CBSnews.com: Run, Ralph, Run!
William Kaufman
WASHINGTON, Feb. 12, 2004
This Against the Grain commentary was written by CBSNews.com's Dick Meyer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Public Enemy Number One for the vast majority of Democrats is George Bush.
Ralph Nader, liberal icon, occupies the second slot on the enemies list.
Something is wrong with that picture.
Nader is thinking about running for president again. That has provoked a
nasty, vehement, righteous barrage of opposition from liberals,
progressives, Democrats and assorted Bush-haters afraid a Nader campaign
could help re-elect Bush. Their anxiety may be understandable, but the
shut-Nader-up campaign is appalling.
I say: Go for it, Ralph.
Why? Because Nader is not to blame for the fact that Al Gore is not
president. Because I believe vigorous, high profile third-party candidacies
(as high profile as third parties get in this country, that is) are good,
even crucial for the political system. Because skilled political
mischief-makers capable of occasionally piercing the homogenized, focus
group tested, corporate sponsored claptrap of the two big parties are a rare
godsend. Because more voices are better than fewer voices.
If people oppose Nader and are committed to Anybody But Bush, they should
give money or time to the Democrats. People who complain about the rightward
drift of the Democratic party shouldn't and the importance of free, diverse
political speech shouldn't be working to keep Nader off the ballot and the
big stage.
After a long conversation with him, I believe Nader wants to run. He says
he'll decide by the end of February. He won't hook up with the Green Party
this time. The key factors in his decision are whether he thinks he can get
the volunteers and money to mount a 50 state campaign. "The money is a
problem," he said. Backers in 2000 have abandoned him, with a vengeance.
Money is a problem not just for Nader but for the network of public interest
and consumer groups he invented. Public Citizen, the biggest group Nader
founded, lost 20 percent of its membership and $1 million in donations after
2000. (Full disclosure: I worked for Public Citizen writing a book on
federal tax policy in 1984.) That's a sign of just how thoroughly some
people blame Ralph Nader for the sins of Al Gore, George Bush and the United
State Supreme Court.
But this is pure scapegoating. It's emotional.
Blaming Nader for 2000 is like blaming Steve Bartman for the Cubs failure to
get in the World Series last year. Sure, if Bartman had not innocently tried
to catch that foul ball headed for Moises Alou's mitt, the Cubs might have
won Game Six. But if the Cubs had won four previous games, they would have
made the Series. They could have come back from that freak play and still
have won Game Six. They could have won Game Seven. There are lots of "could
haves."
In 2000, Gore could have won his home state like almost all the other
candidates in U.S. history have. He could have waged a semi-competent
campaign and won New Hampshire, Ohio, Arkansas and Florida, handily. The
Supreme Court could have ruled for Gore. Nader spent two and a half days in
Florida in 2000, but it's his fault we went to war in Iraq? Right.
Nader says the "liberal intelligentsia touts itself as the most tolerant
voice in America." But with their rabid demand for him not to run, "They're
crossing from opposition to censorship." He understands some of this. "They
are desperate to replace Bush, " he said. But he is mystified as to why
their opposition is so, well, rabid. He is particularly dumbstruck by an
open letter in the Nation magazine, supposedly the leading voice of dissent
and civil liberties in the leftie world, commanding him to not run. There's
a Web site devoted to keeping him out of the race. A Stanford law professor
and blogger named Lawrence Lessig likens Nader to the tobacco and auto
executives he's famous for attacking. He's being vilified.
I don't understand the degree of the hostility. Nader doesn't seem to
either. He thinks it has something to do with the Left's inferiority
complex. Fear of a Nader run, he speculated, shows "how low liberalism's
self-esteem has sunk, how low its expectations are."
Nader believes that his campaign would help unseat Bush. Go ahead, chortle
dismissively. I think he 's right. Nader talks about "field testing" lines
of attacks, rhetoric, issues that the Democrats are too timid to use.
Perfect example: A few weeks ago Michael Moore, appearing with the dearly
departed General Clark, called Bush a "deserter." This was deemed not
kosher; Clark was urged to denounce the gadfly and apologize to his
Highness. Well, it might not be by the Marquis of Queensbury's rule of
politics, but President's Bush National Guard service is now a huge issue
and it has tapped into some people's concerns about his moral authority to
be a "war president."
