Taking a Cue from Nader

[POA]

Published on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 by the Capital Times / Madison, Wisconsin
Taking a Cue from Nader
Editorial

Consumer advocate Ralph Nader's supporters collected more than 4,000 valid signatures in their drive to secure the independent presidential candidate a place on Wisconsin's Nov. 2 ballot. They did so by showing up with their clipboards at the Dane County Farmers' Market, on State Street and in communities around the state.

Nader's enthusiastic young backers, many of whom are allied with the International Socialist Organization, did not rely on help from Republicans or conservative activists who want Nader on the ballot because they presume the independent candidate might draw votes away from Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry. Rather, Nader's supporters collected signatures from Wisconsinites who worry that Kerry is too cautious when it comes to opposing the war in Iraq and standing up to corporate power.

Of course, many Democrats are furious with Nader and his supporters for pursuing this independent candidacy. They are now attempting to get Nader knocked off the ballot. But the complaints from the Democrats about Nader's petitions don't sound very credible.

Besides, unlike states that are less respectful of democracy, Wisconsin errs on the side of ensuring that campaigns that make a sincere effort to get on the ballot end up there. Thus, it is extremely unlikely that Democratic grumbling will knock Nader off the ballot in the Badger State, as has happened in other states.

So does Nader's ballot status pose a serious threat to Democratic candidates in Wisconsin this fall?That's doubtful. There does not seem to be the same energy surrounding this year's Nader candidacy as there was for him when he ran as a Green Party candidate in 2000. There may not even be as much energy as there was for Nader's Green Party candidacy of 1996.

Only if the Wisconsin presidential vote is exceptionally close this year could Nader matter to the final outcome.

And Democrats could even avert that prospect.

Nader's appeal, to the extent that it can be measured, is rooted in the fact that he takes tough stands and sticks to them. He wants to find a quick conclusion for the war in Iraq, so that U.S. troops can come home. He wants to hold accountable the corporations that do wrong. He wants to prevent the World Trade Organization from promoting a free-trade agenda that harms U.S. workers, farmers, communities and the environment.

Nader may not be the most dynamic candidate, but he has taken some extremely attractive stands on issues ranging from the war (which he opposes) to the Patriot Act (which he criticizes thoughtfully and thoroughly) to fair trade (which he supports) to the reform of this nation's archaic drug laws (which he supports).

Instead of trying to tear Nader down personally or politically, Wisconsin Democrats - and their national cohorts - ought to try borrowing a few of his ideas.

Nader is not going to be elected this year. He may not even poll as many votes as he did in 2000. But that does not mean that his ideas should be dismissed. Wise Democrats, such as Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold, have long understood that Nader's greatest contribution to the political process is his willingness to speak up fearlessly when others lack the vision or the wherewithal to do so.

Nader will be making that contribution as a candidate running in Wisconsin this fall. Democrats should not try to prevent him from doing so. If they fear Nader's appeal - as, clearly, some Democrats do - they can lessen it the old-fashioned way: by taking his best ideas and making them their own.

Copyright 2004 The Capital Times

[calabi-yau]

From previous post Wise Democrats, such as Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold, have long understood that Nader's greatest contribution to the political process is his willingness to speak up fearlessly when others lack the vision or the wherewithal to do so.


...wise Democrats ? I wish we would hear more from them.

Here is another article, in the same vein as the one posted by POA.

Nader, berating Democrats, takes the long view
Third parties a plus for democracy, he argues

COVER STORY :: SEPTEMBER 15, 2004
By ED GLAZER

They’re surrounded on all sides, but somehow they manage to continue fighting. Nader supporters face attacks from the Democrats, the Republicans, the Green Party — Nader’s ticket in the 2000 election — and even from the Reform Party of Michigan, the group that’s supposed to be holding his ticket in this election.

Beleaguered Nader activists press on because their goal in working for a third-party candidate, especially in this election, isn’t to win. Says Steve Schofield, the Michigan Reform Party public relations chairman, “It’s been a struggle. The two major parties are still holding on strongly.” Does he believe Nader can win? “The realistic answer is probably not, but our hope for this whole campaign is to make an impression, to get our ideas and our beliefs that the two party system is broken into people’s heads.”<br>
Michigan’s 17 electoral votes could have an impact on the national election, and Nader could have an impact on the state. The most recent polls by Lansing-based research firm EPIC-MRA indicate that Kerry and Edwards hold a seven-point lead over Bush/Cheney, but taking into account the poll’s sampling error of +/- 4 percent, Bush/Cheney could overtake Kerry/Edwards by a margin of one point.

The same poll asked whom voters would pick if Nader were not in the election. Two of Nader’s three points go to Kerry, and one goes to Bush, and that could give Kerry the edge

Nader supporters don’t necessarily see that a vote for Nader affects either Kerry or Bush. “People say a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush,” says Fred David, coordinator for Nader’s visit to MSU Monday night, Sept. 13. “That’s not the case. A vote for Nader is a vote for Nader.”<br>
The Democrats would obviously prefer a vote for Kerry. “The idea that one would not vote for Kerry in order to stop Bush is pretty strange and intensely agitating to most Democrats,” said Paul Pratt, chairman of the Ingham County Democratic Party. “But that’s no different than last time. [He] will probably get more people even more upset about it than last time.”<br>
The view of Nader as divisive is frequently brought up by both Democrats and third-party supporters. In the previous presidential race, Nader ran as the Green Party candidate and had strong support of activists like Steve Herrick. The Green Party is backing David Cobb (see box) for the presidency in this election, and Nader’s decision to run again has split the party. “To be divided like this really hurts us,” Herrick said.

