[Standard introduction: Politics can bring out the best in people. It can also bring out the worst. All Nader supporters are, or will be, under attack from Democrats. Sometimes the best response, especially when personal friends or family members are involved, is to agree to disagree -- and postpone any discussion until a couple weeks after the election.

Some folks are so wrought up they are not just unwilling, they are truly incapable of dealing with reasoned analysis.

But for those with whom you can have a civil discussion during the next week you might consider the following.]
 
 

How many times have you heard “a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush”?

What can Nader supporters say in response – to those willing to engage in rational dialogue?

1. The Green Party was not created to promote the fortunes of the Democrats or the Republicans. Nor was any other third party. The whole point of third parties is to challenge the major parties. Sometimes, as with Abraham Lincoln’s Republicans, they become a major party. More often, they influence the programs of the major parties.

Ralph Nader said last Friday evening in Iowa City that Norman Thomas (Socialist Party presidential candidate for years) once told him that Thomas considered "his greatest accomplishment" the theft of his platform by the Democratic Party.

That’s another function of third parties which, necessarily, involves a challenge to the major parties. Some of the Green Party’s themes have already been picked up by Al Gore in his recent swing to the left. You can bet that more will be.

2. The problems confronting the Democratic Party have been created by Democrats, not Greens, by Al Gore not Ralph Nader.

The Harvard economist, John Kenneth Galbraith, has noted how much better the Republicans are than the Democrats at courting and serving the wealthy. When the Democrats decided to compete at that game (as they have with their fundraising) they were doomed from the outset to lose elections.

One has a certain measure of sympathy for Al Gore. Although he has gone along with it, he is not the sole architect of the system in which he is trapped.

• He needs to take millions of dollars from employers and use it to appeal to employees – but with a rhetoric that does not turn off the money spigot from the employers.

• He needs to raise millions from defense contractors, promise them he will spend it on often questionable weapons systems even the Defense Department doesn’t want, while campaigning as someone who will fight for the taxpayer.

• Because he needs more millions from pharmaceutical firms, he doesn’t want to stand in the way of their price hikes. But he needs the votes of seniors. So instead of proposing price caps, or government research and generics, he suggests we just flow through the increased costs from the U.S. Treasury to his donors.

His is not an enviable position.

Voters aren’t stupid. Most are quite perceptive and articulate as to how and why they are being taken. All are at least aware something’s wrong.

As a result, over half the eligible voters stay home. They are cynical. They are apathetic. They are discouraged and disgusted.

Most of these turned off voters would have been Democrats. The Democratic party is suffering from a self-inflicted wound.

3. Al Gore has not proven to be a good candidate.

The Democrats may have selected one of their best potential presidents. They did not select one of their best presidential candidates. They know that many voters respond to style, charisma – somebody they’d have a beer with, or invite to dinner. Democrats did not pick that kind of candidate. The Republicans did. That is much of the reason for Gore’s problems.

Wholly aside from his stiff and lackluster personality, he has come across as someone who is taking suggestions from others on remaking himself from time to time. It leaves many voters wondering if there really is “a there there.”

He’s also had the problem of the occasional exaggeration or misstatement.

He did not do well in the debates. That is, the expectations for Bush were so low that the comparison was not as stark as expected. There are lots of polls. A New York Times column (October 29) explains why recent polls’ "margin of error" can be as much as 8 to 16 points. But the AP reports that prior to the first debate Gore had a solid 226 electoral votes to Bush's 175. After the debates that was reversed.

That can't be Ralph Nader's fault. He was kept from speaking, or asking questions, by the corporate-funded, two-party-controlled Presidential Debates Commission. In fact, the security officers wouldn't even let him into the audience when he had a ticket. Had he been a participant in the debates the odds are he would not only have energized everyone’s campaign, he could have cut Bush to shreds. Gore has felt restrained from doing that. Nader’s presence would have helped Gore -- that is, cut into Bush's support much more than Gore's.

Nor is Ralph the one who is keeping one of our best campaigners and most popular presidents in years from campaigning on Gore's behalf. That's also Gore's decision.