Nader believes another campaign would bring some people into politics,
perhaps into the Democratic column in November, and wouldn't scare any
voters off. He wants attention focused on issues he thinks Democrats are too
cautious on: poverty, corporate crime, minimum wage, regulation, campaign
finance reform and media consolidation.
Fundamentally, Nader believes that ballot-access and campaign finance laws
that discourage third parties are a serious civil liberties issue, an issue
not close to the radar screens of the established civil liberties groups. He
is outraged the big boys kept him and Pat Buchanan out of the debates in
2000. They will do so again if he runs this year. It simply galls Nader that
only two teams get to play in the big tournament. It's not in his nature to
just take it without a fight.
I think the zealousness of Nader-phobia reflects a larger rage and ugliness
that has infected both sides of this narrowly and bitterly divided
electorate (an infection I have written about ad nauseum, I know). If you're
not with us, you're against us and we hate you. Clinton-haters. Gore-haters.
Bush-haters. Not opponents, haters.
But it is precisely in times like these when dissident voices -- Right,
Left, Radical Center -- are especially important. The electorate is divided,
yes, but a huge slice of the population is simply alienated from politics
and government altogether. And these voters, or non-voters, are better
served when they can cast loud protest votes. Sometimes these votes are so
loud that a Jesse Ventura becomes a governor. Minnesota survived.
In response to Lessig's insults on his blog, someone posted a message
supporting Nader that said many people "feel betrayed, abandoned, and
utterly unrepresented. I refuse to turn the act of voting into a choice
between the lesser of two evils. That's exactly what the 2000 elections
appeared to be, and I pray that the 2004 elections will be different." Two
parties, nearly as similar as Coke and Pepsi, don't satisfy all consumers.
Third parties and independent candidates have served the country pretty well
over. If John Breckinridge hadn't run as a Southern Democrat in 1860,
Abraham Lincoln might not have been elected. I think Perot, Buchanan, John
Anderson and Nader spiced up the national debate.
I hope Nader runs. I hope someone to the right of Bush runs too. More is
better. Run, Ralph, Run.
Dick Meyer, the Editorial Director of CBSNews.com, has covered politics and
government in Washington for 20 years and has won the Investigative
Reporters and Editors, Alfred I. Dupont, and Society of Professional
Journalists awards for investigative journalism.
This http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/opinion/meyer/main500159.shtml>
Against the Grain commentary was written by CBSNews.com's Dick Meyer.
John Ladasky
"William Kaufman" <kma...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<G54Xb.3752$hm4....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
> Run, Ralph, Run
> WASHINGTON, Feb. 12, 2004
>
> This Against the Grain commentary was written by CBSNews.com's Dick Meyer.
[snip]
> After a long conversation with him, I believe Nader wants to run. He says
> he'll decide by the end of February. He won't hook up with the Green Party
> this time. The key factors in his decision are whether he thinks he can get
> the volunteers and money to mount a 50 state campaign. "The money is a
> problem," he said. Backers in 2000 have abandoned him, with a vengeance.
Dick Meyers' article mostly concerns itself with the lack of monetary
support from well-to-do liberals, and with criticisms from such
ostensibly progressive publications as The Nation.
But other than one sentence in this paragraph, the article completely
fails to mention the Green Party. It states that Nader doesn't want
to run with us Greens this time. Yet this particular paragraph,
strangely enough, also mentions that Nader's 2000 volunteers and
contributors have abandoned him. Hasn't a rather prominent segment of
Nader's support been overlooked here?
I'll take this opporunity to repeat my perspective, as a twelve-year
member of the Green Party. We progressives have to learn to support
each other. It appears breathtakingly easy for mainstream politicos
to derail progressives who make significant (if not always successful)
runs for public office.
Here in California, we Greens actually won a seat in the State
Assembly once. In 1998, Audie Bach defeated a corrupt Democratic
Party machine in Alameda County, California. She took a seat as a
Green in the State Assembly, and became an instant celebrity. But
once she got there, Democratic Party operatives started dripping
poison in her ears -- telling her that, even though she had won as a
Green, and with little to no money, there was no way in hell that she
would be allowed to do it again. So, eventually, she resigned from
the Green Party, registered as an "independent," and set about trying
to raise $300,000.
I don't remember what fraction of that money she actually succeeded in
raising, but the Green base that helped to elect Assemblywoman Bach
did not return to support her in 2000. She lost by a pretty wide
margin.