Nader was not particularly congenial about his old party when I asked him to comment on the division he was causing. “Well there’s not much to divide, is there?” he said at a press conference before he spoke to some 700 people at MSU’s Wells Hall.

He said the Green Party divided three ways early on and hadn’t decided to run a candidate in 50 states until their convention in late June, which brings up an interesting facet of the third-party concern this election year. Herrick said one of the three Green Party factions didn’t want to run a candidate who might become a spoiler for Kerry. Herrick disagrees with the image of Nader as a spoiler in the last election. “The idea that Gore would have won if Nader hadn’t run — that’s not a spoiler, that’s participation,” Herrick said. “Democracy is all about having more choices.”<br>
The right to have choices is a reason some Nader supporters are campaigning for him. “[It’s] one of the things we’re pushing for in the Nader campaign,” said Ryan Dinkgrave, MSU for Nader president. “We’re just asking you support the right to run for president.”<br>
The question remains then why Nader runs if he knows he can’t win. “Because the role of the third-party independent candidate historically is to push the people’s agenda,” Nader said at the press conference. “In a two-party rigged system, unless there’s some break in terms of presidential debate attendance, our role is to push the agenda and keep it alive for a younger generation to punctuate later.”<br>
Presidential debates are another sore spot in the Nader campaign. The Commission for Presidental Debates, the nonprofit corporation that has sponsored the debates since 1988, requires a candidate receive at least 15 percent support nationally in five selected polls to be eligible to debate. Dinkgrave calls it “a debate that is not in the public interest.”<br>
Some former supporters of Nader’s agenda are parting with the third-party to to work for Bush’s defeat. Paul Emery, a capital-area coordinator for the Green Party in 2000, says “I was a strong supporter of Nader as a Green Party candidate.” Though he supports Nader in spirit, he is putting his political muscle elsewhere this year. “I’m going to try to defeat Bush, and I’ve chosen to do that by working for the Democrats.”<br>
Dinkgrave is troubled by the defeat Bush at all costs idea. “That’s one of my reasons for getting involved. It’s this Anybody-But-Bush campaign. I think that’s a very dangerous mindset to have when electing presidents.”<br>
“A lot [of Greens] are supporting anybody but Bush,” says another former Nader supporter, 2000 Green Party secretary of state candidate Ray Ziarno. He is leaning towards Nader, but hasn’t decided yet. Ziarno rejects the image of Nader as a spoiler, putting responsibility for the 2000 presidential outcome on voter apathy. “Instead of blaming Nader and the people that voted for him, why don’t people blame the Democrats that voted for Bush, or the people that didn’t vote.”<br>
According to Federal Election Commission data, 48.7 percent of voting age citizens didn’t vote in the 2000 election. Even among registered voters, only two thirds made it into the booth.

In Michigan, Republicans collected thousands of signatures to make certain Nader would be on the ballot. Nationally, Democrats have taken Nader to the courts in several key battleground states to get him off the ballot. When a split in the Reform Party of Michigan led to two groups’ claiming to be the official state party — one campaigning for Nader, the other against him — Republican Secretary of State Terry Land took Nader off Michigan’s ballot. A Sept. 3 state Court of Appeals ruling placed him back on the ballot, but without the official support of the Reform Party.

All the manipulation by both parties leaves Nader sounding frustrated by both parties’ involvement. “We are now besieged by the Democratic apparatus,” Nader said in East Lansing. “In three or four states there’s been some organized Republican signature gathering, Michigan being one of them. I say to both parties, ‘Get off our back. Stop entangling our campaign in your insidious schemes.’”

In response to the assertion that he is a spoiler, Nader places the blame squarely on the shoulders of Democrats. “If Bush is put in office, the Democrats are the chief spoilers, because they should beat him.” He continued to reproach Democrats for not leading Bush, whom he called a fool and a charlatan, by more points in the polls. “Isn’t [it] a shame on the Democratic Party, that they cannot landslide this type of person?”<br>
Nader also maintains that the Democrats could learn from his campaign, instead of trying to block it.

I asked him if he gets tired, fighting for the public good with only limited success. His response was animated. “No, we were very successful years ago, but most citizen groups have been shut down in Washington.”<br>
Though his previous methods are less effective today, he espouses adaptation as the reasoning behind his political campaigns. “When you’re shut down like that, you’ve got to recognize it, and not get up in the morning and go to work, and work harder and harder for less and less in Washington, D.C., for a better country. But we’ve recognized that. You’ve got to go into the electoral arena to try to get more elbow room, to try to get more leverage now and in the future.”

When you hear him make the pronunciation of the electoral process as the most effective platform from which to fight for political gain, it’s clear that Nader sees the presidential election, and the third party as Archimedes’ proverbial lever — give it to him and he can move the world. “The greatest social justice movements in our history have been pioneered first and foremost by small parties that never won a national election.”<br>