| |
|
|
Nader wears out his progressive welcome
BY BETH SCHWARTZAPFEL
|
|
|
|
|
There are those who respect his tireless advocacy for the working class and the American consumer. There are those who wish that for once, he would just pack up and go home. In Rhode Island in 2004, the same people largely share these two perspectives toward Ralph Nader. Nader spoke at Brown University on Wednesday, October 6, attacking the United States’ familiar "one corporate party with two heads." Many of the questions after his lecture were posed by students from swing states, and most boiled down to the same sentiment, prompting cheers from the audience: please, Mr. Nader. We agree with you. But don’t run for president right now. Each question was followed by an eloquent response, in which Nader noted how people need not vote for him, "[but] we should never say to each other, ‘do not run,’ because that’s like saying, ‘do not speak.’ " In the end, Nader got a standing ovation from the capacity crowd in Brown’s Salomon Center. In 2000, Rhode Island was one of only three states where Nader garnered more than six percent of the vote. Rhode Island’s measly four electoral votes were never really up for grabs, having gone by a landslide to the Democratic nominee in six of the last eight presidential elections. What some call Nader’s "spoiler" effect in infamous key swing states — like Florida — was enough, however, to put a bad taste about his candidacy in even the most progressive mouths. This year, in a by any means necessary move, Nader is running on the Reform Party ticket, like Pat Buchanan and Ross Perot before him. The Green Party, after some public bickering with Nader, has nominated David Cobb, a largely unknown Texas lawyer, as its candidate. If 2004 proves to be anything like 2000 for Nader, David Segal is worried. A Providence City Councilor and the first Green Party member elected in Rhode Island, Segal is the chair of a political action committee called Greens for Impact. GFI’s slogan — "Kerry in the swing states, Cobb in the safe states, IRV everywhere" — is testament to the Greens’ pragmatism. (IRV, or instant runoff voting, allows voters to rank their choices, rather than choosing just one candidate. Progressive candidates in Florida could have put Nader first and Gore second, thus voicing support for Nader, but ultimately giving their vote to Gore. Segal calls IRV the "holy grail of election reform.") Because Rhode Island is a "safe state," the local Green Party is offering what Segal calls a "mitigated rally around Cobb." On weekends, the party is chartering buses to New Hampshire and Vermont to build support for Kerry. But the Greens are mostly focused this time on running what Segal calls "winnable election[s] for local office." As such, the Greens are backing candidates in Warwick, Westerly, Cranston, and Providence. Greg Gerritt, secretary of the Green Party of Rhode Island, who himself ran for mayor of Providence in 2002, acknowledges that most of these local races are a long shot. However, Gerritt is optimistic about Jeff Toste, who is making his second challenge to state Senator Frank Caprio (D-Providence). Meanwhile, Segal and Greens for Impact offer a litany of reasons for why progressive voters should not vote for Nader: he is competing with the Greens for the five percent of votes the party needs to stay on the Rhode Island ballot. He is being overly simplistic by saying that a choice between Bush and Kerry is not a choice at all. Nader also offers what Segal calls "tepid" support for IRV. "He worries that [IRV] might make him less influential because it sort of ruins the spoiler problem," the Providence councilor says. When pressed, Segal stops short of accusing Nader of being an egomaniac, but Gerritt agrees with that sentiment. "They’ve got that Big Man vision in their eyes and they forget about the grassroots," he says. Since only Nader or the traditionally conservative Reform Party will benefit from any real gains during Ralph’s latest campaign, Gerritt says, "When Ralph Nader’s campaign is over, there will be nothing left on the ground to build a progressive movement."
|