Now, Nader is talking about a third run for the Presidency, but he
doesn't *want* the Green endorsement, and he doesn't seem to be
getting much support. Why not? There are certainly some folks in the
"spoiler"/"anyone but Bush" camp. But how much did these people
really help Nader in 2000? What about the tens of thousands of Green
Party activists who campaigned for him? Aren't those people
"volunteers"? Did that count for nothing? Does Audie Bach's brief
tenure in the California Assembly provide no clue to Nader's woes?
I stand apart from the ostensibly progressive critics from The Nation.
The "spoiler" accusation has been roundly disproven. And, barring
some miraculous sea change between now and November, I won't be
casting a vote for Kerry (who supported both the Patriot Act and Gulf
War II). (It should go without saying that, if I could cast a vote to
exile Bush-Cheney to the Moon, I would.) Yet I, too, wish that Nader
would not run this time around.
Why? Because Nader has stated that he won't run as a Green. We need
to build the party, and more low-level leadership. In the long run,
this is a more important goal than the Presidency. Power is (still
somewhat) decentralized in the United States, and we need competitive
organizations and candidates for *every* office in the land. Even if
Nader were to be elected President, where are the Congress-critters to
support him? Again, Audie Bach's tenure in Sacramento offers lessons.
She often complained that no one would talk to her there. She
couldn't get *anything* done.
Meanwhile, the Green Party will probably be running its own candidate
for President in 2004. Progressives will therefore be divided. Do
they support their party, or the more prominent public figure? I know
how I would choose -- with great regret and frustration. Ross Perot's
Reform Party demonstrated that a personality cult turns off many
voters -- and particularly, in my opinion, educated, progressive
voters who take their democracy seriously.
Come back to us, Ralph, or don't bother. You'll do worse than last
time -- and we need to do better.
--
Rainforest laid low.
"Wake up and smell the ozone,"
Says man with chainsaw.
John J. Ladasky Jr., Ph.D.
William Kaufman
accept the support of the Green Party. He has merely said that, at this
point, he is not actively seeking the Green presidential nomination. Why?
Because the Green Party is internally riven, paralyzed by a significant
faction that does not want to run a sincere, all-out presidential race. That
all-out spirit was the formula for a progressive breakthrough in 2000--an
unflinching confrontation of the two-party duopoly. Nader still embodies
that fighting, independent spirit; with its timorous second thoughts and
fretful hand-wringing, it is doubtful whether the Green Party still does.
So you have this exactly backwards. The rallying cry should be, "Green
Party--come back to your conscience, your independent spirit--come back to
Nader." It is the Green Party that has abandoned its progressive birthright,
not Nader. Ralph has made it clear that he would welcome the Green Party's
support--but without the compromising strings the "safe-states" crowd would
like to impose.
Nader well understands something you apparently do not--the Green Party
is merely a means to the end of social justice, not an end in itself. If the
Greens want to remain an independent fighting force, they will find no
fiercer champion than Ralph Nader; to the extent that they want to evolve
into a "Working Families"-style adjunct of the Democrats, then good
riddance!
"John Ladasky" <lad...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:c09b237b.04021...@posting.google.com...
jrd100
> faction that does not want to run a sincere, all-out presidential race. That
> all-out spirit was the formula for a progressive breakthrough in 2000--an
> unflinching confrontation of the two-party duopoly. Nader still embodies
> that fighting, independent spirit; with its timorous second thoughts and
> fretful hand-wringing, it is doubtful whether the Green Party still does.
You were the first to post the Avocado Declaration on
alt.politics.greens. How can you doubt the resolve of the Green Party?
> Nader well understands something you apparently do not--the Green Party
> is merely a means to the end of social justice, not an end in itself.
I disagree with your opinion that the Green Party is divided or that
it is a dissident movement. The Green Party has never been stronger in
spirit and this will prove true in the results of the November 2004
elections.
James
William Kaufman
>
> You were the first to post the Avocado Declaration on
> alt.politics.greens. How can you doubt the resolve of the Green Party?
The Avocado Declaration represents the views of one faction of the Green,
not the entire party.
>
> I disagree with your opinion that the Green Party is divided or that
> it is a dissident movement. The Green Party has never been stronger in
> spirit and this will prove true in the results of the November 2004
> elections.
