About a recent column ("Zeitgeist wakes…", by Richard Grant, Camden
Herald, April 19, 2001), a few comments:


We would like to suggest that there are a number of fallacies in the
column's suggestion that the 2004 presidential election and, by
implication, all presidential elections in the near future, will be
more of the same. Perhaps, one might hope, the Democrats will nominate
a candidate who is not only more progressive, but a more able
campaigner. Maybe that candidate will embrace some of the policies
that the Green Independent Party supports. Most of us are former
Democrats, and left the Democratic Party because we believe that it no
longer offers a program that addresses the needs of working people;
that it is failing on environmental issues; that its positions on the
economy and trade are indistinguishable from those of the Republican
Party; and, most seriously, that the Democratic Party leadership does
not care one iota about moving anywhere but to the right.

Secondly, the fact that the Democrats and the Republicans are, at this
point in time, the two major parties in the United States does not
prove that that will always be the case. Perhaps not in your time, or
mine, but it is likely that at some future point in time there will be
different parties playing those roles. There might even be more than
two. Imagine that.

Finally, about your suggestion that the Green Party somehow cost Al
Gore the 2000 election:

     1. Consider the words of Al From, President and founder of the
     Democratic Leadership Council, in his post-election report:

     "The assertion that Nader's marginal vote count hurt Gore is not
     borne out by polling data. When exit pollers asked voters how they
     would have voted in a two-way race, Bush actually won by a
     point. That was better than he did with Nader in the race."

     2. Democrats in Florida voted for Bush over Nader by a margin of
     nearly 10 to one. These "cross-over" votes for Bush far
     outnumbered the Nader votes in that state.
     
     3. Nader's votes came primarily from independent voters and drew
     equally from Democrats and Republicans, according to very
     detailed exit poll analysis by CNN.

     4. Many who voted for Nader would not have voted at all if he
     hadn't been on the ballot. So, like Richard Gephardt, you might
     want to credit Nader's campaign with electing enough Democrats to
     the House to make it even. (More or less.)

While it's understandable that many people are upset that George Bush
won, we can't understand how scapegoating Nader and the Greens, or
predicting the "same old, same old" for future elections, will add
anything of value to the situation we've all found ourselves in since
January 20th.

Instead, we would invite all people concerned with the quality of life
on this planet to end the sniping and hand-wringing and get on with
the work at hand. The challenges are now clearer than ever and the
stakes are quickly mounting. Let's leave the acrimony behind and work
together toward a sustainable future.

 

Mike Ray and Lynne Williams, Co-Chairs, Knox Green Party