Blame the Democrats, Not the Greens

THE 2000 NADER CAMPAIGN POSITIONED THE GREEN PARTY as the principal electoral opposition to the two corporate parties in the U.S. Ralph Nader's vote was far ahead of all the other third party candidates combined. With nearly 3 million votes, 150,000 volunteers, and hundreds of new local Green organizations formed out of the campaign, the Green Party has the potential to build a viable alternative to the established politics of corporate bipartisanship.

Perhaps the best evidence of the Green Party's new position as an opposition that can no longer be ignored is the constant blame-Nader chorus from Democrats, professional liberal lobbyists, and corporate media pundits that continues unabated six months after the election. Nader has become a metaphor in U.S. political commentary for "spoiling" elections. Democrats constantly invoke Nader to say there is no alternative to the Democrats for progressives. The blame-Nader, Greens-are-spoilers refrain will only get more intense as Greens run candidates against both corporate parties in future elections. The Greens will have to turn the spoiler charge around. They will have to show how it is the Democrats who spoil U.S. elections by creating the illusion of choice when what they really do is put a progressive façade on the same basic corporate agenda that they share with the Republicans.

As liberals call for unity inside the Democratic Party to defeat the Republican Right, it is important for Greens to keep explaining how conservative the Democrats are in practice. Progressive unity inside the Democratic Party means being junior partners in a coalition with the dominant corporate Democrats, whose bipartisanship in office means that unity inside the Democratic Party is unity with the Republicans in practice. The Bush policies that the Nader-blamers now invoke make this very point.

Arsenic in Drinking Water -- The professional liberals blame Nader for Bush's decision to postpone for further study the new standards on arsenic in drinking water that were ordered by Clinton. Where were these liberals while the Clinton/Gore administration resisted the new standards for eight years? Where were the liberals last October when the Senate Democrats blocked stricter standards? It was only in the last month of his administration that Clinton signed the order on arsenic, an order which did not require compliance until 2004.

Greenhouse Gases and Global Warming -- The professional liberals also blame Nader for Bush's decision to abandon the Kyoto Accords on greenhouse gas reductions. Again, where were these liberals while Clinton/Gore did nothing for eight years to bring the U.S. into compliance? Indeed, after increases in auto fuel efficiency standards were enacted by the Reagan and elder Bush administrations, Clinton/Gore broke their 1992 campaign promise to raise them further. They never proposed an increase in fuel efficiency standards while gas-guzzling SUVs proliferated and overall car fuel efficiency declined. Then, at the end of their administration, Clinton/Gore officials sabotaged the global climate talks in The Hague to implement the Kyoto Accords by demanding that U.S. carbon dioxide reductions be cut to the extent that U.S. forests and farms are carbon sinks.

Dioxin Study -- Another blame-Nader issue has been the Bush administration's decision to not release an EPA study showing dioxin to be even more dangerous than previously believed. Yet the Clinton/Gore administration had twice suppressed earlier versions of this study that reached the same conclusion.

National Arctic Wildlife Refuge -- Liberals blame Nader for Bush's intention to drill oil in this "North American Serengeti," but fail to note that in the last months of his administration Clinton rebuffed environmentalists' demand that it be designated a National Monument, which would have made it harder for the Bush administration to get the oil drilling approved by Congress.

Ergonomic Standards -- Labor Democrats make a big deal of Bush rescinding ergonomic standards to deal with carpal tunnel syndrome. But the Clinton/Gore administration delayed the implementation of these standards, which were drafted and ready to go in 1995. Meanwhile, they opposed labor on trade policy at every turn. At OSHA, they had the fewest workplace inspections and the most reductions and dismissals of violation fines of any administration since OSHA was formed. Clinton did nothing with the draft ergonomic standards until the very last day of his administration when on the night of January 19, while he pardoned Marc Rich but not Leonard Peltier, he signed the order on ergonomic standards. Then the Democrats in Congress rolled over to let Bush's rescinding of the order go forward.

Abortion Funding -- Liberal feminists blame Nader for Bush's order to ban U.S. government money to organizations that perform abortions overseas. But Clinton, like every president since it was first issued by the previous Democratic President, Jimmy Carter, issued an order banning U.S. funds for abortions overseas. Bush expanded this order to include the organizations that perform abortions, not just the abortions themselves. The Democrats' support for funding restrictions made it easier for Bush to take them a step further. Back at home, the Democrats have made no challenge to the Hyde Amendment, which bars federal funding of abortions domestically. NOW mobilized 750,000 for the March for Women's Lives in 1992 against the last Bush administration. But they demobilized during the Clinton administration, giving the Democrats a free ride for eight years while abortion services were increasingly restricted in dozens of states by new laws requiring parental consent, waiting periods, and bans on late term abortions. While harassment lawsuits and violence against abortion providers, including seven murders, forced many abortion providers to close, Clinton's Justice Department did little to defend abortion clinics. He waited seven-and- a-half years to approve RU486. He cut the incomes of poor women and their children by signing the welfare repeal. He never proposed federal aid adequate to the needs for women's reproductive health and freedom. By the end of the Clinton administration, abortion services were available in only 15 percent of U.S. counties. Nader supported repeal of the Hyde Amendment, adequate funding for reproductive freedom, a guaranteed income above poverty, and enforcement of the law to protect abortion clinics. But when Nader became seen as a threat to Gore's election, the liberal women's organizations re-surfaced to spend millions on a campaign of scare ads declaring Nader a threat to abortion rights because "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush."

