From The Nation "Nader and the Politics of Fear", by William Greider:
>The untested Green potential is whether they can exert electoral influence
>on the less obvious targets -- the New Democrats from closely contested
>swing districts or conservative-voting Democrats with safe seats and even
>some Republicans who vote more conservative than their districts. "That's
>a collateral benefit of what we're trying to do," Nader insisted. Despite
>appearances, the status quo is not invulnerable. Among the New Democrats,
>for instance, a dozen won last year by less than 10 percent, and some of
>their margins were squeakers where a third-party candidate might well have
>tipped the balance against them. The watch list includes some voluble
>champions of DLC deal-making such as California Representatives Cal Dooley
>(53-45 percent) and Ellen Tauscher (53-44 percent). A Green opponent might
>at least complicate life for some Democrats who win easily and flaunt
>their independence -- Representative Charles Stenholm of Texas or
>Representative Gary Condit of California or Representative Jim Moran of
>Virginia (whose affluent district may be more liberal than he is on
>environmental issues). At a minimum, the idea of introducing competition
>in uncontested districts should be stimulating for small-d democracy.
This of course, is diametrically opposed to the approach I broached here a couple of days ago. Not an accident. The left-liberal worms (no, it is not a time of healing, it is a time to be brutally and undiplomatically in their face until the tide is reversed - do we really need to fear these cowardly curs?) slyly council the Naderites to waste their energies in conservative, mostly white middle class districts such as Tauscher's Countra Costa East Bay district. (Ironically, if this tactic were successful, we'd end up with another Bible-thumping far-right reactionary Republican like the one Tauscher bumped out of office the last time - frankly, I'd rather have the conservative Democrat - but hey, "the Greens will be to blame", that's the beauty of this _reactionary_ left-liberal tactic). But that is not where the progressive constituency of the Greens is, it's in Oakland!!!
What to do? We "rejectionists" and "oppositionists" must go into our local Green organizations (the one here in Oakland is ''closet socialist') and (here, diplomatically) argue firmly against this tactic, pointing out that instead, the mostly middle class radical Greens have to bridge the gap between themselves and the nonwhite working class flatland neighborhoods of the East Bay. That will mean, on occasion, running against progressive Democrats. So what, that is not our problem! Our problem - our only real problem - is to link up with our natural class constituencies, and to tell these nattering nabobs of left-liberalism to take their irrelevant arguments and go to hell. We don't need to speak or listen to these types UNTIL WE HAVE FIRMLY ESTABLISHED AND SEPARATE ORGANIZATIONAL BOUNDARIES. The we can talk - _across these boundaries_ - in order only to invite them to cross, and that will require them to _change their minds_ and _change their political line_.
It it clear now? :-) -Brad Mayer Oakland, CA
PS: And if the Naderite tops split on this, then give them the bird, too!