RAT Gore V. on Al G. and Ral Phee

[Chris Jeffries <cjeffries@seanet.com>]

[From Salon.com]

"A dangerous family"
Gore Vidal talks about Cousin Al, the evils of corporate America and why 
he's supporting Ralph Nader.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Fred Branfman
Aug. 15, 2000 | LOS ANGELES --  If anyone could claim to be the 
intellectual godfather of the Shadow Convention, the organized uprisings 
of discontent held parallel to both party gatherings this summer, it is 
Gore Vidal. When he began writing 30 years ago that America had only one 
corporate party with Republican and Democratic wings, it was heresy. 
Today it is the conventional wisdom not only at the Shadow Convention, 
but in the Green and Reform parties as well. 

Throughout Vidal's long career as a novelist and essayist, he has been a 
social critic and periodic activist. He made a mostly symbolic run for 
one of California's U.S. Senate seats in 1982, but since then has stayed 
out of electoral politics. On Monday he addressed the Shadow Convention, 
and Salon caught up with him to discuss this summer's two-party drama. 
Though related to Vice President Al Gore on his mother's side, Vidal says 
he'll vote for Ralph Nader, and tells Salon why. 

You're related to Al Gore? 

Actually, he's related to me. 

How? 

Well, he's a cousin, a blood cousin. And I have actually never met him, 
although members of the family have tried to arrange meetings and I've 
talked to his people. But as I repeatedly say, although I am probably 
resigned to Nader, in the long run Gore is thicker than Nader. 

Say what? 

Gore is another word for blood. So although I am coming out for Nader I 
will at the end of the day, as they say in the House of Representatives, 
discover that Gore is thicker than Nader. 

Do you agree with Nader's argument that it doesn't matter if his campaign 
helps elect Bush, because he'll build a progressive movement by doing 
well? 

I don't see any progressive movement coming from anywhere in the United 
States. The country is locked up by corporate wealth, by the fact that 
it's a totally militarized society. And there's not a chance on earth of 
demilitarizing it under any of the candidates, least of all Ralph Nader, 
who comes in with no power base. These others have the backing of 
corporate America, which owns the country. 
Whether a politician who becomes president with money from corporate 
America can ever change anything is a question that has never been 
answered. I suspect not. When the Clintons tried to give us healthcare, 
which every civilized country has, corporate America went into action. 
The insurance companies, pharmaceuticals, the AMA, got together and 
killed it for all time. And in the process they demonized the Clintons so 
that no politician would ever go dare go against them again. 

If Al Gore was beaten by George Bush as a result of Nader's run, would 
that bother you? 

I would lose not a night's sleep. My mother is a Gore, and there's a clan 
loyalty. There's a saying in Mississippi, where my branch of the family 
came from, "If a snake bites a Gore, they all puff up." They're a 
dangerous family. Don't mix with them. 
Basically I can't imagine any Bush outdoing any Gore at anything. The 
Bushes are incompetent people. You can tell when they try to make a 
speech, father and son. Barbara has a nice bite to her, but she isn't 
running for anything. 

Have you read Al Gore's book on the environment? 

Yes, I've read it. It's very virtuous for its time and place. It was 
reflective of the, you know, conventional wisdom. But will he act upon 
it? He hasn't as vice president. What could he have done? I don't know. 
It doesn't work like that. One of the things that you people in the media 
do is make it seem as if the individual who becomes president is of any 
importance to the government of the United States. The second you forget 
him and start worrying about General Motors and General Electric and 
Northrup and Lockheed, then you'll be getting at their power. They own 
the Congress, they own the president, they own the single party with two 
right wings, Republican and Democrat. 
It's like a magician. He starts doing a trick with one hand while with 
the other he's picking your pocket. The trick is the personalities of the 
candidates, which don't mean anything. They've all been bought. Yes, 
Nader has criticized General Motors, and he's done a lot of useful work, 
saved lives with safety belts, and he should be rewarded. If he wants to 
spend his last years living in a big white house, I'm all for that too, 
you know. But he isn't going to change anything. It's their country. 

You've been talking a long time about how America has only one political 
party, which seems the accepted wisdom here at the Shadow Convention. Do 
you feel vindicated? 

Well, you know, the three most beautiful words in the English language 
are "I told you so." But no, I'm not very happy about being right. 

Are things worse than they were 30 or 40 years ago? 

Totally worse. I mean, George Bush enters the Republican primary with $70 
million raised by corporate America. That's shocking. That such an amount 
of money would be so openly given to him. The people didn't give it to 
him. Corporate America did because he represents their interests and will 
do whatever they tell him to do. 

Do you have a solution to campaign finance reform? 