Tax Cuts -- Liberals were also blaming Nader for Bush's tax cuts . . . until the Democrats in Congress declared victory on a non-binding budget resolution that called for a tax cut for the rich of $1.35 trillion instead of Bush's initial bargaining position of $1.6 trillion. As long as that Democratic "victory" holds, it will preclude for at least another decade any substantial federal investment in health care, education, infrastructure modernization, renewable energy, or other obvious needs. Of course, the Democratic platform did not propose such initiatives, either. Their alternative was the even more conservative fiscal policy of paying down the national debt, even when the economy is in a recession.

Bankruptcy Bill -- Perhaps the biggest stretch for the Nader blamers is to blame him for the bankruptcy bill Bush signed that forces broke working people to pay off bank and credit card debts at usurious rates. To make this stretch, the liberals have to ignore Nader's long-time consumer advocacy for bank customers and his opposition to the wave of financial mergers and the deregulation legislation approved under the Clinton/Gore administration. And there is the telling fact that Democratic Senators voted 36 to 13 for the bankruptcy bill, including the New York liberals, Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton.

THE SAME BASIC ANALYSIS HOLDS for Star Wars, cabinet appointments, voting rights violations, and the other problems for which liberal Democrats try to blame Nader. The professional liberals who lead the labor, civil rights, environmental, and women's organizations provided political cover for the Democrats during the Clinton administration as it carried out the same corporate agenda that the Republicans support. The liberal lobbies kept their membership bases demobilized during the Clinton administration. It was only in the Fall, when Nader's support held in the 4 to 6 percent range in the polls, that the ranks were mobilized against Nader, not the Right.

The professional liberals demonstrated that they have more interest in their own career advancement through maintaining friendly ties to the Democratic administration than in advancing the issues of concern to their members. Now they are remobilizing against the Republicans in order to bring the Democrats back in. The challenge for the Greens is to go underneath the liberal leadership to the base of these organizations and win the ranks over to independent politics. The Greens will need to join the base in issue- oriented campaigns that build relationships, trust, and the sense that the Greens are fighting on their side. On that foundation, Greens can make the case that more will be gained on these issues from an independent challenge to both corporate parties than from another round of generic corporate government wrapped in the Democratic instead of the Republican brand label.

The Greens will not win over progressive Democratic voters by talking as if what they are trying to do is move the Democrats to the left. That will just encourage those progressives to stay where they are. When Nader said during the campaign that his votes would spill over the ticket, to helping Congressional Democrats win back the House, he was giving credibility to the idea that the Democrats are worth electing. When Nader said that the Green challenge would have a positive collateral impact on the Democratic Party, he was giving progressive Democratic voters another thread on which to hang their vain hopes of reforming the Democratic Party. When the race got close, these kinds of statements gave implicit permission to wavering supporters to go back to Gore in a close election.

To Nader's credit, his campaign did not support the strategic voting scheme that became known as the "Ivins Rule" after Molly Ivins wrote that progressives should vote for Gore in swing states and for Nader in states where the vote was not close. The strategy of the Nader campaign was to win every possible vote in order to reach its goal of 5 percent and consequent public funding. Many of these votes were in swing states like Oregon, Washington, Wisconsin, and Michigan. Unfortunately, several prominent supporters like Ivins, Steve Cobble, and Michael Moore promoted the Ivins Rule. Steve Cobble, the former Political Director of the Rainbow Coalition who served as Senior Advisor to the Nader Campaign, wrote a paper explaining how a vote for Nader would not affect the Gore-Bush race in most states because the winner in these states was already clear and the electoral votes would be distributed on a winner-take- all bases. This paper was circulated by the campaign with the intention of helping Greens persuade vacillating supporters in states where the result was a foregone conclusion. But it was used by such Democratic groups as Greens for Gore to support Gore voting in swing states. After speaking at many of the Nader super-rallies, filmmaker Michael Moore declined to campaign with Nader in several swing states in the last two weeks of the campaign. Instead, he went to Florida to urge progressives there to vote for Gore. He claims in the May 4, 2001 edition of "Mike's Message," his periodic political commentary email, that the Nader campaign abandoned its strategic voting strategy in mid-October. But Nader's Campaign Manager, Theresa Amato, says that the strategy was always to win as many votes as possible in every state. The debate in the campaign at this time was whether more total votes could be won in the last weeks by focusing on decided states like Texas and New York or by shoring up support in swing states. The campaign decided on the latter approach, but the decision was not about Gore and not a rejection of strategic voting. It was simply about getting the most votes possible to reach the 5 percent goal.