This is just cheerleading boilerplate--you do not demonstrate, with any
facts, why the Green Party is not divided. Anyone who has even casually
followed events in the Green Party know that it has been roiled by a bitter
debate over (a) whether to run a presidential campaign at all in 2004, and
(b) if it does run a campaign, whether to run all-out or in a "safe-states"
mode. You're either out of touch with these realities or have your head
firmly planted in the sand, determined to ignore them.
James Davis
> This is just cheerleading boilerplate--you do not demonstrate, with any
> facts, why the Green Party is not divided. Anyone who has even casually
> followed events in the Green Party know that it has been roiled by a
bitter
> debate over (a) whether to run a presidential campaign at all in 2004, and
> (b) if it does run a campaign, whether to run all-out or in a
"safe-states"
> mode.
I cannot see why this is an important debate. Why would the Greens not run a
candidate? The issue of "whether to run a presidential campaign at all in
2004" and "whether to run all-out or in a 'safe-states' mode" is really a
smokescreen to debate the spoiler issue again.
I was under the impression the Greens will be running someone for President
even though Nader has decided to end his support. I hope Camejo will run for
the Green Party in 2004. He is an upbeat person and offers great analysis.
> You're either out of touch with these realities or have your head
> firmly planted in the sand, determined to ignore them.
I must admit that I do have my head in the sand concerning the "Nader run
for office" and "should the Greens should run a candidate in 2004" debates.
Nader said goodbye to the Greens in Jan 2004 so I say "Goodbye" to any
further thought of Nader and his future presidential ambitions.
Greens are united not divided.
William Kaufman
>
> I cannot see why this is an important debate. Why would the Greens not run
a
> candidate? The issue of "whether to run a presidential campaign at all in
> 2004" and "whether to run all-out or in a 'safe-states' mode" is really a
> smokescreen to debate the spoiler issue again.
>
Greens. Apparently you haven't participated in any Green listservs over the
past year.
> I was under the impression the Greens will be running someone for
President
> even though Nader has decided to end his support. I hope Camejo will run
for
> the Green Party in 2004. He is an upbeat person and offers great analysis.
Camejo is a Nader supporter who has made it clear that he is running as a
placeholder for Nader in the Green Party and will recommend that his
delegates throw their support to Nader if a Green Nader endorsement becomes
a possibility.
>
> I must admit that I do have my head in the sand concerning the "Nader run
> for office" and "should the Greens should run a candidate in 2004"
debates.
Then you're not really qualified to comment on any of this.
> Nader said goodbye to the Greens in Jan 2004 so I say "Goodbye" to any
> further thought of Nader and his future presidential ambitions.
But this is false--Nader simply said he was not seeking the Green nomination
AT THIS TIME, not that he would never seek it or accept it. He just can't
wait until June for the Greens to make up their minds about whether or to
what extent they want to campaign for the presidency.
> Greens are united not divided.
You keep repeating this sentiment like a windup doll even though it's very
clear that the Greens are very divided over (a) whether to run a candidate
for the presidency and (b) whether to run all-out in all states or to run a
"safe-states" presidential campaign. Since you've shown no awareness of the
extensive internal debates among the Greens about a or b, and have made no
comment about b, you have effectively shown yourself to be so ignorant of
Green Party affairs that no further discussion with you is warranted.
James Davis
I am a rank and file supporter and am "not in the know" regarding the
national internal debate. My sympathies are for the local Green candidate
for office but the issue of a Green Presidential Candidate is not one I can
avoid anymore I guess.
I see your point now about why Nader has announced his intention to run for
President. My only question is, why does he have to announce the run for
President now as opposed to waiting until the National Convention in June?
This decision has to seemed to confuse alot of Green Supporters including
myself. I was under the impression that he was all done with the Green
Party. We will see in June if this is the case.
In terms of the Green Party sitting out the 2004 election, I would be very
suprised if this happens. The Greens not running a candidate in 2004 could
hurt the local candidates running for office unncessarily. Alot of state
Green Parties, as stated before in this group, need a Presidential candidate
that can get a certain percentage of votes in their respective state to keep
party status. I am not sure of the figure, but I thought 1/3 of all Green
Parties in the US would be more at risk if the Greens ran no one for
President in 2004. This is why I do not see your point "(a) whether to run a
candidate for the presidency" as an important issue. To not run a candidate
would be wastefull and inefficient.
