Yoshie posted a letter from Paul Felton containing:
> I voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 and I'm proud of it. You voted for Nader and you regret it (or, you voted for Gore, even though you liked Nader better).
No I voted for Gore because I was afraid what electing Bush would mean for the black community. Turns out I was wrong -- he is worse than I imagined.
> Ever since then, you participated in a vigorous campaign to convince Nader and the Green Party not to run in 2004.
No, I just hoped he and they would refrain from helped a racist get re-elected.
> It is unprecedented for so many progressive people to fight so intensely to prevent a progressive voice from entering the campaign.
I am all for progressive voices. But the re-election of a reactionary racist such as Bush is too horrifying for me to countenance (others may disagree).
> I know you consider me misguided and stubborn, if well intentioned (although you don't give Mr. Nader even that much respect).
Ralph Nader lost my respect with his labeling queer issues "gonadal politics" and being too vague on issues of importance to women and blacks. There is just something off about him.
> They knew you would support them in 2004 regardless. So they felt no pressure to oppose these policies. In this manner, you (unintentionally) helped make it easier for George Bush.
What makes it easier for Bush is siphoning off votes which would otherwise go to a candidate who has a chance of beating him.
> We had a movement that was strong enough to stop the war -- except for one missing element. There was
not an opposition party in Congress with both the principles and the courage to stand up and say "NO -- we oppose this war!"
Why haven't the Greens elected anyone to the Senate or the House of Representatives? Surely that is more feasible than electing someone president and would be a clear indication of political organization and strength. Even the most extreme parties seem to get someone to run every four years for president. I do not understand this fetish to vote for Nader even if it results in helping a racist like Bush become president.
> One of the reasons they felt no pressure to take a stand was because people like you were not putting pressure on them. Oh, you certainly let them know your position on the war. But deep down, the leaders of the Democratic Party knew that come 2004, you would be there to support them regardless of whether they stopped this war or
not.
This is the flaw the non-proportional representation system we have in this country. It seems to me that an effort to change the voting system (including abolishing the Electoral College) makes more sense than running a candidate who cannot win.
> But what you don't realize is that by telling the Democrats that you will fight against any progressive third party challenge, you gave the Democrats the ability to comfortably ignore your point of view on these issues.
I would like the Green Party to prove itself on a local level first -- electing representatives, senators, mayors of mid-size to large cities -- before trying to go national.
> I never accepted the "spoiler" argument. I agree with Ralph Nader that it is contemptuous, anti-democratic, and an insult.
It is also the truth. A person who runs in any sort of competition who has no hope of winning that competition is a de facto spoiler whether or not she intended to be one.
> My standard response is that if you lose a basketball game by a score of 113-112, you can blame it on a shot your second string point guard missed in the second quarter, but you can also blame it on any other play in
the game. A lot of people have singled out the Nader factor and turned their venom on him.
No, Nader was one factor among many that helped Bush win. Ideally, none of them should have occurred. What is disturbing is Nader's complete lack of understanding that he did affect the outcome of the race. I mean -- why run if you don't want to have an effect? Also, Nader really didn't seem to care that much about the Green Party. Nader and the Greens seemed to be using each other to gain prominence - like the Tril on DS9. Personally, I would take the Greens more seriously if they nominated a black person for president -- now that is progressive.
> What puzzles me is why Democrats are spending so much time yelling about Nader, but, for the most part,
are silent about the outrageous civil rights violations that helped Bush win Florida.
I am not silent about that at all.
> If you succeed in driving Nader and the Green Party from the race, you will have denied my civil rights by denying me an opportunity to vote for a candidate who supports my viewpoint.
I do not think either Ralph Nader or the Green Party should be driven from the race. I also believe that they should accept responsibility for the consequences of their actions. I do not think that pointing out the possible pernicious effects of voting for Nader is depriving anyone of their civils rights.
But then again -- it all comes down to individualism doesn't it. My rights -- my voice being heard, my viewpoint being supported.
> In any event, the policies in Iraq, on civil liberties, on labor rights, on free trade, and all the other issues on which we share a common concern, can be influenced by the building of a mass movement in the streets, as well as by the election results. Let's agree to work together and build a movement to fight around those issues
regardless of who's in the White House. Let's agree to disagree about which party to vote for.
It is more than just disagreeing about whom to vote for. It is disagreeing about whether or not it is moral to abet the election of a reactionary racist such as George Bush. Nader cannot win. To vote for him is to give into the indulgence/fetishization of individualism. If Nader had a mathematical probability of winning, then there might be sense in supporting him. But he doesn't. No third party candidate does under the present system.
I think it would be much more beneficial for progressives to come together and work to change elction laws so that a third party candidate can possibly win a national election. Set the table first, and then try to have dinner.
I think the Green Party should also continue to try to get a presence in Congress to push for its agenda.
> Just don't tell me not to vote for Nader or a Green, and please stop trying to silence one of the few prominent progressive voices on the political scene.
Agreed. And if Bush wins a close election don't shirk responsibility when affirmative action and abortion rights are curtailed during his second term.
Brian Dauth Queer Budhist Resister