Letter from Nader to the Green Party/Response from the Green Party
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 that 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
—— Steering Committee’s response to Mr Nader’s letter———-
December 24, 2003
Ralph Nader
Nader 2004 Presidential Exploratory Committee
P O Box 18002
Washington, DC 20036
Dear Mr. Nader,
In response to your letter of December 22, we regret your decision not
to place your name on the ballot in the Green Party primaries. We
believe that the pairing of your legacy with the Green Party was a
powerful combination. We are sorry that you have chosen to discontinue
this relationship for the purposes of the 2004 presidential race.
We truly appreciate your past, and promised future, support of Green
candidates for elected office. We are convinced that your presence on
the campaign trail was a great aid to many of the over 1,000 Greens who
have run for public office since your own campaign in 2000. We know that
your Green presidential bids in 1996 and 2000 led to the formation of
dozens of new state parties and hundreds of new Green locals. Your
efforts, combined with those of hundreds of thousands of people across
the nation, have produced for the first time in 77 years a national
progressive party with proven staying power: The Green Party of the
United States.
In this light, we sincerely urge you to reconsider your decision.
We also wish to express our confusion at your suggestion that the Green
Party is not preparing to field a presidential ticket in 2004. As you
know, our 2003 National Meeting in Washington D.C. produced “a clear
mandate” for the Greens to run a presidential ticket in 2004
(http://www.gp.org/press/pr_07_21_03b.html).
Additionally, as you know, the national party has established four
well-staffed and funded committees hard at work on preparations for the
2004 presidential race; these are the Ballot Access Working Group, the
Coordinated Campaign Committee, the Annual National Meeting Committee,
and the new Presidential Campaign Support Committee, which subsumes our
old Presidential Exploratory Committee within it. The letter you refer
to, as we have told you, was a fundraising letter written by a former
staff person, not a statement of Steering Committee opinion or party
policy; after that letter went out, the Steering Committee reassigned
responsibility for writing our fundraising appeals to one of our number.
Six candidates are currently participating in the Green Party
presidential primaries: Peter Camejo (CA), David Cobb (CA), Paul Glover
(NY), Kent Mesplay (CA), Carol Miller (NM), and Lorna Salzman (NY). The
eventual Green Party nominee will be whichever candidate wins the
allegiance of the members of the state party affiliates of the Green
Party of the United States, and thus, the votes of their delegates to
the 2004 Green Presidential Nominating Convention in Milwaukee, June
23-28. The date and location of the convention were chosen by the
Coordinating Committee of the Green Party of the United States
(http://www.gp.org/press/pr_06_20_03.html). The Steering Committee does
not have the power to select the nominee, to choose the dates or site of
the convention, or to decide how the candidate will be chosen. These
decisions are made democratically by the elected delegates of our
affiliated state parties.
We remain committed to the proposition that America needs not just an
opposition candidate, but an opposition party. Your commitment and
support of the Green Party for the past seven years has brought us and
our country closer to a true democracy. We are grateful for your
contributions and look forward to more great work together in the future.
- Steering Committee, Green Party of the United States
