>Nader: Is There Life After Crucifixion?
>
>by David Corn
>
>After the election came the crucifixion. Before the
>Gore-Bush mess was settled--but as soon as it was apparent
>that Ralph Nader's vote in Florida was greater than the gap
>between Al Gore and George Bush--pundits, editorial boards,
>political partisans and liberals pounced. AFL-CIO president
>John Sweeney called Nader's campaign "reprehensible."
>Environmental Working Group president Ken Cook declared,
>"The public-interest community is going to spend tens of
>millions of dollars a year for the next four years playing
>defense. I don't think [Nader's] going to build a Green
>Party any more than O.J.'s out there looking for a
>murderer." Larry Marx, co-executive director of Wisconsin
>Citizen Action, complained that Nader "got tunnel vision and
>lost sight of progressive goals." "I will not speak his
>name," hissed Democratic spin man James Carville. "I'm going
>to shun him. And any good Democrat, any good progressive,
>ought to do the same thing."
>
>In addition to the demonization of a progressive icon--Nader
>himself--Nader's campaign resulted in a sharpening of the
>sometimes blurry line between inside-the-duopoly
>progressives who try to nudge the Democratic Party to the
>left and nonestablishment progressives who eschew the party
>as part of the problem, not the potential solution. His
>candidacy hardened positions along this divide. It also
>diminished whatever opportunity he had to work with
>left-leaning Democrats in Washington. "He's totally toast
>among Democrats," says a senior Democratic Congressional
>aide. "There is deep animosity toward him among high-ranking
>Democrats in Congress. For now, the relationship is
>completely ruptured." And with 2.7 million votes--3 percent
>of the vote--Nader fell far short of the magic mark of 5
>percent, which would have qualified the Green Party for
>federal funding in the next presidential election. [JPC: But
>who - or what - counted the votes?]
>
>So was it worth it? "Of course," says an utterly undaunted
>Nader, who obviously relished the campaign experience. "Look
>what came out of this--the third-largest party. Tens of
>thousands of people were energized. It was a great burst. We
>can continue on and recruit more candidates in 2002. There
>will be a Green Party presence here [in Washington], which
>will speak with authority--electoral authority--when it goes
>to Capitol Hill, not just say, 'Please, please, do what we
>want.'" He expresses no regrets; he is unfazed by the harsh
>criticism; he is unrepentant. With the Florida recount under
>way, Nader showed no sign of caring much about who will win.
>
>Instead, he was more excited about a letter he received on
>November 8 from Holly Hart of the Iowa Green Party. She
>reported that his campaign appearances there prompted
>Republican farmers to contact the party and that "the Green
>Party and the message of your campaign have come out well
>ahead of where they started." Though Nader only scored 2
>percent in Iowa, that was enough for the Iowa Green Party to
>qualify for automatic ballot status. "Not only that," Hart
>wrote; "we now have around five new Green student
>organizations and many new county Green chapters--enough so
>that we can now organize a real statewide Green Party." This
>is evidence of the "benefits" of his campaign, Nader notes;
>he has created a "ripple effect" throughout the nation.
>
>The 66-year-old Nader won't say whether he's interested in
>another crusade for the White house ("one election at a
>time"), but he insists that he remains committed to building
>the Green Party. The details, though, are hardly set, and
>it's not even clear what Nader is working with. On Election
>Day, the party was split between two different entities--the
>Association of State Green Parties and the more leftist and
>smaller Greens/Green Party USA, though the two sides were
>close to a merger agreement. Nader says he will be the de
>facto party "leader," but without the title ("I don't like
>the word") or the day-to-day responsibilities for the party
>itself.
>
>Instead, he sees himself establishing several Green-related
>outfits--a nonprofit educational group, a lobbying arm and a
>political action committee--that would exist parallel to the
>party. As he envisions it, "I'm on the outside expanding the
>Green Party, while those on the inside intensify it." But
>can Nader control or shape a party from the outside?
>Political parties are usually difficult to steer, and the
>Greens have their share of bickerers. Moreover, remember
>Ross Perot and the Reform Party? Earlier this year, failed
>Reform Party contender John Hagelin took a stab at gaining
>control of the Seattle Greens. "They"--the Greens--"will
>have to be very clever" to avoid would-be highjackers and
>internal wrangling, Nader remarks, not using the word "we."
