The Greens vs. Nader The battle to avoid being left out on the left BY ADAM REILLY
	Two voters speak WHY I LIKE RALPH I’M VOTING FOR Ralph Nader in November, and there’s not a damned thing anyone can say to talk me out of it. I’m voting for Nader because I believe he is the candidate best suited to be president. I’m voting for him because I share his beliefs, and I admire his willingness to champion them. To some extent, I’m voting for him because his entry into the presidential race has so rankled the Democrats and the nominal progressives who support their apparent nominee, John Kerry. I’m not voting for Nader because I share his belief that there is no difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. Certainly, from the progressive’s perspective, differences between the two parties are substantially less meaningful than they ought to be. However slight the parties’ differences may be, though, it remains a fact that there is a significant difference between George W. Bush and John Kerry, just as there was a significant difference between Bush and Al Gore. But the question shouldn’t be which candidate would make the least-bad president. There’s something horribly wrong with a system in which those who want meaningful change in favor of liberty and equality are expected to support a man who does not support progressive causes, and who will without doubt move as far to the right as he believes is necessary to win votes, simply because his opponent has proven to be underhanded and incompetent. And that system will not change on its own. Not for the better, anyhow. I do not buy into the idea that what’s most important in November is to get Bush out of office. Ousting Bush would be a short-term fix, which is really no fix at all. Because the real problem facing America is not Bush. It’s the slow, rightward creep that this country has been experiencing for decades. We spend four or eight years under a Republican administration that jerks us violently rightward, disenfranchising the poor, filling the pockets of the wealthy, promoting an oppressive social agenda at home, making war abroad in whatever manner serves its purposes. Then we spend four or eight under a Democratic administration that moves rightward only slowly, neglecting those trodden upon by its Republican predecessors, kowtowing to the same corporate interests at the expense of the people, failing to advance a progressive social agenda or even to protect Americans’ civil liberties. But this, we’re told, has to be enough, if only for now, only until the time is right to make real change. Except the time is never right for politicians to effect real change. There will always be reasons to play it safe, to allow government to slide ever rightward. I’m voting for Ralph Nader in November because Kerry and the Democrats don’t think it’s the right time to promote progressive ideas (gay marriage, to name just one) or to fight for progressive causes (you’re either against the death penalty or you’re not, Senator), and I’m quite sure they never will. They don’t share my beliefs. They don’t want any part of my political agenda. And, despite what they believe, they’re not entitled to my vote. — Sean Glennon WHY I REALLY LIKE RALPH. NOT. FOR THOSE OF US tired of voting for the lesser of two evils, who want someone to fight for us for a change, our champion has arrived in the form of scraggly-haired Ralph Nader. Riding an unprecedented crest of popular support, he has presumptive Democratic nominee John Kerry on the defensive. And why not? Nader’s record speaks for itself. He has long decried the homogeneity of the two-party political system, with good cause. Too long have the Republicans and Democrats suckled at the engorged teat of corporate America. When Nader takes office next January, one of his first acts will be to roll back the Bush tax cuts for corporations and the cigar-smoking fat cats who run them. I don’t see John Kerry, laissez-faire capitalist, making such bold, progressive claims. In his efforts to smash the monolith that is American politics, Nader hasn’t wasted his time with the trifles currently occupying the president’s dead-on-arrival Democratic challenger. Consider his courageous civil-rights platform. Nader is the only candidate to wave off irrelevant issues like gay marriage and abortion, preferring to let his opponents run themselves into the ground by foolishly taking stances on, as Nader once put it, "gonadal politics." Contrast that with Senator Kerry, whose firm pro-choice stance is merely a ploy to attract nubile young interns. Some may question Nader’s political experience. Though he narrowly lost the 2000 election (illegitimately, some would say), Nader has been a ubiquitous media presence throughout the Bush presidency. He has railed against the president’s unethical policies and offered Americans not only sensible alternatives, but a feeling of hope and unity that the great divider John Kerry could never dream of. America was in danger of marching irretrievably down the path to a police state until Nader’s brave actions forced the government to repeal the Patriot Act. Um . . . never mind. Ralph Nader is a man of the people. Modest by nature, he resisted entering this year’s presidential race until the rumblings of the populace grew too loud to ignore. Americans are clamoring for a viable alternative to the two-headed Republicrat monster, and Nader has a clear plan to satisfy our needs. Unlike Kerry, who lusts only for power and drinks the blood of the innocent, Nader wants to end poverty, improve the quality of public education, and clean up the environment. My friends, unlike the closet Republican Kerry, Nader wants to create more jobs. We can’t afford not to elect him! My fellow Americans, you have a real choice in 2004. You can go "politics as usual," granting Washington automaton John Kerry a sufficient number of electoral votes to take the White House and begin the process of repairing four years of damage. Or you can stand up to the Democratic machine and send a clear message by voting for Ralph Nader. That message is, "Four more years, George!" — Mitch Krpata

AFTER RALPH NADER announced he was running for president as an independent last month, Democrats braced themselves for a repeat of 2000, when the third-party 300-pound gorilla helped tilt the election in favor of George W. Bush. Judging from a recent Associated Press presidential poll in which six percent of registered voters said they support Nader, it’s an all-too-plausible scenario.

