Letter to the StarTribune

01/11/2004

My letter to the editor got printed in the (Minneapolis/St. Paul) StarTribune!

>>>

Don't blame Nader
Eric Ringham states in his Jan. 4 Op Ex column that "[Ralph] Nader's got blood on his hands" for "splitting the liberal vote."

Our two-party nation has consumed more than its fair share of the world's resources, causing much suffering around the world. Who has more blood on their hands? And what is the greater evil: Voting one's conscience, or coercing someone to do the opposite?

I'm glad Nader ran, and I think the 2004 Democratic contest is better for it. Whether the Democrats nominate a candidate acceptable to most Greens remains to be seen.

Tom Cleland, Golden Valley.

<<<

Here is my original text:

>>>

In Eric Ringham’s commentary January 4 he said "Nader’s got blood on his hands" for "splitting the liberal vote." I feel that Ringham’s trying to extort us when he says this, and that this type of pressure is improper. Our two-party nation has consumed more than its fair share of the world's resources, causing much suffering around the world. Who has more blood on their hands? And what is the greater evil: Voting one's conscience, or coercing someone to do the opposite?

If the Democrats were serious about the spoiler problem, they would introduce legislation on Instant Runoff Voting to let us rank the candidates. Then maybe I would vote for a Democrat as my second choice. I'm glad Nader ran and I think the 2004 Democratic contest is better for it. Whether the Democrats nominate a candidate acceptable to most Greens remains to be seen.

<<<

I also had a letter printed in the fall issue of the Sunflower, a publication of the Green Party of Minnesota. The issue devoted nine full pages to the question of whether we should run a presidential candidate in 2004, covering the full range of opinions. To purchase a copy, contact greenpartysunflower@yahoo.com. Here's my letter:

>>>

The option to "stand down"

Recognizing the possibility, albeit remote, that the Democrats could field a 2004 presidential candidate that is acceptable to Greens, the Green Party may have an opportunity, if it acts early, to influence the election in a profound way. We can do this by simply adding a question to our own presidential candidate screening process.

Hopefully, our candidates will step forward early, and we can ask them which Democratic opponents they would campaign actively against, and which ones, if any, they would endorse and not campaign against. In other words, who they would "stand down" against. Standing down is an honorable and dignified way to disarm peacefully in a tense situation.

Retaining the option to "stand down" does three things:
1) It allows us to maintain the same high standards we have come to expect from Green Party candidates.
2) It dispells the notion that we are always intent on being "spoilers".
3) It gives the Democrats something to consider very seriously as they select their nominee. Greens are the heart and soul of what the Democrats are supposed to stand for. The "mushy middle" undecideds will wonder what's wrong with the Democrats if they can't get their traditional core base of support on board.

I don't really know the Democratic candidates that well yet, so I don't know if any would be acceptable to most Greens. I'm curious to hear what other Greens have to say. I definitely believe that the Green Party should run a candidate for President, no matter what. In the absense of Instant Runoff Voting, I feel that giving our candidate the option to "stand down" is the next best thing.

<<<