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

[Craig MIller]

The nation knows about the Green Party because of Ralph Nader.  

What has Marc Salomon done for the Green Party?  The Green Party lacks power in
the US because not enough people believe in and actively work to promote and
produce Green Party results.  It's not what one person has done - Ralph Nader. 
It is what all the other people haven't done.  

Craig Miller






________________________________________________
Get your own "800" number
Voicemail, fax, email, and a lot more
http://www.ureach.com/reg/tag


---- On Thu, 15 Mar 2007, David Pollard (dopollard@yahoo.com) wrote:

http://www.beyondchron.org/articles/Ralph_Nader_Doesn_t_Help_the_Green_Party_4302.html
Ralph Nader Doesn't Help the Green Party 
by Marc Salomon‚ Mar. 15‚ 2007 

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 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who has yet to realize that his toolkit is so outdated that it no longer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 news," and have taken a
pass, Nader needs to realize that his approach is alienating more than it is
magnetizing.

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 president's own home states after eight years of what was considered a
successful Democrat presidency and the Democrat Party's incompetence at the real
election at the Supreme Court. At the end of the day, Bush II won by 1
Republican 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 in
and of itself was the decisive factor in the outcome.

In 2000, it seemed like a good idea at the time for the Green Party to exercise
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 level at this
time, then any political party which hopes to win elections must take such
concerns seriously. Our base ratified this analysis in 2004 when Nader and David
Cobb, the Green nominee, were shellacked at the polls.

There are those Green who believe that Nader is still relevant. And as in any
political formation, the infatuation with celebrity and the celebrity'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 consumer advocacy work.

The 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 they vote Green and "take
votes away" from the Democrat. These Greens fetishize IRV as a solution to that
which they perceive as a problem. While spoiling 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 electoral coalitions should be trusted
to run the government. If anything, 2000 raised the bar over which candidates
not of the duopoly must jump.

Despite Bush II's neoconservative 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 campaign, the two major parties still agree on 80% of all policies,
policies that have exacerbated the divides between rich and poor 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 convenient.

Just as there is division in the corporate elites over neoconservativism, there
is debate within the Green Party over the role of high profile celebrity
candidates expending scarce 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.

The best way so far for Greens to move the agenda beyond corporate dominance 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.

Once Greens have experience governing, we will move away from shouting idealisms
from the sidelines towards bringing reality-rooted policies to bear at higher
levels. This will build the trust with voters to elect Greens to offices where
we can address critical issues as climate change, economic equity and
sustainability. With out sounding too alarmist, we can only hope that we can
achieve this before we pass the ecological point of no return.

When 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 this.
Pacific Gas and Electric, one of California's worst polluters, is appropriating
and coopting the Green brand, slathering it on almost every flat surface in the
City.

PG&E says that "Green is so crazy it just might work."

Most 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 boiling over, but are reluctant to support
candidates with no experience or the quixotic campaigns of ego driven
celebrities and their cults.

Electoral politics are not about what the leaders want, but about how movements
can connect with voters to win elections and govern. Many Greens get this, many
do not.

EDITOR'S NOTE: Marc Salomon is a long-time Green party activist who lives in San
Francisco's Mission District.


 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check. 
Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta.
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/newmail_tools.html