There are a lot of things that have not happened in the USA -- *not even once*. Just to take one example, never in the history of the United States has there been universal health care. Does that mean that we shouldn't struggle for it?
>What makes you think that getting out 2-3% of the vote for Nader for
>President is going to promote building a progressive, left, social
>democratic, even a liberal party?
It's not that only 3% of those who actually voted in 2000 were interested in the political program represented by Nader/LaDuke and the Green Party. "An analysis of the National Election Study data by Harvard political scientist Barry Burden shows that only 9% of the people who thought Nader was the best candidate actually voted for him [in 2000]. If people had not voted strategically for the lesser evil, Nader would have had over 30 million votes instead of 3 million. . . " (Howie Hawkins, "There Never Were Any 'Good Old Days' In The Democratic Party," March 1, 2004, <http://www.gpnys.org/archives/000069.php>). The reason why 91% of Americans who thought that Nader was the best candidate didn't have the courage to vote for him was they were isolated from one another and therefore trapped in a kind of prisoners' dilemma. The political payoff of more than 30 million Americans voting for Nader/LaDuke and the Green Party would be momentous: it would have made the Green Party a party that would rival the Democratic and Republican Parties. However, most of them, not being Green Party members, didn't even know that there were about 30 million other Americans who thought that Nader was the best candidate; and even if they had, most of them, being atomized individuals, couldn't have gotten any reassurance that all or most of them would actually vote for him. So, the majority of them either stayed home or voted for their second choice or even third choice. How do we break down the invisible walls that separated 30 million Americans on the left from one another, unable to cooperate on the basis of their more or less shared political understanding? By making them visible to one another and creating channels of constant political communication among them. How do we do that? By organizing a political party rooted in social movements and recruiting Americans on the left to it -- or, more specifically, by making the Green Party a party that grows out of, and in turn helps grow, social movements and recruiting Americans on the left to it.
Marvin wrote:
>"Name recognition" is much less important than "constituency
>recognition". The Greens can only grow if rank-and-file Democrats
>come over to them, and, in politics, that requires patience and
>sensitivity to the conciousness and needs of those you want to
>reach, and an understanding of what is possible in the
>circumstances. In 2004, the Democratic ranks are more determined to
>win -- for all the other right reasons -- than at any time since the
>mid-60s, and it has been clear since the last election, that they
>would perceive a Green candidacy in the closely-contested states as
>representing the difference between victory and defeat. In this
>context, and especially since Nader and Camejo can only play the
>role of freelance spoilers, it is difficult to see how their
>decision to run in these states can be seen as anything other than
>sectarian. There's no reason to suppose Nader or (more likely)
>Camejo will be greeted any more warmly "in 2008" by the people they
>want to attract if the margin of a Kerry loss is equal to the votes
>cast their way, than they were following Gore's loss in 2000.
If the Democratic Party politicians had really wished to avoid any potential of Nader/Camejo alone or together with other tickets on the left swinging the battleground states to Bush/Cheney in 2004 or in the future, they could have taken an initiative for electoral reforms to diminish or eliminate the chance of an insurgent campaign becoming the kingmaker. Liberalize voter registration laws (more liberal voter registration laws -> more youth and working-class votes). Make the government responsible for registering voters. Turn the election day into a national holiday (which guarantees a higher voter turnout even without a costly get-out-the-vote campaign, putting the Republican Party at a disadvantage), which should be a popular measure among working-class Americans across the political spectrum. End the disenfranchisement of former felons (which has disenfranchised mainly working-class voters, especially Black and Latino working-class voters, rather than a Republican Party constituency). Abolish the electoral college and make the presidential election a direct popular election: "Gallup surveys over the last half-century show Americans consistently and decisively reject the entire Electoral College setup and endorse direct popular vote of the president" (Neal Peirce, "It May Be Time to Graduate from the Electoral College," October 4, 2004, <http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2002053094_peirce04.html>). Institute instant runoff voting.
Or they could have spent money and manpower and put initiatives for universal health care or something equally attractive to working-class voters on the ballots in all states where ballot initiatives are allowed. According to Caroline J. Tolbert, John A. Grummel, and Daniel A. Smith's research, "the presence and usage of the initiative process is associated with higher voter turnout in both presidential and midterm elections. The disparity in turnout rates between initiative and noninitiative states has been increasing over time, estimated at 7% to 9% higher in midterm and 3% to 4.5% higher in presidential elections in the 1990s" ("The Effects of Ballot Initiatives on Voter Turnout in the American States," American Politics Research 29.6, November 2001, <http://montages.blogspot.com/2004/07/its-hollow-party.html>).
Or they could have all voted against the invasion of Iraq, the Patriot Act, tax cuts for the rich, etc. Or they could now pledge to withdraw the US troops from Iraq on Day One if John Kerry gets elected. Or they could promise universal health care. There are numerous actions they should have taken or they could take to steal Nader/Camejo's thunder.
Rank-and-file Democrats ought to stop and think about which is really in their interest: attack Nader/Camejo, the Green Party, or whatnot as "a spoiler," thereby letting the Democratic Party politicians off the hook, or point out what the Democratic Party should have been or should be doing? -- Yoshie
* Critical Montages: <http://montages.blogspot.com/> * Greens for Nader: <http://greensfornader.net/> * Bring Them Home Now! <http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/> * OSU-GESO: <http://www.osu-geso.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/>