Would running a safe-states strategy -- one where the Greens wouldn't campaign heavily in states where they might cost Kerry the election -- be a wise and intelligent use of the Greens' strength?

First of all, I'd never call my strategy a "safe-states strategy." It's a smart-growth strategy. Smart growth means focusing resources where we are more likely to build the Green Party -- the 40 states where the Electoral College votes are not going to be genuinely contested.

John Kerry is no progressive, and the message for the Green Party in those states can be "progressives, don't waste your vote, invest your vote." A progressive voting for Kerry in an uncontested state cannot help unelect Bush. All voting for Kerry will do is say that you support his corporatist, militarist policies. Let's remember John Kerry voted for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. He voted for No Child Left Behind. He voted for the PATRIOT Act. He voted for NAFTA. He's on the record supporting the war on drugs, the prison-industrial complex, he's on the record opposing universal healthcare and raising the minimum wage to a living wage.

It seems like the reason for avoiding swing states is as much to prevent an erosion of the Democratic base as it is because you'll have an easier time party-building elsewhere. If it's worth showing mercy on the Democrats in swing states, why not go one step further and ask Greens in swing states to vote for Kerry?

Because my goal is to grow and build the Green Party, not to acquiesce to Democratic Party leadership. I don't believe that John Kerry is going to solve any of the fundamental problems facing this country.

I'm going to tell people to vote their conscience. But if people are so terrified that they're going to [vote for Kerry], I'm saying, "Then do what you need to do, but join with us in the Green Party, register for the Green Party, and vote for Green Party people down ballot." Ultimately those people, I believe, are going to have enough confidence, and courage, and vision, to stop "holding their nose" -- but if they can't do it in this election cycle, I'm patient with them.

I acknowledge that I'm articulating a very nuanced approach, and that it is not black-and-white. But that reflects my understanding of where we are.

You've said that you hope Democrats can see the need to work constructively with the Green Party on issues like instant-runoff voting. Is your strategic states strategy the best way to convince the Democratic Party to work with the Green Party?

No, actually. I think that what's been proven historically is that costing Democrats elections is the best way to convince them that we're not going to go away.

My strategy is an attempt to reach out to genuine progressives -- not to the Democratic Party. At the end of the day, Democrats are going to find that Greens are taking more and more of their traditional progressive base, just as Republicans have found that Libertarians are taking their principled conservative base. Which is why we need multiparty democracy.

Ralph Nader has said that he is running as an independent because he needed to get his candidacy moving earlier than the Green Party held its nominating convention. As the former national legal counsel for the Green Party, do you consider that a valid answer?

No.

Why not?

I can't explain what Ralph Nader's motivations are or were, but his explanation does not hold water. The Green Party's 2000 convention was held in June -- the same weekend in fact that the current one is.

Additionally, Ralph Nader was the one who suggested a late convention to the Green Party's presidential exploratory committee, in order to allow the nominee to receive federal matching funds.

Lastly, the reality is that if Ralph Nader had participated in the Green Party process, he would know the Green Party was gearing up to do ballot access in all the states. Ralph's decision to launch on his own was his call, not ours.

Why is Nader disassociating himself from the Green Party then?

I don't know. I can speculate, but only Ralph Nader can answer that question. And so far, I have not heard him answer the question.

Recent Stories