ATTORNEY GENERAL RALPH NADER?
One of the most divisive issues facing the American left (what remains of it) is whether Ralph Nader should make another run for the presidency of the Green Party ticket. There was a long article in Salon.com about it.

Not surprisingly, Democrats think he should forego a run. Greens are mostly split on the issue. Some argue that we are in a time of "national emergency" due to the dangerous extremist actions of the Bush administration. Others think that the long-term solution, a viable third-party, requires the Greens continue their momentum, momentum which would be stalled by not running a candidate in 2004.

Most Greens are naturally disinclined to consider the first option, which smacks too much of the "lesser of two evils" line. Greens for years have be pointing out that the lesser of two evils is still an evil. On the other hand, many are considering it because of how dangerous the Bush administration is. There's no point in worrying about the long-term, goes the argument, if it ends up being destroyed beyond redemption by short-term events.

I don't buy into the line that there is no difference between the Republicans and Democrats. I think there is NOT ENOUGH difference between the two. The Republicans believe largely in bad ideas, but at least have the guts to defend those ideas. The Democrats believe mostly in the right ideas, but show no guts in defending those ideas. What good is being right if you're not going to stand up for it? Democratic acquiescence in the face of the conquest of Iraq and the war on civil liberties only shows how dangerous this lack of a backbone has proven to the country. Their lack of backbone is due to their fear of being labelled unpatriotic. Rather than trying to change the terms of the debate, they cravenly accept it and going along for fear of their jobs. If elected Democrats aren't up to the constitutional resposibility of checking and balancing, then surely we need people in Congress who are up to the job.

I really would be loathe to campaign for the Democrats. Far from making me regret my votes for Green candidates, the inertia of the Democrats in the last two years in the face of the astonishing extremism of the Bush administration only makes me more certain that America needs a real opposition party. If the Democrats aren't that party, then the Greens should be.

But I am still conflicted. While only one Democrat would be a good president (Howard Dean), almost all of the others, even conservative Democrat Joe Liebermann, would be significantly less bad than Bush and his team. While voting Democrat might not put us on the path to good health, it would at least stop the hemoraghing.

Yet the presumptousness of the Democrats in the face of all this astounds me. They just ASSUME that anyone on the left should vote Democrat, even if Democrats have pissed on progressives and Greens for years.

Recently, the local committee to elect Howard Dean approached a friend of mine, who's the chair of the local Greens organization. They wanted him to give his support for Howard Dean. He asked what could Dean do for the Green movement and why Dean would be a better candidate than, say, Nader. They responded by blaming Nader for the 2000 election. It's this arrogance that angers me and other progressives. They didn't answer why Dean would be the best candidate. Instead, they played the blame game. Rather than offering a positive forward-looking vision, they came out with the old-fashioned backward looking negativity.

If you're a Democrat organizer reading this, get this through your skull: if you want progressives to support you, give us a POSITIVE reason to do so.

We are not a bunch of lemmings. Nor are we a group of malcontents with no other options. Don't bully us because you think you have a god-given right to our vote no matter how badly you treat us.

In order for me to even consider a temporary Democrat-Green coalition, it also ABSOLUTELY IMPERATIVE that there be conditions. Not along the lines of vague promises of "advancing this or that" but something far more concrete: cabinet posts.

Negotiate just like they do in other western democracies. If the Democrats want Green support, offer the Greens the leadership of the Justice Department, Health and Human Services Department and Environmental Protection Agency. Maybe a fourth. I'd love to see Attorney General Ralph Nader.

Basically, Democrats want Green support for free, but it's not going to happen. It's been made eminently clear that they can't be trusted to act progressively on their own.

This sort of compromise is the best way to ensure the progressive agenda is at least somewhat advanced. Of course, it would also require that they nominate a half-way decent candidate, which means no Joe Liebermann (Bill Bennett's favorite Democrat) and no John Edwards (an empty suit and shill of the trial lawyers). Dr. Howard Dean is clearly the best Democrat out there, by far. He is a serious candidate and has a good progressive record as a chief executive (governor of Vermont). John Kerry or Bob Graham could be acceptable. I might hold my nose and vote for Dick Gephardt if I knew Greens would be in the cabinet.

I'm not sure this is going to happen because it would require Democrats to swallow their pride and acknowledge that Greens are actually a force that increasingly need to be taken into account. But they should be willing to engage in such compromise for the sake of the nation.

If the Democrats refuse such negotiation, it will demonstrate as clear as day for all to see that they are only interested in hoarding all the power for themselves. So Democrats, it will soon be time to put up or shut up.