Yes, polls have indicated that support for Ralph Nader is the highest (20-26%) among Arab- and Muslim-Americans, many of whose votes are concentrated in the battleground states (cf. <http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20040315/005686.html>, <http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20040315/006157.html>, <http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20040315/006158.html>); next to Arab- and Muslim-Americans, youths support Nader in a greater proportion than other age groups -- e.g., a University of Cincinnati survey of Ohio voters suggested an unprecedented proportion of young Ohioans -- 20%! -- support the Nader candidacy (cf. <http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20040322/006885.html>). That, in itself, is not so much a strategy as an empirical fact (that, as such, all organizers and activists of whatever political dispositions should take into account), which is independent of my opinion and the Green Party's existence and which supporters of the Democratic Party will ignore at their own peril.
>A couple of weeks ago, at least, it seems that she expected (and
>I suppose wanted) Nader to be a serious threat to Kerry's chances,
>and was arguing that it would be the Arab- and Muslim-Americans who
>would be the backbone of that threat. She has also stated, I
>believe, that she was confident that Kerry would win. Now she is
>saying, if I understand correctly, that voters in safe-for-Kerry
>states ("blue states") should vote for Nader, but she would
>understand if voters in the battleground ("purple") states went for
>the big K.
Green Party members and supporters hold a range of opinions about what strategies and tactics to adopt in electoral campaigns in general and the 2004 presidential campaign in particular.
Among the Green Party members and supporters, there are (A) people who think like Peter Camejo ("The Avocado Declaration," <http://www.avocadoeducationproject.org/avocado.shtml>; "Highlights from the Debate between Peter Camejo and Norman Solomon," <http://greencampaigns.org/dc/arch/000014.html>) and Howie Hawkins ("Are the Greens Ready for Success?" <http://www.wpunj.edu/~newpol/issue27/hawkin27.htm>; "'Strategic Voting' Is Strategic Suicide," <http://www.greens.org/s-r/32/32-18.html>), and there are (B) people who think like David Cobb ("Green Party 2004 Presidential Strategy," <http://www.gwu.edu/%7Eaction/2004/cobb.html>) and Ted Glick ("A Green Party 'Safe States' Strategy," <http://www.greens.org/s-r/32/32-17.html>). Needless to say, the "battleground strategy" that I have jotted down is much more in accord with (A) than (B), but if the Green Party democratically decide on the "safe states strategic voting" campaign at its June 23-28 national convention, the party is, in my opinion, still worthy of support, as long as it doesn't decide to make the "safe states strategic voting" campaign its perpetual strategy beyond the 2004 presidential campaign.
>The problem with her asking us Nader opponents to answer her
>arguments is that we don't know which ones we are supposed to answer.
*At the minimum,* all leftists should vote for and advocate voting for Ralph Nader in the one-party states like New York and Texas, unless they are the sort of leftists who always -- not just in 2004 -- disapprove of third-party campaigns in general (not just Ralph Nader and the Green Party in particular).
Those leftists who are committed to building the Green Party and using electoral campaigns in addition to social movement organizing to gather our strengths, build our own institutions, remove some constraints on our actions, gain more political power with which the power elite must reckon, etc., in my opinion, would be better off siding with Peter Camejo, Howie Hawkins, etc.
It doesn't make any sense for leftists to side with Jimmy Carter ("'Don't risk costing the Democrats the White House this year as you did four years ago,' Carter said. 'I hope everyone here tonight will do your best to make sure Ralph Nader gets zero votes this year,'" <http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-3904386,00.html>), against both the Camejo/Hawkins wing and the Cobb/Glick wing of the Green Party.
>>Or maybe you are expecting others to build an organization while
>>you are carping about those like Paul Felton who are trying to do
>>so.
>
>I don't want to be in the position of answering for Doug, so
>I'll assume that she would also consider me a "free rider."
<snip>
>One problem with this argument, for some of us, at least, is that
>we are not so sure that the GP is all that beneficial to leftists
If you do not think that, with or without Nader, the Green Party is no good anyway, that's fine with me. In that case, though, you, Doug, etc. have no standing to complain that Nader did too little to build the Green Party. If the Green Party is no good, who cares if Nader has done enough to help build it -- you might even say that it would have been better if Nader had done nothing at all for the Green Party.