Of course I have a solution, and it could be done by a simple act of 
Congress. You pass a law saying that the election period, let's say, for 
president would be eight weeks. During this time no candidate will be 
allowed to buy one second of time on television, nationally if it's a 
national candidate, locally if it's a local election. 
Simultaneously, television and radio must be obliged to provide free time 
in prime time. They have a license to print money. They are the ones who 
benefit from these conventions, they benefit from these campaigns, they 
make billions of dollars now. Let's take that money away from CBS, NBC, 
etc., and let them provide the time. This is what civilized countries do. 
But Americans are not told anything that's going on anywhere else. I've 
been reading the American press for more than half a century. I have 
never read a story favorable to another society. The Swedes have better 
education, healthcare, day care assistance for working mothers. But 
they're all alcoholics and they kill themselves. They're wretched, 
because they have bad lives, and we have good lives. 

What do you think is the cultural signicance of Gore naming Lieberman? 

Well, I'm happy to see a Jewish vice president. But why get the most 
right wing one that you can find? He's for the privatization of social 
security. Privatization, which George Bush and Senator Lieberman are so 
keen on, is a great gift to banks, to mutual funds, to the Wall Street 
casino. 

As you know, Sen. Lieberman has been awarding "Silver Sewer" awards, 
together with William Bennett, to Hollywood for what they regard as its 
worst movies. What do you think of the point that Hollywood is at least 
partly responsible for rising violence? 

May I say that the people who award "Silver Sewers" are eventually 
flushed down those same silver sewers. I don't see that they are in any 
position to be our critics, or in any position to judge our morals. 
Hollywood is, you know, an obscene moneymaking machine. It also makes 
great movies from time to time. 
We could say that of members of Congress, except they very seldom do 
anything in the way of good legislation that isn't already given them by 
their corporate employers. I don't think this is any business of Mr. 
Lieberman or Mr. Bennett, of all people. 
You remember Bennett on television: (mimics) "Where's the outrage?" Well, 
the outrage is that this fool is allowed on "Larry King." He has nothing 
to say about anything except to peddle his idiot books. 

As a historian, what do you think historians will say was the Clinton 
legacy 100 years from now? 

None of these presidents is going to be remembered. The United States is 
a fading power, despite the nuclear empire out there. It's over with. The 
presidency is going to be of no interest to anybody. After Eisenhower, we 
entered a twilight period of twilight presidents. There isn't anybody 
who's going to be noticed. Some scandals might be remembered. But the 
power isn't there, the power is elsewhere. 

If I was a young person listening to this, I might think "why should I 
get involved? This guy's been talking about this for 40 years and now he 
says things have only been getting worse." Why be politically involved? 
Why are you even here? 

Well, I'm here for the simple reason that very few people say what I say, 
because very few people have the long perspective I do. The fact is that 
I've spent my life studying American history and politics. I know how the 
country's run. There will be an opportunity to get rid of this system. 
And the opportunity will come from the total collapse of the economy, 
which I think is on the horizon. The Dow-Jones, the Nasdaq, will collapse 
and the people will be very angry. At that moment you can make big 
changes. 
So "wait and see" would be my advice to a young person. And in the 
meantime keep your powder dry, and link up with others of a like mind. 
Don't look to any political party and don't look to any charismatic 
leader. If you had one who was any good, the New York Times would make 
sure that he would never be heard from again. They would smear him in 
some fashion so he would vanish. So I would advise them to wait, watch 
and learn, and the moment will come. 
We've never had a democracy or anything close to a democracy. Nor was it 
intended. The Founding Fathers feared democracy and they feared monarchy. 
They wanted a Republic that was safe for white men of business. 

So why do you care? Why go to the trouble of reading newspapers every 
day? Why not pursue your interest in art, music? Why spend so much of 
your mental effort at this time in your life reading about American 
politics? 

My subject is the American state. My family helped found this country, 
and I have a personal, familial feeling about it. I hate what has been 
done to it. I would like to see the Republic restored, which was taken 
away by Harry Truman and replaced by the national security state, now a 
global nuclear empire. It's done our people no good, and it's certainly 
done the world no good. 
If you have a conscience of this sort -- I can't tell you why I have it, 
but I have it, I'm not going to analyze why I do, that's not for me to 
do. But it is there, and I have demonstrated it for half a century. I'm 
not changing character, and I will always be present to say "no." 

As you get older, has that changed your perspective on life in any way? 

I don't spend much time looking at myself. So I wouldn't really know. 

How old are you ? 

I'm in my 75th year. 

If you could write the first paragraph of your obituary in the New York 
Times, what would you like it to say? 

In the immortal words of Groucho Marx, "What has posterity ever done for 
me?" I think we're done now. 
- - - - - - - - - - - -

About the writer
Fred Branfman is a Santa Barbara writer who directs "For Generations to 
Come" for the Tides Center. He did this interview for Salon.