[Texgreen] SF BeyondChron: Ralph Nader Doesn't Help the Green Party

[David Pollard]

--0-1655410782-1173964110=:17430
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

http://www.beyondchron.org/articles/Ralph_Nader_Doesn_t_Help_the_Green_Part=
y_4302.html=0ARalph Nader Doesn't Help the Green Party =0Aby Marc Salomon=
=82 Mar. 15=82 2007 =0A=0AJust as it was said that Dwight Eisenhower rated =
a 10 as a general and a 2 as president, Ralph Nader rated an 11 as a consum=
er advocate and a 1 as a politician. At this point, Ralph Nader is a tired =
relic of a previous generation who has yet to realize that his toolkit is s=
o outdated that it no longer functions as designed, a man who cannot travel=
 without speaking to a crowd of true believers wherever he goes. Just as so=
 many of us have been prosletyzed by fundamentalist Christians, have alread=
y heard the "good news," and have taken a pass, Nader needs to realize that=
 his approach is alienating more than it is magnetizing.=0A=0AElections are=
 complex, multivariate systems. It is true that Nader's campaign exerted a =
downward pressure on Gore votes nationwide, most markedly in Florida. That =
said, there were many other variables in play, such as Gore's losing his an=
d his president's own home states after eight years of what was considered =
a successful Democrat presidency and the Democrat Party's incompetence at t=
he real election at the Supreme Court. At the end of the day, Bush II won b=
y 1 Republican vote in that august, ostensibly depoliticized body. Yes, Nad=
er played a role in the 2000 outcome, but there is no evidence that Nader's=
 campaign in and of itself was the decisive factor in the outcome.=0A=0AIn =
2000, it seemed like a good idea at the time for the Green Party to exercis=
e our democratic rights under the constitution, what with Clinton imposing =
welfare reform and NAFTA. But political reality has eclipsed reality and if=
 our likely political base is not supportive of our participation at that l=
evel at this time, then any political party which hopes to win elections mu=
st take such concerns seriously. Our base ratified this analysis in 2004 wh=
en Nader and David Cobb, the Green nominee, were shellacked at the polls.=
=0A=0AThere are those Green who believe that Nader is still relevant. And a=
s in any political formation, the infatuation with celebrity and the celebr=
ity's nurturing his own ego and the cult-like behavior that surrounds this =
all can often come to dominate any sober, rational political analysis. Such=
 is the case with Nader where his devotees assert that challenging Nader's =
presidential jousting at windmills negates his decades of important consume=
r advocacy work.=0A=0AThe Naderite Greens also believe that the only reason=
 why Greens are not successful at high office is because our likely voting =
base is concerned about electing a Republican with a minority vote should t=
hey vote Green and "take votes away" from the Democrat. These Greens fetish=
ize IRV as a solution to that which they perceive as a problem. While spoil=
ing is a minor concern, as most jurisdictions are heavily one party or the =
other, my read is that voters do not believe that dilettantes who claim to =
have all the answers yet have no experience governing or building viable el=
ectoral coalitions should be trusted to run the government. If anything, 20=
00 raised the bar over which candidates not of the duopoly must jump.=0A=0A=
Despite Bush II's neoconservative misadventures, it is clear that the rulin=
g elites have broken ranks with that project and are moving to recenter the=
 two party system on areas where there is substantial elite consensus. As w=
as said in the 2000 campaign, the two major parties still agree on 80% of a=
ll policies, policies that have exacerbated the divides between rich and po=
or domestically, fatally wounded the environment and through the so-called =
"free trade" regimen, relegated billions to poverty, cultural clearcutting =
and dependency in order to make our lives in the global north more convenie=
nt.=0A=0AJust as there is division in the corporate elites over neoconserva=
tivism, there is debate within the Green Party over the role of high profil=
e celebrity candidates expending scarce resources on campaigns for impossib=
ly high office. As Ella Baker said: "strong people don't need strong leader=
s." Instead of following straight wealthy male leaders like Nader, Green va=
lues of grassroots, decentralized democracy point in another direction.=0A=
=0AThe best way so far for Greens to move the agenda beyond corporate domin=
