[Peace-discuss] Ralph Nader's letter to Greens

[Ken Urban]

Since Ralph's Green connection (or lack thereof) was mentioned during
the meeting, here's a copy of his letter to the National Green Party.

Ken

---------------------------------------------------

To: The Steering Committee of the U.S. 
Green Party and the Presidential Exploratory 
Committee of the Green Party 
From: Ralph Nader 
Date: December 22, 2003 

I am writing to withdraw my name from 
consideration as a potential nominee for 
the Green Party presidential ticket in 
2004. 

I write this with regret because of my support 
for your platform and civic activities, 
because of our shared political history and 
because of the numerous efforts I have made, 
over the years since 1996, to help grassroots 
Greens build the Party. Since running as your 
nominee in 2000 through all 50 states - from 
the disenfranchised Anacostia in Washington, 
D.C. to corporate-dominated Alaska, from 
downtown Hartford to the pilot industrial hemp 
field of Hawaii (not to mention those states 
where we had to help build the party from 
scratch) -- I have met with Greens from around 
the country and the world, scheduled and 
completed more than 45 fundraisers in some 30 
states, assisted in starting the Campus Greens 
and supported more than a few state and local 
Green candidates. I remain a registered 
Independent. But my efforts to build the Green 
Party and my public contributions on issues of 
importance to Greens can be compared favorably 
with those who wear their Green Party 
registrations as some badge or bona fides. More 
recently, as part of my exploratory effort, I 
have met or spoken with Greens from all over 
the country in extensive conversations, heard 
from even more through sign-on letters, Kucinich 
supporters, Greens for Dean, state and local 
Green groups, newspaper and magazine accounts, 
including the Green Pages and Green Horizon, 
etc., all of which illustrate how the reaction 
to George W. Bush, has fractured - more than 
galvanized -- the Greens as a Party. Most 
individuals have the best intentions, and there 
are people who have now dedicated years to help 
building the Greens. However, many of the 
communications I have received express volumes 
about the maturity of the Greens as a political 
party. 

Although its growth has been slower than many 
of us would like, the Green Party at least 
remains poised to respond to the voters' desire 
for a third party. The failure of the two major 
parties both to engage 100 million nonvoters 
and to provide existing voters with choices 
over a broad range of important issues has been 
a continual reality for Greens. With this in 
mind, uncertainty expressed by the Party's 
leadership regarding the conditions under which 
the Party may or may not field Presidential and 
Vice-presidential candidates in 2004 can only 
be interpreted is a confused retreat. 

Specifically, the Steering Committee has 
declared in reference to whether "the Green 
Party will (or won't) run a high- (or low-) 
profile candidate for President in 2004, and 
that the candidate will (or won't) drop out 
in their (sic) run for the Presidency before 
Election day, possibly making some kind of 
accommodation (or not) with the Democrats and 
their candidate!" that: "The truth is, no one 
person or group of persons, inside or outside 
of the Green Party will make those types of 
critical decisions in the Green Party. The 
strategy the Green Party pursues will be 
arrived at through a comprehensive process 
that is beginning now and will go on in every 
state Green Party, either through conventions 
or primaries. The conventions and primaries 
will in turn select delegates from every state 
Green Party who will come together at our 
National Convention in the summer of 2004 to 
make a final, collective decision as to whether 
the Green Party will run a presidential 
candidate, and, if so, who that person will 
be." (First emphasis in the original, underlines 
added. Source: Green Party of the United States 
mailing signed by members of the Steering 
Committee June 5, 2003. See, as just two of many 
additional recent examples, Dec. 16, 2003 USGP 
Proposal to Create a Presidential Support 
Committee, "whether we will have a Presidential 
candidate is not 100% settled"; Oct 28, 2003 
National Press Release, "The decision about whom, 
how, and whether to run in the 2004 national 
election will be made democratically by all the 
accredited state Green Parties at the Milwaukee
convention." (Emphasis added.)) 

The occasion for this letter is not simply that 
there are robust contending views about whether 
to have a Presidential candidate and under which 
strategies and conditions, but that - should I 
decide to run -- it is not feasible within the 
difficult parameters of state and federal 
election laws to wait and see what the Green 
Party will do in June 2004. Indeed, the 
framework and schedule you have chosen for 
making a decision seems itself tilted against 
anyone contemplating a serious ran, as your 
nominee. Many grassroots Greens who have views 
contrary to this procedure are not, nor are they 
going to be, in control of how this decision is 
going to be made or unmade. It has already been 
made. 

I cannot, nor could any serious potential 
candidate, embark on a committed campaign for 
President as a Green Party nominee when the 
Party will not even be certain whether or how 
it wishes to run a candidate until June 2004. 
Nor would it be tolerable (not to mention 
counterproductive for ballot lines, local 
candidates, party growth and vote totals), 
for the Party to impose on its nominee varying 
geographical limits to campaigning. Nor, under 
such ambiguous conditions could a committed 
candidate run the risk that individual state 
parties would prevent the national nominee 
access to their ballot lines for whatever 
conceived motives, with little penalty for 
nonacquiescence to the convention decision. 
The deadlines for obtaining ballot access in 
many states come due prior to, or around your 
convention's decision. Were I to become a 
candidate, I would not want to launch a 
campaign with such an uncertain compass 
regarding what should be a bedrock, genetic 
determination to run presidential and 
vice-presidential candidates all out - which 
is what, after all, national political parties 
-- as opposed to movements -- do. 

As you know, I have scrupulously refrained 
from interfering in any internal Green Party 
matters. For purposes of encouraging more 
intensive and resourceful initiatives, I have 
commented on the need to expand the number 
of state Green offices through more assiduous 
fundraising and on the importance of running 
more candidates. The Green Party has endless 
opportunities to field candidates, especially 
among the 2.5 million elective offices at the 
state and local levels, many of which offer 
no opposition to the incumbents by the other 
major party. Given the absence of decision 
that has been effectively formalized into an 
unchanging, misguided national procedure on 
the presidential front, I submit that 2004 
might be the year that the Green Party makes 
a deeper commitment to building the party 
through state and local candidacies. I and 
many Greens concur that this is the Party's 
clearest present strength and will be the 
source of its important talent in the future. 
During the 2001, 2002 and 2003 elections, 
Greens won approximately twenty-five percent 
of the local offices they contested. 

Accordingly, for the reasons described above, 
I am withdrawing my name from consideration 
and wish the Party and its local community 
adherents the best in their future endeavors. 
I still believe that Americans deserve more 
political parties and better choices than 
the rhetoric and offerings of the two major 
parties. I believe in giving people real 
power to achieve solutions to the problems 
we have today and in the long term potential 
for a reorganized Green Party. In the event 
I should still decide to become a presidential 
candidate, any collaborative efforts that are 
possible, especially at the state and local 
level, would be welcome. 

Sincerely, Ralph Nader