Consider Gore’s advantages. The economy is steadily up. Crime is down. There’s little unemployment or inflation. Clinton’s popularity is such that he probably could be elected to a third term if the constitution didn’t prohibit it. Gore is bright, well-informed, and fully qualified for the job. Bush, by contrast, has an awful record in Texas, admits he’s no intellectual, demonstrates it regularly, is unabashedly receiving money from (and in return favoring) the upper 1 %, has very little experience, and that as a governor with very little power.

Why is Gore not at, at least, 60% in the polls at this point? This election ought to be a slam dunk for him.

It is true that the election appears to be close. It is true that Bush may win.

But to lay responsibility for this at Ralph Nader’s doorstep would be laughable if it weren’t so serious.

4. Ways the Greens are helping the Democrats.

It’s not the Greens' responsibility to build the Democratic Party. But they’re helping anyway, whether they want to or not.

At some point the Democratic Party may want to rebuild and re-energize it’s old natural base of support among the working class and poor. It may want to recapture its soul. When it does, it will win. After all, 80 percent of American families earn under $76,000 a year. The interests of that 80 percent do not, in fact, coincide with those of the upper 1 percent.

The Democratic Party might want to demonstrate that it is entitled to the support of this very substantial majority. It might want to become proactive, rather than reactive, in avoiding cliffhangers with incompetent representatives of the upper 1 percent, like W.

If and when this happens, as it must if the Democratic Party is to be revived, the Greens will have helped, not hurt, its ability to do so.

Senator Russ Feingold, a Democrat from Wisconsin, was on C-SPAN this morning (Sunday, October 29). His response to a question regarding the full-page pro-Nader ad in this morning's New York Times (headline: "Why voting for a candidate who can't win is the smartest thing you'll ever do") was revealing. He did not launch into the mean-spirited, Chicken-Little-"the-sky-is-falling" arguments we've heard from the "a-vote-for-Nader-is-a-vote-for-Bush" crowd beating on our eardrums.

He said he agreed with most of what Nader is trying to accomplish. (He is, after all, the Feingold of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill.) He said he thought that nothing but good could come from Ralph's energizing young people on campuses -- which was having the effect, in his judgment, of energizing both the Nader and Gore camps to the advantage of both.

Bear in mind, this is Wisconsin we're talking about here, not Iowa. That's 11 electoral votes in a state all agree is close and could make a 50% greater difference than Iowa (with 7 electoral votes).

It would be a mistake, and undoubtedly wrong, to say, "Feingold is backing Nader. " I am sure he is not. But it is not wrong to say that, not only is he not hysterical, he actually sees great benefit to Democrats, Green Party members and the country from what Ralph Nader’s supporters are doing.

Nor would it be a mistake to note that most of the hysteria is coming from (a) deep within the Gore camp, and (b) their 1960s liberal allies and Hollywood celebrities who are not elected officials. Thoughtful Democratic elected officials, when they are not delivering stump speeches for Gore, are aware of the benefits Ralph Nader brings to the Democratic Party.

Dick Gephardt, for one, knows that his chances of becoming Speaker of theHouse (the Democrats winning a majority of the U. S. House of Representatives) are enhanced by what Ralph is doing. Many of the first-time voters Greens are bringing to the polls are going to end up voting for Democrats on down the ticket, even though they would never have voted for Gore -- with or without Ralph in the race.

Two post-convention polls tested voters’ choices with, and without, Nader on the ballot. Both showed Bush losing one more percentage point than Gore. That’s not a basis for arguing “a vote for Nader is a vote for Gore.” But it does mean one cannot presume the reverse. A poll within the last few days indicated that about 25 percent of Nader’s supporters said, when polled, that if he was not in the race they would have voted for Bush. Most indicated that, without Nader in the race they would not vote at all.

Ralph Nader is also right when he notes that the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, ignored for the past eight years, is now receiving more attention from the corporate Democratic Party than it has ever before enjoyed. That is also a Green Party contribution, and will continue to be for the next four years -- in some ways more if Gore loses than if he wins.

5. Conclusion. Gore supporters can and will say many things about Nader’s backers. But they simply cannot make a rational case for the proposition that Nader is in any way harming the long-term interests of the Democratic Party -- or even its current lackluster candidate.