ance is to build a base in the localities as we are doing in San Francisco =
in the school board, community college board and the Board of Supervisors, =
frequently in alliance with disillusioned progressive Democrats and decline=
 to state voters.=0A=0AOnce Greens have experience governing, we will move =
away from shouting idealisms from the sidelines towards bringing reality-ro=
oted policies to bear at higher levels. This will build the trust with vote=
rs to elect Greens to offices where we can address critical issues as clima=
te change, economic equity and sustainability. With out sounding too alarmi=
st, we can only hope that we can achieve this before we pass the ecological=
 point of no return.=0A=0AWhen Greens run locally, even if we don't win, we=
 shape the debate. One need only look at Gavin Newsom's absconding with Mat=
t Gonzalez' platform planks, albeit in a watered-down, sanitized, corporate=
-friendly form to validate this. Pacific Gas and Electric, one of Californi=
a's worst polluters, is appropriating and coopting the Green brand, slather=
ing it on almost every flat surface in the City.=0A=0APG&E says that "Green=
 is so crazy it just might work."=0A=0AMost people see the Green agenda as =
anything but crazy when contraposed to the corporate corruption of both the=
 Democrat and Republican parties and the ecological catastrophe that is boi=
ling over, but are reluctant to support candidates with no experience or th=
e quixotic campaigns of ego driven celebrities and their cults.=0A=0AElecto=
ral politics are not about what the leaders want, but about how movements c=
an connect with voters to win elections and govern. Many Greens get this, m=
any do not.=0A=0AEDITOR'S NOTE: Marc Salomon is a long-time Green party act=
ivist who lives in San Francisco's Mission District.=0A=0A=0A =0A__________=
__________________________________________________________________________=
=0AExpecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check. =0ATry the Y=
ahoo! Mail Beta.=0Ahttp://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/newmail_too=
ls.html 
--0-1655410782-1173964110=:17430
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html><head><style type=3D"text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></he=
ad><body><div style=3D"font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;=
font-size:12pt"><DIV><A href=3D"http://www.beyondchron.org/articles/Ralph_N=
ader_Doesn_t_Help_the_Green_Party_4302.html">http://www.beyondchron.org/art=
icles/Ralph_Nader_Doesn_t_Help_the_Green_Party_4302.html</A></DIV>=0A<DIV>R=
alph Nader Doesn't Help the Green Party <BR><FONT class=3Dbyline>by Marc Sa=
lomon=82 Mar. 15=82 2007</FONT> <BR><BR><!--%comments%--><FONT class=3Dmain=
text>Just as it was said that Dwight Eisenhower rated a 10 as a general and=
 a 2 as president, Ralph Nader rated an 11 as a consumer advocate and a 1 a=
s a politician. At this point, Ralph Nader is a tired relic of a previous g=
eneration who has yet to realize that his toolkit is so outdated that it no=
 longer functions as designed, a man who cannot travel without speaking to =
a crowd of true believers wherever he goes. Just as so many of us have been=
 prosletyzed by fundamentalist Christians, have already heard the "good new=
s," and have taken a pass, Nader needs to realize that his approach is alie=
nating more than it is magnetizing.<BR><BR><A name=3Dmore></A>Elections are=
 complex, multivariate systems. It is true that Nader's campaign exerted a =
downward pressure on Gore votes nationwide, most markedly in Florida. That =
said, there
 were many other variables in play, such as Gore's losing his and his presi=
dent's own home states after eight years of what was considered a successfu=
l Democrat presidency and the Democrat Party's incompetence at the real ele=
ction at the Supreme Court. At the end of the day, Bush II won by 1 Republi=
can vote in that august, ostensibly depoliticized body. Yes, Nader played a=
 role in the 2000 outcome, but there is no evidence that Nader's campaign i=
n and of itself was the decisive factor in the outcome.<BR><BR>In 2000, it =
seemed like a good idea at the time for the Green Party to exercise our dem=
ocratic rights under the constitution, what with Clinton imposing welfare r=
eform and NAFTA. But political reality has eclipsed reality and if our like=
ly political base is not supportive of our participation at that level at t=
his time, then any political party which hopes to win elections must take s=
uch concerns seriously. Our base ratified this analysis in 2004 when Nader =
and David
 Cobb, the Green nominee, were shellacked at the polls.<BR><BR>There are th=
