|
untitled
Letters to the Editor
Nader/Gore Thoughts
Life on the Forty-fifth Parallel
by Ryan Ramon
Letters of Election Preclusion Conclusion:
Consider Al
Dear Friends and Readers,
As you may have personally
experienced, many people are agonizing over the U.S.A. presidential elections next
week. We in the Pacific Northwest join fellow citizens in historically populist,
independent states such as Minnesota and Wisconsin in having an unpredictable swing
vote between Green Party candidate Ralph Nader and sitting vice-president Al Gore;
thereby holding the potential to hand over the reins of the federal government to
the administration of George W. Bush for at least four years. A lot of fresh manure
can happen in that time. Pundits and punks are both right -- there may not be that
much difference between Democratic and Republican administrations' foreign policy
but there are major differences in domestic policy that impinge on the well-being
over average people and wildlife. George W. wants to open up the Alaskan Wildlife
Refuge to oil drilling. With the rising costs of gasoline, he may get away with it.
George W. opposes the Comprehensive Ban Treaty. George W. would institute a new Office
of Faith-Based Action in the Executive Office of the President that would identify
and remove federal regulations that bar faith-based organizations from direct
participation in federal programs. Look at the state of the State of Texas and you
will see his interests are not those of the working class (most of us, buddy!), low-income
kids in a public school, or the fish and turtles in the Gulf of Mexico. A lot of
fresh manure. Al is lousy on defense, but good on minimum wage, Earned Income Tax
Credit, Affirmative Action, Native American tribal sovereignty, and sort of good
on health care. Of course, Ralph is almost squeaky clean in terms of policy positions.
But what can he do? We have to survive the next four years. To allow George
W. to get into office by default is irresponsible. And yet... how long, O Lord, how
long must we suffer under this insufferable set of rules?
Many of us here at West
By Northwest.org have talked and written about the limited field of choices we have.
See Professor Gus diZerega's article, "A Prescription for the Lesser of Two
Evils, Is There Another Way?" where he explains a reform of election rules based
on a real majority, not the plurality we have now. There are many reforms that could
make this system more democratic, with proportionate representation in Congress.
We need to examine the Electoral College vote system. Maybe we need a Constitutional
Reformation Convention. The exciting thing is we have the potential to make major,
non-violent, pro-democratic changes with the dedication of a revolutionary and the
grass-roots power of a new party IF we have the political will to build a real
party. We don't have the money of the corporations but we do have the Internet,
the workplaces, the progressive communities of faith, and a vision of a better country.
If voting for Ralph means only getting the magic threshold so the Green Party will
qualify for federal election funds, we still may be left out in the cold with the
fresh manure, freezing together.
Our hearts are with the
Green Party and it's environmentally sound, pro-people positions. The environmental
crisis is growing exponentially --the concepts of the Green Party are utterly
necessary to implement the conservation of the planet and all life within and the
time is running out. However, the election polls tells us that good ole' Al and George
the Wonder Boy (its is a wonder how he ever got the nomination), are in a dead heat
race. If we vote for brave ole' Ralph we throw the race to George W. (Don't you just
love calling these public figures by first names as if we were all friends?) And
you know what? That is exactly what will happen. We are coming down, not to the lesser
of two evils, but to the less reactionary of two kinds of corporate ideology, expressed
so well in the two party stranglehold on American political life. We must change
that stranglehold as quickly as possible but I think we will be too exhausted fighting
off the "George W. Effect" to do much of anything else, let alone build
a viable, grass-roots third party as the Greens which could really govern.
Let's face it. The Greens have no political power except one congressperson and a
few mayors and a lot of grass-roots community activists. We need to find a way to
make the Greens a real political force, not a farce.
The more I learn about
George W. the more I am convinced he should not be let near the White House with
a ten-foot pole. How a dull, spoiled, oil rich brat on a perpetual fraternity weekend
could become a serious candidate I'll leave to writers like Molly Ivins. How he becomes
president IS up to us. I suggest we preclude that from happening by voting for Al
Gore and working for real political reform by changing the system of exclusionary
rules. Granted, Al is the more "progressive" of the two corporately
endorsed candidates but that difference can buy the progressive communities time
-- Time to become a real political party. Ralph and Winnona have done
a great job in raising important issues and visibility. Let's not lose that momentum.
Buy a little time and continue to work for a viable Green Party. Hold your nose and
vote for Al.
Best wishes, Ryan Ramon
P.S. Some folks out here
on the West Coast and Hawaii are talking about a funny tactic that may work... some
Nader supporters will track the exit polls of voters further east in different time
zones and larger population centers to see if there is a comfortable lead for good
ole' Al. IF there is, they then will vote for Nader to help with the numbers
to qualify the Greens for federal election funding. Many Oregon voters will wait
to turn in their mail-in ballots at the last minute. Me? I'll drive into town.
Won't bike that old road at night! Of course, in the not too distant future, IF everyone
whose heart was with the Greens actually voted green, we might need to worry about
forming an experienced cabinet!
