If you’re ever in the mood to see dozens of professional adults transform into wild-eyed madmen before your very eyes, walk into the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee and say two words: Ralph Nader.
The 2000 election was almost three years ago and far more attention is now being spent on finding the right nominee in 2004 than dwelling on the past, but the Nader wound still runs deep and has not yet healed.
There are many, and I am definitely one of them, who believe that Al Gore would be president right now were it not for Nader’s campaign. If less than 1 percent of Nader voters in Florida had backed Gore, Bush would be back in Texas today instead of campaigning for more billions of dollars in tax cuts for the wealthy. (96,000 Floridians voted for Nader; Bush “won” the state by fewer than 600 votes.)
First, let me concede several of the Green Party’s main talking points, right off the bat. Greens say Gore ran a lousy campaign, which is true. They say the Gore/Lieberman ticket was the most politically conservative Democratic ticket since 1948, which is also true. They say that Democrats are not “entitled” to liberal votes, that the party’s candidates have to go out and earn them, which, again, is completely true.
However, let me also take a moment to reject the central premise of the Green Party’s raison d’etre: there’s no difference between the Democrats and the Republicans.
It would be foolish to do a point by point synopsis of the entire Bush administration in one blog post, highlighting every outrageous thing the president has done and fought for. Suffice to say, if there’s one thing Republicans have demonstrated very clearly in recent years it is their party’s enthusiastic commitment to a conservative, right wing agenda for domestic and foreign policy. No matter what you think of the Democrats, if you can appreciate the dynamics of politics in America, then you can see that these two parties bear virtually no similarities.
If you want to change the direction in which America is headed, and elect a new president next year, you need to vote Democrat. It’s as simple as that.
Earlier this week, Salon published a great article about the Green Party’s current predicament. Many of the party’s faithful who enthusiastically backed Ralph Nader seem shocked that Bush has turned out to be such a reactionary conservative. Some of these same activists wish they could go back to 2000 to change strategies.
But more importantly, when they’re not reflecting on what they wrought two years ago, the Green Party and Ralph Nader are considering whether or not they should make the same mistake again in 2004.
Several Green Party officials told Salon that they’ve spoken with Nader and he appears ready for another run as their presidential nominee. That drooling sound you hear is Karl Rove, looking to extend his D.C. lease through 2008.
Ronnie Dugger, a prominent Green Party activist and Nader confidant, is one of Nader’s former supporters who would rather have a new president than yet another Nader candidacy.
“To elect Bush at a time when he’s waging war on the human race, that to me is insane,” Dugger said. “The Greens would be denying their moral responsibility for this disastrous outcome. If Ralph runs again and tips it for Bush, it would not only be a worldwide tragedy, the prospect of building the Green Party would be radically doomed.”
The party’s leaders and activists, whether they want another Nader run or not, realize that the Greens have several options. I’ve determined the Greens have three scenarios to choose from when considering how to proceed with the 2004 election:
* The “screw everyone” scenario — The Green Party works as hard as possible to get 5% of the popular vote for their party’s nominee; whether the country suffers as a result is irrelevant.
* The “national emergency” scenario — Bush’s extremist agenda is so dangerous, Greens need to put aside their party’s strategic ambitions and work with the Democratic Party to elect a new president in 2004.
* The “go local” approach — Forget about a White House race; Nader spent millions of dollars and had a national network of supporters but could only generate 2.8% of the popular vote, far short of the 5% goal that would make the Greens eligible for federal matching funds. The party could focus instead on building a base of local candidates and office holders as part of a long-term strategy for the party. They’ve already got about 180 offices nationwide, that’s a good start.
I have to admit, I’ve never fully understood what the Greens hope to achieve. In some ways, they remind me of the left’s version of the religious right, which demands almost slavish adherence to ideological purity. When the religious right was worried about the GOP becoming a centrist party, they worked to become the party’s base and pulled the Republicans to the right. The strategy worked like a charm.
The Greens, on the other hand, saw the Democrats become a centrist party so they left to form a more liberal party. Instead of working to move the party closer to their ideal, they bolted, pulled almost 3% of the voters with them, and with the Supreme Court’s help, handed Bush the keys to the White House.
Ironically, every time the Green Party or its allies split the anti-conservative vote, and help a Republican win, the Democrats analyze the results and move closer to the center. It’s just the opposite of what Greens intend, but their strategy consistently backfires. Instead of convincing the Dems to move left and pick up Greens, Dems figure they’ll never be liberal enough for the Greens, so they move to the middle where they find a larger vote base. Naturally, this makes the Greens criticize the Dems more for not being sufficiently liberal, which splits the anti-conservative vote again come Election Day, which pushes the Dems closer to the middle again, and so on. It’s a vicious cycle.
I’ve said before, Democrats have an incredibly daunting challenge ahead in trying to defeat Bush in ’04. The Green Party has a chance to be the difference between electing a new president and helping to ensure four more years of Bush/Cheney. The choice is theirs.