But while Nader’s threat to John Kerry has gotten plenty of ink, less noticed is the fact that Nader — who put the Green Party on the political map in 2000 — could seriously damage the Greens in 2004. His previous candidacy gave the Greens ballot status for the first time in seven states (Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Rhode Island, and Utah) and boosted Green registration nationwide. This time, the picture is bleaker. With his latest run, Nader — detested by many as the third-party spoiler of 2000 — makes it harder for Green candidates to woo prospective voters. And by refusing to say whether he’ll take the Green nomination if it’s offered, he has muddied the Green presidential-candidate-selection process as well.

If Nader continues his run as an independent, moreover, he’ll compete with the Green nominee for volunteers and votes — which could pull the Green candidate below the thresholds required for ballot status in various states and make it harder for the party to add members and run candidates in 2006. Most worrisome to Greens, Nader’s candidacy could drive a wedge between the national and state Green parties. "Here’s Ralph Nader, who committed to growing the Green Party," says one prominent Green, who requested anonymity. "And in the end, he could be responsible for tearing it apart."

RALPH NADER helped to make the Green Party of Rhode Island (www.greens.org/ri/) what it is today. By attracting more than five percent of the vote in the 2000 presidential race, he lifted the Rhode Island Greens to ballot status for the first time. Nader’s run also created more visibility for subsequent Green campaigns, including Greg Gerritt’s 2002 bid for mayor of Providence and Providence city councilor David Segal’s victory in Ward One, which made him the first elected Green in Rhode Island. Although Gerritt notes that Nader may still be the Green nominee for president, he acknowledges that an independent campaign would probably result in fewer votes for the Greens’ presidential candidate and could cost the party ballot status in Rhode Island. Still, Gerritt, who serves as secretary of the state party and as a member of the Greens’ national steering committee, describes Rhode Island as a state where ballot status is a minor issue. "We would still be able to run a lot of candidates for local office without a problem," he says.

Although he acknowledges that Nader likely took more votes from Al Gore than George W. Bush in Florida in 2000, Gerritt questions assertions that the Green nominee was a spoiler. Furthermore, indications that Nader is polling better at this stage in the presidential race than four years ago illustrates dissatisfaction with the two major parties, he says. When it comes to Rhode Island, the Greens are continuing to recruit candidates for legislative and statewide races in 2004, and have at least four committed candidates, Gerritt says.

But as some Green candidates try to get their views on universal health-care, fair taxation, electoral reform, and environmental justice out to the public, they’re encountering the dark side of Nader’s legacy. "Greens really depend on progressive Democrats, and progressive Democrats tend to go bananas at Nader’s running," says one Massachusetts candidate, who asked to remain anonymous. "Then it becomes impossible to change the subject and get down to talking about real issues. We cannot get past the spoiler discussion."

Many Greens knew this was coming. That’s why, for the last several months, a debate stemming from the 2000 presidential election raged among the nation’s Green activists. Some thought the party shouldn’t run a presidential candidate in 2004: the Bush administration is intolerable, they argued, and Greens can’t afford to run a candidate who helps re-elect Bush or is perceived as making a Bush victory possible. Another contingent advocated a "smart state" or "strategic state" plan, with the Green nominee running hard in solid Red and Blue states but not campaigning, or making only a token effort, in battleground states like Florida. A third group insisted that Democrats are no better than Republicans — look at Democratic support for the Patriot Act and the Iraq war, they argued — and that there is no reason not to go all-out.

Nader, of course, hews most closely to the third position. But even Greens who thought otherwise agreed that, before Nader opted to leave the Green fold, the party’s nomination was his for the taking. "I told him — and many other people told him the same thing — if you want the nomination, you’re going to get it," says John Rensenbrink, a political-science professor at Bowdoin College and a seminal figure in the American Green movement.

So far, however, Nader seems not to want it. Last December, he informed the Green Party of the United States (GPUSA) that he would not seek the Green nomination. Then, in a February 22 appearance on Meet the Press, he announced his independent candidacy. During a speaking engagement at the National Press Club the next day, Nader praised the Green platform but said internal Green debates over whether and how to run a presidential candidate, which won’t be resolved until the national party’s June convention, had forced his hand. "We have to pursue an independent course of action," he declared.

With Nader conspicuously absent, the Green presidential field stands at seven active candidates. At this point, Peter Camejo and David Cobb, the top-two vote-getters in the Green primaries to date, look like the front-runners. Camejo is a veteran activist who ran for president as a socialist in 1976 and won five percent of the vote in California’s 2002 gubernatorial election; Cobb, an attorney and former general counsel for the GPUSA, managed Nader’s 2000 campaign in Texas and garnered about one percent of the vote in his own run for Texas attorney general in 2002. Each is a charismatic, articulate figure capable of forcefully arguing against the political status quo and in favor of the Greens’ vision of political and social transformation, and each appears to be a good bet for the party come November.

But there’s a catch. Cobb, who favors a strategic-state approach, wants the Green nomination. Camejo doesn’t. In fact, Camejo has publicly stated that he will not accept the nomination and describes a vote for him as a vote for the "pro-Nader" position; apparently, Camejo plans to use his convention delegates to convince the party to support Nader. That’s why, in a February 17 interview with FOX News, Camejo suggested that whatever primary success he enjoyed might prompt the Greens, without actually nominating Nader, to issue a formal declaration of support for his candidacy at the national convention. "I personally talk to Ralph Nader, and I am sure . . . Ralph would be very happy to have the Green Party endorse him," he said.