To: Sierra Club Leaders
Environmental colleagues
Fr: Carl Pope
Re: Ralph Nader attack on environmentalists who are supporting
Vice-President Gore
Yesterday I received from Ralph Nader a letter addressed to concerned environmental
voters, but distributed also through the Nader press list. The letter attacked Vice-President
Gore, but went beyond that attack to criticize those environmentalists who are endorsing
Gore for adopting a "servile mentality." While the letter raised, legitimately,
a number of valid issues on which Nader and Gore differ, it also contained a number
of inaccurate and utterly unfair attacks.
Additionally, Green Party spokespeople have begun attacking the Sierra Club, and
other environmentalists who are supporting the Gore-Lieberman ticket, in increasing
harsh terms, terms that go far beyond anything that we have said or would in any
conceivable world want to say about our differences with the Nader candidacy.
I have responded to this attack, and my response is attached. I would appreciate
it if folks could distribute this as widely as
possible to environmentalists outside the Club....
Ralph Nader
Nader 2000
PO Box 18002
Washington, DC 20036
Dear Ralph:
Yesterday you sent me(and many other environmentalists) a long letter defending your
candidacy and attacking "the servile mentality" of those of us in the environmental
community who are supporting Vice-President Gore.
I've worked alongside you as a colleague for thirty years. Neither the letter nor
the tactics you are increasingly adopting in your candidacy are worthy of the Ralph
Nader I knew.
The heart of your letter is the argument that "the threat to our planet articulated
by Bush and his ilk" can now be dismissed. But you offer no evidence for this
crucial assertion. Based on the polls today Bush is an even bet to become the next
President, with both a Republican Senate and a Republican House to accompany him.
You have referred to the likely results of a Bush election as being a "cold
shower" for the Democratic party. You have made clear that you will consider
it a victory if the net result of your campaign is a Bush presidency.
But what will your "cold shower" mean for real people and real places?
What will it mean for tens of millions of asthmatic children when Bush applies to
the nation the "voluntary" approach he's using in Texas to clean up the
air. And what about his stated opposition to enforcing environmental standards against
corporations?
What will it mean for Americans vulnerable to water pollution when Bush allows water
quality standards to be degraded to meet the needs of paper mills and refineries
as he has consistently done in Texas, most recently at Lake Sam Rayburn? And what
if he eliminates federal financial support for both drinking water and water pollution,
as his budget calls for and his record in Texas (46th in spending on drinking water)
suggests?
What will it mean for communities of color and poverty located near toxic waste sites,
when Bush applies his Texas approach of lower standards and lower polluter liability
to toxic waste clean-up?
What will a Bush election mean to the Gwich'in people of the Arctic, when the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge is turned over the oil companies and the calving grounds
of the Porcupine Caribou herd on which they depend are destroyed and despoiled?
What will it mean for the fishing families of the Pacific Northwest when Bush amends
the Endangered Species Act to make extinction for the endangered salmon a legally
acceptable option? If he refuses to remove the dams on the Snake River or reduce
timber cutting levels to preserve salmon?
What will it mean for millions of rural Americans whose livelihood, health and communities
are being destroyed by unregulated factory feeding operations, if Bush weakens the
Clean Water Act? When he appoints Supreme Court justices who complete the task of
shutting down access to federal courts for citizens trying to enforce environmental
laws?
What will it mean for the wildlife that depend upon our National Forests when Bush
undoes the Clinton-Gore Administration reforms, reverses their roadless area protection
policy, and restores the timber industry to the mastery of the forests and the Forest
Service that it enjoyed under his father? If he doubles, or triples, the cut on those
Forests?
What will it mean for millions of people in Bangladesh and other low-lying countries
when an American refusal to confront the problem of global warming unleashes the
floods and typhoons of a rising ocean upon them?
Your letter addresses none of these real consequences of a Bush victory. Nor has
your campaign. Instead, you indulge yourself in the language of academic discourse
when you claim: "Bush's "old school" allegiance to plunder and extermination
as humanity's appropriate relationship to our world speaks a language effectively
discounted by the great tradition of naturalists from John Muir to David Brower.
Bush's blatant anti-environmentalism will lose corporate favor as it loses popular
support. It is a language of politics fading rapidly, and without a future."
Candidate Bush may well be speaking a fading language. So was candidate Reagan in
1980 when he ranted that trees caused air pollution. It is power, however, not language,
that determines policy. President Bush would be vested with the powers of the government
of the United States, and he is an even more devoted servant of environmental counter-revolution
than Reagan ever was.
Because your letter is couched in this language, so divorced from the real world
consequences of your candidacy, and the real world choices that face Americans, it
is difficult to respond to all of its selective misrepresentations and inaccuracies.
A few samples, however, may show you why I am so disappointed in the turn your candidacy
has taken:
You claim that "Earth in the Balance" was "an advertisement for his
calculated strategy and availability as an environmental poseur." Can you offer
a single piece of evidence to support this quite astonishing statement?