In the end, however, the Nader campaign's message about the Democratic Party was irresolute. Nader and his spokespeople often answered the spoiler charge by saying that the Greens want every vote they can get for the Green ticket and, like other parties, they want to beat all their opponents, not help one opponent beat another opponent. But they also often talked about how a "side effect" of the campaign would be to strengthen the hand of progressive Democrats. Worse, some supporters openly called for a Gore vote in swing states and also votes for "progressive" Democrats against Greens. Moore, for example, posted a special "Mike's Message" for New Yorkers the day before the election urging a vote in the U.S. Senate race for Hillary Clinton rather than the Green candidate, Mark Dunau.

IN THE FUTURE, THE GREENS NEED TO BE CLEAR that what they are doing is not about improving the Democratic Party. They need to oppose the "inside/outside" strategy of supporting liberal Democrats and running Greens only against conservative Democrats. Nader had the right message during the campaign when he often answered spoiler charges with "you can't spoil a system that is already rotten." But rather than developing this analysis, his post-election statements remain mixed. After taking heat from the blame-Nader crowd for early post-election statements saying that Greens should not worry about the fate of progressive politicians who choose to stay Democrats when the Greens run against them, Nader seems to have returned to the muddled inside/outside approach in an attempt to blunt the spoiler charge. "You've spoken before about Greens having to run against Democrats, even progressives like Wellstone," Nader was asked in a Los Angeles Times interview on May 6, 2001. Nader replied: "I doubt Greens will be running against these kinds of Democrats. They're more likely to run against conservative Democrats, or someone who just gives lip service to liberal causes. We may have helped cost the Democrats a couple of House seats, but Maria Cantwell [D- Washington] wouldn't be in the Senate without Green support. And we really went after Senator Spencer Abraham in Michigan, who lost to a Democrat, Debbie Stabenow." Rather than blunt the spoiler charge, defensive answers like this give it credence by accepting its premises. It does the Greens no good to claim any credit for these Democratic victories. In one of their first votes, both Cantwell and Stabenow supported corporate plunder by voting for the bankruptcy bill. Should the Greens claim credit for this? Such statements undermine the case for an independent Green Party. If the Democrats really are worth supporting in some cases, why not all cases? Why not just run progressives in more Democratic primaries?

Greens should do nothing to support progressives running as Democrats. Corporate money and interests dominate the Democratic Party. A few additional progressive Democrats in Congress, state legislatures, and city councils will not change the core policies of the Democratic Party. Indeed, the corporate powers need a few progressives to put a liberal veneer on their Democratic Party. Progressive Democrats are used that way by the powers that be. They only serve to make the Democrats look better than they really are. They obscure the reality of phony choices that spoil U.S. elections.

The Greens will be more effective if they challenge all progressives to leave the Democratic Party. The Greens should hold progressives to the Nader standard. Nader has had many opportunities to cash in, from lucrative offers by corporations to endorse products to the late-campaign overtures from the Gore campaign to endorse Gore in return for funding of Naderite organizations. Nader has always understood that his credibility would be irreparably harmed by any such sell out. The Greens should hold progressive Democrats to the same standard. How can they be serious about their progressive values given the company they keep in the Democratic Party with all that corporate money and all those sold-out politicians? How can they be in a party that stands diametrically opposed to them on the basic policies, from the war-level military spending and interventions to defend global corporate interests, to the neoliberal trade, financial, and public spending policies that redistribute wealth, income, and power toward the elite? Genuinely progressive Democrats, such as perhaps a Cynthia McKinney or a Jesse Jackson Jr., should be challenged to stop letting themselves be used by the corporate powers to varnish the image of the Democratic Party.

Despite the constant blame-Nader media barrage, many progressives have left the Democrats for the Greens since the election. Post-election polls show that more people claim to have voted for Nader than actually did. In a late November Zogby poll, 6 percent claimed to have voted for Nader, twice as much as his actual vote. In a December poll, the figure had climbed to 10 percent. Green Party activists report that many new people are coming in who sheepishly confess to having voted for Gore to stop Bush, but now want to forget the Democrats and build the Green alternative. The failure of the Democrats to fight the suppression of the black vote in Florida -- not the Gore campaign, not the Clinton Justice Department, not one Democratic Senator in response to the Congressional Black Caucus call for a Senate challenge of the vote count -- seems to have been the last straw for many of these ex-Democrats. The Greens have good reason to be hopeful that they can win progressive activists and voters away from the Democrats and build the Greens as a real alternative. Several criticisms of the Nader campaign and the Greens were raised at the Socialist Scholars Conference panel that I would like to discuss in a future article.

Contents of No. 31

Go back to New Politics home page