RAT FWD: Nader running as a lighter shade of Green

[Laura Winton <fluffysingler@prodigy.net>]

Just to stir things up a bit--I am forwarding this from a friend of mine
deep within the belly of the Green "beast".

The following article appeared in today's Washington Post
and can be found at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40056-2000August16.html






Nader Picks a Milder Shade of Green

By Cathy Newman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday , August 17, 2000 ; A20
It's Wednesday, Nov. 8. Think, for a moment, the
unthinkable: Ralph Nader has made it to the White House. As America's new
president, he now has the power to carry out the Green Party USA's official
agenda, which, the nation may be stunned to learn, includes plans to abolish
the Senate, to slap a 100 percent tax on the affluent, and to break up firms
with more than 10 percent market share.

But the man the Greens have chosen to run for president has
already thrown out the most radical elements of the Green Party platform. 
Nader, it turns out, is running with quite another party: the Association of
State Green Parties, which champions a far more sober set of policies.

The Green Party USA (GPUSA), which calls itself "the
original Green Party organization in the USA," traces its history to 1984,
12 years before the Association of State Green Parties (ASGP) formed. But
Nader, who is not a Green Party member, says he doesn't "really pay much
attention" to the older, more radical party's platform.  Of the GPUSA's
plans to scrap the Senate and impose a 100 percent tax on all income over 10
times the minimum wage, he says: "I don't like those two positions. . . .
I'm adopting positions that disagree with
some positions of the Green Party USA. I'm not for the abolition of the
Senate. There's so many bad things going through Congress I want two
opportunities to stop them." Taxing a maximum wage, meanwhile, he dismisses
as "not comprehensive enough. If you really want to have a tax on wealth,
have a tax on wealth."

He is running instead with the ASGP, which nominated him the
Green presidential candidate in Denver last month. The ASGP's longer, more
moderate platform is organized under four serious-minded
headings--"democracy; social justice and equal opportunity; environmental
sustainability; and economic sustainability."

While Nader maintains he's running on the ASGP platform,
that's not quite how Howie Hawkins sees it. Hawkins, who pulled together the
GPUSA platform, insists Nader is embracing both parties. "He's using both of
us. I really see the platforms as different in degree rather than direction.

The ASGP calls for proportional representation in its platform and the U.S.
Senate is inherently disproportional, so you could argue that abolishing the
U.S. Senate is implicit in the demand for proportional representation."

Nader has made it clear he does not want to become embroiled
in Green Party politics and has no interest in trying to unite the two
warring factions. His supporters fear that the extreme views of some in the
GPUSA are a thorn in his side. John Rensenbrink, one of the founders of the
ASGP, who is advising the Nader campaign, admits: "It's a real problem for
us, there's no question about that."

By abandoning the Green Party's more unconventional ideas,
Nader has been able to claim the center ground and gain support from people
who would traditionally have felt most comfortable voting Democratic. He
has, says Rensenbrink, cast himself as a "majoritarian."

In doing so, the Greens' presidential candidate is following
in the footsteps of other major party candidates. In 1996, Robert J. Dole,
the Republican presidential nominee, said he had not read his party's
platform, and certainly didn't feel bound by it. Marshall Wittmann,
political analyst at the Heritage Foundation, explains: "Nader's trying to
be a conventional unconventional candidate. He's done what many Democrats
and Republicans have done in the past, which is to ignore their party's
platform, particularly when it intrudes into attempts to attract the
mainstream."

Wittmann sees Nader's alliance with the Green Party as
simple opportunism. "He needed a vehicle, and the Greens were the most
attractive and available vehicle to him," he says.

By distancing himself from fringe elements of the Green
Party, Nader has managed to attract support--or at least sympathetic
noises--from a number of unions that would usually find the tree-hugging
hippie image of the more radical Greens abhorrent. The Teamsters, who have
backed both Republican and Democratic presidential candidates in the past,
have not yet decided whether to endorse Nader. But his campaign's emphasis
on strong labor laws, universal health insurance and corporate
accountability has been applauded by such unions.

Union leaders attacked Vice President Gore for supporting
permanent normal trade relations for China, and the Teamsters' president
even stood alongside Nader at a news conference after the China trade bill
passed Congress.

"Nader is bringing to the forefront issues that matter to
working families. The fact that he's a Green Party candidate is irrelevant,"
says Bret Caldwell, director of communications for the Teamsters.

It's that kind of sentiment that may mean Nader tips the
balance against Gore in key states such as Michigan and Ohio. The Green
candidate was only on the ballot in 29 of 50 states by the end of last
month, but he is ranking between 5 and 7 percentage points in the polls. 
Achieving more than 5 percent of the vote in November would make the Greens
eligible for all-important public financing in the next presidential
election.

David Leland, chairman of the Ohio Democratic Party, plays
down the threat. "The people in Ohio are going to realize [a vote for Nader]
is either going to be a wasted vote or a vote for George Bush. The fact that
he's been discovered as being a multimillionaire, having all those things
he's been attacking all these years, makes him a bit of a hypocrite," he
says.

Nader's supporters counter that he is already successfully
putting pressure on the vice president to adopt a more progressive stance.
Rose Ann DeMoro, executive director of the California Nurses Association,
which became the first union to back Nader in mid-June, says: "Nader's
involvement in the race is moving Gore to a more progressive platform." She
accuses Gore and Bush of repelling voters by indulging in "esoteric debates
in D.C." without taking immediate action to address health reform and other
burning issues.

Nader himself believes he may be more help than hindrance to
the Democrats. If he can reach a fraction of the tens of millions of people
who either don't vote or back independent candidates, he would send a signal
to the Democrats without handing Bush the White House. He also reckons the
groundswell of support for the Greens may help the Democrats win back the
House. People who did not turn out at the last election may vote for Nader
as president, at the same time picking a Democratic candidate for House or
Senate races. "Anyone who says I may cost Gore the election has to concede
that I may put [House Minority Leader Richard A.] Gephardt back as speaker.
That's a nice prospect for the Democrats," he says.

© 2000 The Washington Post Company

"Those poor kids.  So young.  So nauseous."
--Krusty the Klown Telethon for Motion Sickness


Laura Winton
fluffysingler@prodigy.net
http://pages.prodigy.net/fluffysingler