [which we won't know until later....]. I think it may be the "Star Wars" of the Clinton Administration. It kills me to hear people still talk about SDI as if it was not an economic weapon used to destabilize the USSR. That would be an example of a "deeper strategic" sensibility. Did it make some corporations fat, too? You bet. But I think that it had deeper strategic implications as well.
And more to the present, that's not to say that we the people shouldn't keep pushing for our own more immediate economic interests in the meantime. I think that there should be some safeguards/reassurance for us too! I don't think it is simply ok to beat the Chinese over the head with the American working class, and at our expense. There has to be a better way.

Ventura is a celebrity, as was Reagan and as is Nader [Nader's celebrity is as a result of greater substance to be sure]. JV's celebrity is what buys him his voice in the media, and public notoriety. Ventura talks about his stripped-down campaign. He could NOT afford to run a a stripped-down campaign w/out celebrity, that is for sure! So bring on the celebrities as long as they help us build a movement for reform! My prior point about what is going to work for Ventura----in addition to his celebrity/charisma---is not "novel" ideas, but rather the ability to recognize others' good ideas and advocate for them when they make sense to the bulk of the people. The public doesn't want [IMO] novel ideas so much as they want soemone with the courage and ability to advocate for the good ideas that are already out there! Even if another party comes up with them. The public wants a total "package". They don't care for the most part if Bozo the Clown thinks it up. Clinton did this to an extent, but ultimately was still in too deep at the corporate/party trough to get really courageous. Jesse might do the same thing----but I think that part of what he knows the public wants today is reform that keeps the corporate corruption of govt in greater check. I could be wrong about whether this will in fact be his position long-term or not, but it looks like he wants to address it. Another thing as far as novelty goes, one of the things that I hear that Minnesotans are most pleased about Ventura as Gov. is his ability to select people to fill positions [which he has said he models after Reagan, I think....?]. That is, not necessarily having all the novel ideas, but selecting people that can do the job better than he while allowing himself to simply give direction to the team: management/leadership. He also seems to be able to "work" with the extant parties in spite of all this. A very interesting phenomenon indeed, and not similar to Perot, Nader or anyone else in recent memory---and worth analyzing as to why this is so.

I realize that all this is only relevant to Ralph in the sense that I think that the better that he can figure out what "works" with the public, the stronger he and the Greens can be. But I s'pose there are a lot of angles the problem of Republicrat entrenchment could be approached from. I just think that identifying where the "real" center is going to be at in the near future---before the Republicrats themselves do [and they WILL]----is an essential start and the primary hope for outflanking them.