The Greens' No-Nader Dilemma
News: The Green Party now faces something even more complicated and risky than being linked to Ralph Nader: Surviving without him.
January 28, 2004
|
|
Having Ralph Nader as a presidential standard-bearer always presented members of the Green Party with an uncomfortable balancing act. He was never actually a member of the party, he was roundly accused of playing a spoiler's role in 2000, and many Green leaders worried that his candidacy distracted the party from the local and statewide races where real progress might be made. But now, with Nader ruling out another White House bid, Greens face a different –- but equally uncomfortable -- problem. Nader's past performances assured the Greens of gaining major party status in several states. Without him, some party leaders worry, the Greens risk slipping back into the political shadows.
Even before the December 22 announcement –- welcomed heartily by Democrats -- many Green loyalists were uneasy about another Nader bid. But for every Green who worried about having Nader as the party's candidate, there are others who now worry about filling the void created by his withdrawal. Nader remains a hero to many party loyalists, who claim his highly-publicized 2000 campaign gave a huge boost to the national party and attracted thousands of new members to local chapters, with some states reporting doubled membership. Ben Manski, one of the party's national co-chairs argues that, although national campaigns don't land Greens in office, they generate enthusiasm for local races.
"The 2000 campaign did wonders for building the Green Party," Manski contends. "The national races and the local and state level races have a kind of a symbiotic relationship that the more successful states recognize. The federal and statewide races put us on the map in regions of the country where we previously had no presence. The local and state legislative races increasingly are the races in which we're winning elections."
Jason West, who last year became the first Green to win a mayoral race in New York state, agrees. The 26-year-old mayor of New Paltz argues that high-profile races energize party supporters, ultimately building support for local campaigns –- like his own -- that "aren't really as sexy."
Still, while many Greens acknowledge that their party needs high-profile candidates in high-profile races, the romance with Nader is no simple matter. For scores of party members involved in municipal politics, Nader presents a sort of "can't live with him, can't live without him" quandary.
John Eder, who made history by becoming the first Green elected to the Maine state legislature last year, says Greens can't really escape the problem. If it were up to him, Eder says, Maine Greens would focus exclusively on state issues. With about 18,000 registered Greens in Maine, mounting a statewide campaign exhausts their resources, and Eder says the Greens' goal should be to create a party in Maine -- not run a presidential campaign. But Maine's laws leave the party little choice. Like many other states, Maine only recognizes parties that receive five percent or more of the vote in a gubernatorial or presidential contest. Official recognition is no small matter. As long as the Greens remain a recognized major party, the state is required to issue voters the party registration cards, keep a list of all registered Greens, and give the party state election funds.
"In Maine, if we don't run somebody and get the percentage that we need, we're done," said Eder. "We're compelled to have to run somebody. I think for a small party it's incredibly challenging and it's a task where you're set up to fail. That's why there's no other third parties." Nader's decision only complicates the task for Eder and other Greens hoping to stay in the political big leagues. At least six Greens are seeking the party's nomination, but none have the name recognition of a Nader. Can a candidate like David Cobb, a Texas lawyer running for the nomination, attract enough attention in Maine or any other state to keep Greens legally recognized as a third party? Eder's not so sure.
"There's a drawback to being tied to Ralph," he says. "We all recognize it, I think. We don't want to be seen as the party of Ralph Nader. On the other hand, he has the name that can pull the percentage. He definitely energized people in the last presidential election. He definitely brought throngs of new voters to the Party. "
But is preserving major party status really worth the effort it takes to run a presidential campaign, with or without Nader? Joel Sipress, a member of the state coordinating committee of the Green Party of Minnesota, says no. While Minnesota Greens operate under election laws similar to their compatriots in Maine, Sipress doesn't feel the pressure to meet the state's guidelines. Greens can have an influence on a national level, as they did in 2000, simply because Democrats and Republicans are failing to address a host of issue such as fair trade, Sipress contends. But in 2004, with an "anyone but Bush" sentiment dominating the American Left, he sees no opening for a Green candidacy. And, even if there were an opportunity for Greens to play a constructive role, Sipress doubts how beneficial the effort would prove.
"The only way you can build a social change party is methodically from the bottom up through grassroots organizing. High profile national campaigns may sometimes play a constructive role in that process, but they don't necessarily do so," he says. "We should run high-profile national campaigns if we believe it will in some very concrete way contribute to bottom-up grassroots party building. I've come to the conclusion that that would not be the case this year."
Matt Gonzalez, president of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, agrees with Sipress' approach. Following a very narrow defeat in the city's highly-publicized mayoral race in December -- he lost the runoff by a mere five points -- Gonzalez might be the country's best-known Green politician. Nader, after all, is not even a member of the party. Which is part of the problem, Gonzalez says.
"Nader's great, he's done great things. I think everyone really respects that, but it's not real clear what the purpose sometimes is: Party building?" said Gonzalez. "It doesn't really appear to be the case and so I think the party really needs to start fielding some genuinely Green candidates. It's not about running out and finding a Democrat that wants to join the Green Party solely for the purpose of running."
Annie Young, a Democrat-turned-Green in her fourth term as a Minneapolis parks commissioner, is even less conflicted than Gonzalez. Young says she's truly relieved that Nader is not running. Like many other Greens, Young believes that Nader carries too much baggage from the 2000 election.
"You cannot believe what I have had to live with, in terms of most people's opinion about how Ralph and the Greens stole the election," she says. "The biggest part of their anger is that he did refer to Gore and Bush as tweedlee-dee and tweedlee-dum, and continued to say that there was no difference. When in fact we all know there were some major differences. My local organizing will be totally destroyed."
Like Sipress, Young argues that Minnesota's 3,000 Greens should focus their energy on local and state races and not be bogged down in a presidential campaign. But the party's national leadership doesn't intend to sit the election out. Dave Berger, a spokesperson for the party in Minnesota, says the party will field a candidate. "If anything, when we end up with our candidate, it will be an indigenous candidate, someone who's a member of the Green Party."
It now looks like Berger will get his indigenous candidate. Earlier this month, David Cobb of Texas won the party's primary in Washington DC, and former California gubernatorial candidate Peter Camejo announced that he will compete in primaries across the country. While it's a little early to tell, Manski, one of the national co-chairs, predicts that either Cobb or Camejo will end up winning the nomination. But will either candidate even end up attracting the support of Green voters in November? Young, the Minneapolis parks commissioner, says even she is shopping around for a candidate to support.
"Is it going to make a difference this year when so many people are going to vote for anybody to get Bush out of there? I guess the question I had last night at about ten o'clock [after watching the coverage of the Iowa caucus], Kerry or Edwards, have they got anything Green about them? Do Greens have any reason to support either of them?" she says. "I'm not really sure there's a right or wrong answer to this dilemma about where the Greens should go."
Liv Leader is a MotherJones.com editorial fellow.
Photo: Associated Press/Wide World Photos
