Missouri Green Party leader on Ralph Nader
[FYI: Missouri is somewhat unusual, being a stronghold for the GPUSA, which is more radical (in the traditional sense) than the Green Party as a whole… especially in St. Louis. … and it is unclear to me how representative this is of GP opinion in Missouri as a whole. Nevertheless, this letter has sparked some interesting internal discussions. -Thomas]
December 21, 2003
Missouri Green Party members,
I spoke with Ralph Nader yesterday concerning his relationship with Greens
in this state. The first thing I brought up was our concern with the
article in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch saying that he endorsed the Democrat
Jean Carnahan and ignored the Missouri Green Party candidate Daniel Romano
in the 2002 US Senate race.
Ralph said that he never endorsed Jean Carnahan; but that he told a reporter
that she had a better voting record than the Republican Jim Talent on some
issues. He said the reporter made a pretty big stretch to claim [falsely]
that was an endorsement. I made sure that Ralph understood how much we
loathe the Carnahan family, since a major focus of Greens in St. Louis was
opposing the Times Beach Incinerator. It was built in the late 1990s by the
EPA violating its own guidelines and with the support of Democrat President
Bill Clinton, Democrat Governor Mel Carnahan and Democrat County Executive
Buzz Westfall. I also pointed out that the odious Republican Jim Talent was
actually better than the Democrats on some issues, having opposed the Times
Beach Incinerator and NAFTA.
I invited Ralph to come and explain what happened with Carnahan to activists
in the Missouri Green Party at our statewide in January, but, after checking
his calendar he said he was already booked.
I also told him that we were firm in our decision to select presidential and
vice-presidential candidates from among those who had returned the notarized
form for appearing on the petition. He said he still has the forms and
understands that if he does not return them he cannot appear on the Green
Party ballot in Missouri.
Nader said that he was waiting to send them because of what is being done by
several power brokers in the Green Party of the US to force a “safe states”
strategy on members. A “safe states” strategy would cripple the Green Party
by saying it would run a presidential campaign only in those states where it
would not affect the outcome. This would be a public announcement that the
Green Party was declaring itself irrelevant and could not be counted on to
mount serious campaigns.
Ralph said the Democrats and Republicans would never do something as silly
as saying they would run in some states and not others and that he would run
in all 50 states or none at all. But what concerns him most is a current
effort by GPUS leaders to say they will not decide on whether to run in all
50 states until the nominating convention in June. He said this would
seriously hamper his campaign by saying that he could end up being told in
June that he could not run the sort of campaign he needs to.
I disagreed. If Nader gets the votes to win the nomination, he will get the
votes to run a full throttle campaign in all 50 states. If he loses to the
“safe states” faction, he will not have the votes to get the nomination.
Nader replied that was not necessarily so. Several people endorsing “safe
states” also endorse him over David Cobb, the only “safe states” candidate.
I said I still did not see that as an insurmountable problem. I advised him
to tell his supporters that a Nader campaign and a “full force” campaign
were inseparable — that if people supported him they needed to support his
strategy and if they could not support his strategy they should vote for a
candidate whose strategy they did endorse. I urged him to declare his
candidacy now and go full force with it.
However, I did not imply that Missouri Greens would support Ralph Nader
without criticisms. I explained that his campaign was too moderate for me
because it did not challenge capitalism openly enough. He said that hearing
that really made his day. [Since it seems that Ralph is only critiqued from
the right saying he is too hard on corporate America, it would be good for
those who prefer a more radical campaign to tell him so.] I also told him,
that while I think he has the best rap on corporate power [formal approach],
his informal approach of being out of touch with the Green rank and file is
worse that the Democratic Party. He disagreed, saying he had been visited
Greens all over the country since 2000. I said we were still waiting for
him to talk with Green organizers in Missouri.
Solidarity,
Don Fitz