I personally think that Nader could and should have done more for the Green Party, but it is undeniable that Nader has done much more than you, Doug, etc. would ever bring yourself to doing, and for that reason many if not all Greens appreciate his work, and the Green Party will most likely nominate him at the convention:
***** Green & Growing: 2004 in Perspective. . .
II - WHERE WE'VE BEEN
In assembling any strategy, some of the key questions that must be asked include: "Who and where are we?", "Where have we been?", "Where do we want to go?", and finally, "How will we get there?" Among these questions, the question of "Where have we been?" is most often overlooked, and of particular importance to the Greens.
We often forget that the Greens are not a brand-new entry to American politics. To a great extent, the history of the Greens known to most party members is informed less by real events in our party's development, and more by the media's portrayal of the Greens. Despite what many pundits say, the Greens are not a new party, not created from above by any single person, and not a faction of the Democratic Party. Who are the Greens then? Where have we been?
(A) Early 1980s - Origins - Inspired by the rise of Green movements in Europe and Africa, U.S. peace, ecology, international solidarity, farm, feminist, and labor activists begin to discuss the formation of a new Green political movement in North America. U.S. Greens hope to bring the practice of the European Greens "anti-party party" movement politics to the U.S., and to plant it in the indigenous U.S. tradition of independent progressive party politics.
(B) 1980s-Early 1990s - Initial Growth - Green parties take root across the United States and Canada. Greens across the continent contribute significantly to anti-war, anti-nuke, and anti-biotech movements, and also make electoral gains in states like Wisconsin, Massachusetts, Maine, Alaska, and California.
(C) Early 1990s-1996 - Divergence - Significant political differences within the Greens lead to the divergence of Greens into various camps; as a result, party growth at the national level stagnates, while local and state parties continue to grow. At this time, two other major national progressive political parties are formed in the United States: The New Party and the Labor Party.
(D) 1996-2000 - National Renewal - Greens decide to adopt a New Mexico proposal to build 40-state presidential campaign. The 1996 Nader/LaDuke campaign puts U.S. Greens on the national electoral map for the first time, rejuvenating dozens of local and state parties in the process. The following years witness a coming together of the vast majority of Greens under the principles articulated in an agreement called the "Boston Proposal" of 2000. Meanwhile, the New Party collapses following a 1997 Supreme Court ruling (Timmons v. New Party) hostile to the practice of so-called "fusion politics," and Labor Party languishes due to its failure to engage in electoral politics. Finally, 2000 Nader/LaDuke Campaign receives almost 3 million votes, the best showing by a progressive party ticket since 1924, resulting in the growth of Green parties in 47 states and the District of Columbia.
(E) 2001-2003 - Rapid Growth - Greens build on the 2000 election by forming a new national party - the Green Party of the United States - out of the elements of the Association of State Green Parties and the Boston Proposal. Although a few states suffer setbacks, most state parties grow quickly. Within two years, the number of state parties affiliated with the national party increases from 29 to 41, and various caucuses begin to apply for and receive accreditation. Other increases include the number of candidates (287 to 552), elected officials (87 to over 180), party members (increased to over 300,000), and annual budget (roughly $30,000 to almost $1 million). These years are also marked by the emergence of the Global Greens Network and of regional Green networks on all 6 populated continents. Finally, the 2002 elections witness a major increase in votes for Green candidates, a near doubling of votes from under 3 million in 2000 to almost 6 million in 2002. . . .
<http://www.greens.org/s-r/greengrow2004.html> *****
***** Specifically, during the election, Ralph helped: * local Greens start 450 new local Green chapters, * achieve ballot lines for several states, * support state and local candidates; * make the party grow from an association of states to a national party; * recruit and share lists of tens of thousands of volunteers; and * start 900 chapters on college campuses, all resulting in the largest vote for a progressive candidacy in 75 years.
<http://www.votenader.org/why_ralph/index.php?cid=3> ***** -- Yoshie
* Bring Them Home Now! <http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/> * Calendars of Events in Columbus: <http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html>, <http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php>, & <http://www.cpanews.org/> * Student International Forum: <http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/> * Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osudivest.org/> * Al-Awda-Ohio: <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio> * Solidarity: <http://www.solidarity-us.org/>