ose Green who believe that Nader is still relevant. And as in any political=
 formation, the infatuation with celebrity and the celebrity's nurturing hi=
s own ego and the cult-like behavior that surrounds this all can often come=
 to dominate any sober, rational political analysis. Such is the case with =
Nader where his devotees assert that challenging Nader's presidential joust=
ing at windmills negates his decades of important consumer advocacy work.<B=
R><BR>The Naderite Greens also believe that the only reason why Greens are =
not successful at high office is because our likely voting base is concerne=
d about electing a Republican with a minority vote should they vote Green a=
nd "take votes away" from the Democrat. These Greens fetishize IRV as a sol=
ution to that which they perceive as a problem. While spoiling is a minor c=
oncern, as most jurisdictions are heavily one party or the other, my read i=
s that voters
 do not believe that dilettantes who claim to have all the answers yet have=
 no experience governing or building viable electoral coalitions should be =
trusted to run the government. If anything, 2000 raised the bar over which =
candidates not of the duopoly must jump.<BR><BR>Despite Bush II's neoconser=
vative misadventures, it is clear that the ruling elites have broken ranks =
with that project and are moving to recenter the two party system on areas =
where there is substantial elite consensus. As was said in the 2000 campaig=
n, the two major parties still agree on 80% of all policies, policies that =
have exacerbated the divides between rich and poor domestically, fatally wo=
unded the environment and through the so-called "free trade" regimen, releg=
ated billions to poverty, cultural clearcutting and dependency in order to =
make our lives in the global north more convenient.<BR><BR>Just as there is=
 division in the corporate elites over neoconservativism, there is debate w=
ithin the
 Green Party over the role of high profile celebrity candidates expending s=
carce resources on campaigns for impossibly high office. As Ella Baker said=
: "strong people don't need strong leaders." Instead of following straight =
wealthy male leaders like Nader, Green values of grassroots, decentralized =
democracy point in another direction.<BR><BR>The best way so far for Greens=
 to move the agenda beyond corporate dominance is to build a base in the lo=
calities as we are doing in San Francisco in the school board, community co=
llege board and the Board of Supervisors, frequently in alliance with disil=
lusioned progressive Democrats and decline to state voters.<BR><BR>Once Gre=
ens have experience governing, we will move away from shouting idealisms fr=
om the sidelines towards bringing reality-rooted policies to bear at higher=
 levels. This will build the trust with voters to elect Greens to offices w=
here we can address critical issues as climate change, economic equity and
 sustainability. With out sounding too alarmist, we can only hope that we c=
an achieve this before we pass the ecological point of no return.<BR><BR>Wh=
en Greens run locally, even if we don't win, we shape the debate. One need =
only look at Gavin Newsom's absconding with Matt Gonzalez' platform planks,=
 albeit in a watered-down, sanitized, corporate-friendly form to validate t=
his. Pacific Gas and Electric, one of California's worst polluters, is appr=
opriating and coopting the Green brand, slathering it on almost every flat =
surface in the City.<BR><BR>PG&amp;E says that "Green is so crazy it just m=
ight work."<BR><BR>Most people see the Green agenda as anything but crazy w=
hen contraposed to the corporate corruption of both the Democrat and Republ=
ican parties and the ecological catastrophe that is boiling over, but are r=
eluctant to support candidates with no experience or the quixotic campaigns=
 of ego driven celebrities and their cults.<BR><BR>Electoral politics are n=
ot about what
 the leaders want, but about how movements can connect with voters to win e=
lections and govern. Many Greens get this, many do not.<BR><BR><I>EDITOR'S =
NOTE: Marc Salomon is a long-time Green party activist who lives in San Fra=
ncisco's Mission District.</I><BR></FONT></DIV></div><br>=0A=0A<hr size=3D1=
>8:00? 8:25? 8:40? <a href=3D"=0Ahttp://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/?f=
r=3Doni_on_mail&#news"> Find a flick</a> in no time<br> with the<a href=3D"=
=0Ahttp://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/?fr=3Doni_on_mail&#news">Yahoo! =
Search movie showtime shortcut.</a></body></html>
--0-1655410782-1173964110=:17430--