You claim that the Clinton Administration stood up to the oil industry on the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge only because "focus groups have shown him he cannot
give" it up. In fact, most polls show that the public is somewhat split on this
issue, and there are certainly no focus groups I know of showing that it is a third-rail
which no President can cross at his peril. Can you cite your evidence?
You lament that the Administration has "set aside lands not in National Parks,
but rather in National Monuments...." You are surely aware that a President
cannot legally create national parks, which require an act or Congress; nor can you
be under the misapprehension that this Congress with Don Young as the head of the
House Resources Committee and Frank Murkowski as his counterpart in the Senate would
have designated these areas as parks however long a battle Clinton and Gore might
have fought. No, you simply took a cheap shot, and ignored the facts.
You have also broken your word to your followers who signed the petitions that got
you on the ballot in many states. You pledged you would not campaign as a spoiler
and would avoid the swing states. Your recent campaign rhetoric and campaign schedule
make it clear that you have broken this pledge. Your response: you are a political
candidate, and a political candidate wants to take every vote he can. Very well --
you admit you are a candidate -- admit that you are, like your opponents, a flawed
one.
Irresponsible as I find your strategy, I accept that you genuinely believe in it.
Please accept that I, and the overwhelming majority of the environmental movement
in this country, genuinely believe that your strategy is flawed, dangerous and reckless.
Until you can answer how you will protect the people and places who will be put in
harm's way, or destroyed, by a Bush presidency, you have no right to slander those
who disagree with you as "servile."
You have called upon us to vote our hopes, not our fears. I find it easy to do so.
My hope is that by electing the best environmental President in American history,
Al Gore, we can move forward. My fear is that you, blinded by your anger at flaws
of the Clinton-Gore Administration, may be instrumental in electing the worst.
Sincerely yours,
Carl Pope
Executive Director
The Sierra Club
Dear Friends,
I can't resist throwing in my bit here, 'cause it's such a hot topic and 'cause yesterday
I had a debate over the breakfast table with my sweetie (threatened that if he voted
for Nader I'd "divorce" him. Just kidding... maybe).
I do respect your reasons, friend, and my sweetie's as well. They're good reasons.
I must say that I think a lot less of Gore than you do. In my observation, he's a
political whore with only barely less corporate promiscuity than Shrub. But I am
voting for the guy. Here's why:
1) As the political game is currently constituted, a vote for Nader IS a vote for
Shrub. I know, "vote your hopes, not your fears." Nice slogan. Fact remains
that "Dubaya", with a Republican congress behind him (which not even Reagan
had), would be an unforgivable disaster. I cannot think of a single issue that would
not be affected drastically : environment, global warming, corporate criminality,
human rights, economic justice, and on and on. Am I voting my fears? Bet your ass.
2) Gore is a jerk. But if you scrape hard enough, there is possibly a conscience
under there somewhere. I think he can be publicly shamed into doing the right thing,
or at least the "somewhat better" thing. And he would be the first president
to actually "understand" the environmental crisis. He may not want to offend
his corporate sponsorship, but again, he can be pressured.
3) Focus on the future. Forget the "5% vote qualifies for matching funds."
Small change. If we want progressive candidates to have a real chance in future elections,
we have to tweak the system so that votes for them actually count for something.
That's where we could put our magic and energy. A friend of mine, Gus diZerega, is
a political scientist. He has suggested a very simple, very do-able change: genuine
majority elections. Who could say no to that? As American as apple pie. Yet we don't
have them now (we have a winner-take-all system). And majority elections would guarantee
an influential bargaining place for third party candidates. You can read Gus's short
article on the subject at www.westbynorthwest.org.
At a spiritual meeting last night, no one "proselytized". And one community
member, a longtime Green activist, afterwards held a very short ritual/prayer outside
for the election: "nonpartisan," he announced.
With hope,
Mary DeDanan
West By Northwest.org Poll
If the US Presidential Election Were Held Today Again....
Ryan Ramon's
Recommendations on Oregon Ballet Measures
Perhaps friends and readers elsewhere will be interested in what's
happening here in Oregon, a pioneering state in many ways. Even before the very hefty
volume one of the Oregon Voter's Pamphlet arrived here in Spencer Creek Valley, I
began to gather materials and articles and ads (with the lists of endorsers) and
study the issues for many weeks. But now I've come down to wire. As I finalized my
recommendations a friend suggested I look at a new liberal web site, Oregon United which had a very good voter's guide. And it does! I
can agree with ALL of the suggested positions and think it would be worthwhile to
click over to their link and check it out. One thing the Internet does is to make
it easy not to be too redundant. Or is this an excuse? However, there is NO excuse
not to vote. Granted, we have to live with a lot of political decisions we don't
have a lot of influence over, but here we really do have the chance to influence
some events and institutions for the better. http://oregonunited.com/home/voters_guides.asp
|