For the most part, we have been spared the agonies of the choice between Kerry and Nader on this list, with the threat of another ghoulish four years of Bush.
No attractive choice lies ahead of us. I once spent a couple hours alone with Nader. I don't think he had the slightest interest in me as a person, but when I gave him information he would find useful you could see him intently processing it. When what I said was less interesting, he was somewhere else. His knowledge, his information, the networks he has established, and the influence he has exerted have all been very positive. Kerry, in contrast, with all the advantages he has had in life really has done very little, even though Massachusetts should have given him a safe base for activism. His zombie-like campaign, his support of Israel, and his lack of any real plan are disheartening. In California, my vote cannot harm Bush. I cannot imagine the Republicans taking control of this state, so I can safely vote for Nader without worrying about the effect of my vote. But then, I've never voted for a Democratic candidate for president. I understand the divisions in the Green Party, I cannot understand getting angry about what they do one way or the other. The Greens have not proven to be reliable leftists, even United States were in Europe. They have not developed an effective electoral strategy, but neither has anybody else on the left. The right wing did. Everybody knows it did. Many leftists talk about replicating that strategy. The Green local elections are about as far as anybody has taken this idea. We on the left has never been particularly good about critical support of those who are not with this 100%. Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929