>As one Nader adviser says, "Ralph does have a track record
>of building things that last. And he'll stick with this. But
>he will find it much more complex than building citizens'
>groups."
>
>What might make the task even harder is that Nader hopes his
>Green Party will be more than a political organization
>obsessed with elections. In his grand scheme, the party
>would join with citizens' movements across the nation to
>wage local battles untouched by the Democratic and
>Republican parties. An example: In Florida popular outrage
>has been sparked by the state's decision--prompted by
>agribusiness--to cut down orange and grapefruit trees on the
>property of private residences to battle a citrus canker
>that affects only the appearance of the fruit. Neither major
>party has gotten behind the citizens' uprising that ensued.
>Nader believes that fights like this one provide openings
>for a Green Party concerned with activism beyond elections.
>
>Nader also wants to establish Green chapters on campuses and
>Green Party storefronts in poor areas--"advice
>centers"--that would help people qualify for Medicaid and
>other federal programs. At the same time, Nader wants the
>party to develop an "or-else relationship" with Democrats on
>Capitol Hill. This is how it might work: The party would
>zero in on twenty or so lawmakers--including Democrats--who
>it calculates might be vulnerable to electoral pressure from
>the Greens, and, depending on whether or not these
>legislators adopt Green-friendly positions, the Greens would
>decide whether or not to challenge them in 2002. (Such a
>get-tough strategy will require plenty of planning and
>commitment, for it will likely prompt further assaults from
>progressives--environmentalists, union officials, abortion
>rights activists, civil rights leaders--still working with
>the Democrats.) Through a People's Debate Commission, Nader
>will continue his campaign against the corporate-funded
>Commission on Presidential Debates, which froze out all
>third-party candidates in this year's debates.
>
>And the money for all this? The 75,000 contributors who
>helped him raise $7 million in donations of $100 or less
>will be called upon to finance these new Nader-Green groups.
>But that won't be enough, he admits. He hopes to continue
>holding "superrallies," which during the campaign attracted
>tens of thousands of people willing to pay to hear Nader
>offer his anticorporate/anti-two-parties critique.
>
>Is it possible that Nader's long-term mission of fostering
>an anticorporate and progressive party will be overwhelmed
>by noise about Nader-the-Spoiler and undermined by the
>attacks from prominent progressives? "No," he declares. He
>dismisses his left-of-center critics as "low-expectation,
>frightened liberals. Across the country, in airports and
>elsewhere, people are saying, 'Great job, thank you.' The
>citizen-bureaucrats in Washington have been here too long,
>and they've gotten too cushy with the Democrats. Bush got
>twelve times the Democrats I did in Florida. That's the
>problem."
>
>Asked about Sweeney, he shows his irritation: "Here's the
>Democratic Party, which can't win without organized labor,
>and it gives organized labor none of the programs and
>principles organized labor needs to grow. Instead, it gives
>them NAFTA, the China trade legislation and no mention of
>revising the antilabor Taft-Hartley Act. Yet here's a
>guy"--he's referring to himself--"who fought for OSHA and is
>way ahead on other policies for organized labor, and his
>campaign is 'reprehensible'? This can only fill one with
>pity. They're on their knees, begging Gore and the DLC for
>crumbs. It's pathos."
>
>Nader does not seem worried about being perceived as a rogue
>or enemy by leaders of progressive groups. "Now people are
>saying we better not come to [public interest] coalition
>meetings," Nader says. "Well, they"--the Washington
>establishment--"shut out progressive civil society a long
>time ago." And Nader says he doesn't give a damn about
>breaking ties with once-sympathetic Democratic legislators.
>"The ties haven't been there. They said no to us on NAFTA,
>WTO, the telecom bill, the merger craze, trade with China,
>auto safety, stronger food-standard inspections, campaign
>finance reform, universal healthcare. After a while, you get
>the idea."
>
>Persuasion-lobbying is out for Nader; blunt electoral
>realpolitik is what matters. "We still have a long ways to
>go. But the first step in regaining power is to realize
>you've lost power." Nader's Green Party run has confirmed
>his view that resurrection awaits only those progressives
>who recognize this harsh reality, give up on the Democrats
>and act accordingly.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 11/28/00 EST