Those who want to use electoral campaigns to condemn "Bush's illegal war-mongering" and call for "his impeachment" must welcome the Ralph Nader candidacy. First of all, Democratic legislators have not and will not even try to impeach Bush. Howard Dean, the best-funded Democratic candidate who was portrayed as _the_ anti-war candidate by the mass media, bowed out one day after he lost the Wisconsin primary. The lesser Democratic candidates to the left of Dean who are still running -- Dennis Kucinich and Al Sharpton -- have no chance of winning the Democratic nomination, and they know that themselves. It's only February, but the field of the Democratic Party candidates has already been narrowed down to two pro-war and pro-occupation candidates: John Kerry and John Edwards. After John Kerry secures the nomination, before or during the Democratic Party National Convention, all Democratic politicians -- including those who are to the left of Kerry -- will support Kerry unanimously, making their own positions moot. So, without the Nader candidacy, we'll have no voice against "illegal war-mongering" and for Bush's "impeachment" in the general election.
>The logic of his argument still escapes me. I fully agree with his
>critique of the two-party duopoly and the need to open up the system
>to third-party candidacies and other independent voices. But I don't
>see how that compels a presidential bid.
A third party on the left, especially in war times, must make a presidential bid, because it is the executive branch of the federal government that determines foreign policy, making life-and-death decisions on matters of war and peace.
>One of the dirty little secrets of ballot access law is that state
>legislators--who rig the rules to entrench themselves above all
>else--are often happy liberalizes the ballot restrictions for
>presidential candidates, while maintaining far more discriminatory
>hurdles for someone who might want to run for state office.
Greens in closely contested states should first do as much as we can to register new voters and sign them up as Green Party members, as well as courting disgruntled and discouraged Dean, Kucinich, Sharpton, and Braun supporters, in order to build up bargaining power. The Green Party should then demand concrete concessions from the Democratic Party -- especially institutional reforms that will make it easier for the Green Party to participate in national politics on equal terms with the Democratic and Republican Parties, for instance, liberalizing the ballot restrictions at all levels -- in exchange for Green votes for the Democratic presidential nominee in closely contested states. If the Democratic Party makes no move to make such institutional reforms before the end of October 2004, Greens in closely contested states should vote for the Green Party candidate; if the Democratic Party does make such a move, the Green Party should claim victory, and Greens in closely contested states should vote for the Democratic Party candidate.
>In 2000, Nader turned down many opportunities to expand his outreach
>because they were in one way or another beneath him. He wouldn't go
>to Texas to protest the execution of Gary Graham, which would have
>highlighted the fact that he was the only anti-death penalty
>candidate running because that wasn't one of his core issues. He
>wouldn't go to Florida to interject his views of the Elian Gonzalez
>case because that had nothing to do with his anti-corporate message.
>He didn't care for Bill Hillsman's brilliant TV ads on his behalf.
>And so on. Now he rejects the Internet as if it's a bad video game.
No need to wait for a go-ahead from Nader to take any of the above actions (all of which are good ideas), is there? How about some grassroots initiatives from below, to raise the profile of the Green Party and expand its membership? Green Party and other left-wing organizers and activists can and should organize actions like the ones described above on their won while supporting the Nader candidacy.
>[lbo-talk] Ralph
>Miles Jackson cqmv at pdx.edu, Sun Feb 22 16:40:49 PST 2004
<snip>
>--And moreover: can you really be a leftie and in good "conscience"
>support Nader? He thinks capitalism should be well regulated, but
>not overturned; he's ambivalent about unions, rather than working to
>increase union membership; he does grandstanding presidental runs,
>rather than helping to build a grassroots socialist political
>movement. --I guess my question is: how can a principled leftist in
>good conscience vote for Nader?
>
>Miles
Well, if you wish, you can always vote for a candidate of one of the numerous socialist sects in the USA. :-> -- Yoshie
* Bring Them Home Now! <http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/> * Calendars of Events in Columbus: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html>, <http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php>, & <http://www.cpanews.org/> * Student International Forum: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/> * 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/>