The safe-states strategy is something that I am not that familiar with and
that is why I did not comment on it. The Green Party has party status in 21
states. If the Greens have to walk on eggshells in some of these Party
Status states, won't that unfairly give a disadvantage to the candidates?
Please enlighten me if I am way off base. I cannot see the logic in this
strategy.
My optimism is a bit of cheerleading and the Usenet is not a good place for
it. My optimism is really geared more towards local Green races. I would
like to see the Green Party run a candidate for President that will
complement the local candidates and not make them look bad. They deserve
this repsect from their national leaders.
I hope that answers your retort or question.
Sincerely,
James Davis
BretCahill
YAY!
Maybe this will teach Greenies a lesson.
Bret Cahill
All conservatism is based on censorship of
economic information.
-- Bret Cahill
Dave Simpson
John Ladasky
independent candidacy. Still, here it is.
"William Kaufman" <kma...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<GVaXb.4371$hm4....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
> You are entirely mistaken. Ralph Nader has NEVER said that he would never
> accept the support of the Green Party. He has merely said that, at this
> point, he is not actively seeking the Green presidential nomination.
Sorry, I don't believe that that is correct. Here's an article from
last December.
That article stated, and I continue to read, that Nader *will not
accept* a Green Party nomination.
> Why?
> Because the Green Party is internally riven, paralyzed by a significant
> faction that does not want to run a sincere, all-out presidential race.
This is true. This was also true in 2000, and in 1996. A significant
faction of Greens does not think that the American electoral process
is sufficiently fair and honest to merit our participation. However,
in both 1996 and 2000, the ultimate consensus of the Green Party was
to run a Presidential candidate. In both of those election years,
Nader was nominated. Ironically, it was reported that he was most
*reluctant* to run those first two times. We had to drag him to the
campaign.
> That
> all-out spirit was the formula for a progressive breakthrough in 2000--an
> unflinching confrontation of the two-party duopoly. Nader still embodies
> that fighting, independent spirit; with its timorous second thoughts and
> fretful hand-wringing, it is doubtful whether the Green Party still does.
> So you have this exactly backwards. The rallying cry should be, "Green
> Party--come back to your conscience, your independent spirit--come back to
> Nader."
Sorry, but I think that *you* have it backwards here. Since you're a
Green, "grassroots democracy" should mean something to you.
Presidential hopefuls may be frustrated with the slow decision-making
process within the Greens, but it's a DEMOCRATIC process. I think
Nader should have trusted that the same majority within the Greens
that supported him in two previous election cycles would emerge again.
Had he done so, Nader would have had my vote. Now that he has chosen
to bypass our grassroots, I'm in doubt. This time, after voting
enthusiastically for Nader in two previous election cycles, I'm
starting to wonder whether the man's ego is becoming an impediment.
I have already stated my interest in seeing the Green Party run a
Presidential candidate in this election cycle. In fact, I think that
we MUST run someone -- to publicize our values, to maintain our ballot
status in those states that require a Presidential campaign, and to
show that we don't buy the "spoiler" crap. My earlier comments are
here:
I am far from alone in thinking this way. Now, if Nader's not the
Green Party candidate, we must run someone ELSE -- and divide the
progressive vote.
> It is the Green Party that has abandoned its progressive birthright,
> not Nader. Ralph has made it clear that he would welcome the Green Party's
> support--but without the compromising strings the "safe-states" crowd would
> like to impose.
I'm against the safe-states strategy as well. Our goal, like last
time, should be to get as many votes as possible. For one candidate,
though, not two.
> Nader well understands something you apparently do not--the Green Party
> is merely a means to the end of social justice, not an end in itself.
Again, I disagree. If Nader led an organization that was running
hundreds of candidates for local offices, and building leadership in
partnership with its grassroots, I might consider joining it. But he
does not have such an organization. He has indicated an unwillingness
to play ball with the existing organization. Social justice cannot
exist without dignity for the people at the grassroots level, the
people who will become the next generation of leaders.
> If the
> Greens want to remain an independent fighting force, they will find no
> fiercer champion than Ralph Nader;
There's an important difference between a champion and a fieldmarshal.
Nader's playing the latter part here, rather than the former.
> to the extent that they want to evolve
> into a "Working Families"-style adjunct of the Democrats, then good
> riddance!
From where I stand, that's the last thing the Greens wish to become.