Dear Ralph,
We write as members of the Madison, Wis., and Providence, R.I., city councils and as progressive activists who are nearly 50 years younger than you. That we have found the politics that we have, and that we have found the Green Party, can largely be credited to your decades of diligent work, your previous runs for president and your articulate, forceful and charming speaking engagements. For that we are truly grateful.
But we cannot support the approach you take today, as you vie for the presidency in a manner that demonstrates little concern for the election's outcome or for the betterment of progressive causes.
That said, there is, in the abstract, potentially great value to your running for president. Your analysis of the current state of American politics is justifiably harsh and dead-on. Your critique of the Bush administration undeniably motivates people to work against him. The notoriety you have accrued over the last four years energizes others in opposition to you, in a way that will manifest as votes for John Kerry.
As in 2000, to assess the effect of your running this year - as opposed to your not running at all - is much more difficult than Democratic political operatives and the mainstream press let on. And, as in 2000, it will be difficult to assess that effect even retrospectively.
Your presence shifts the debate in which the major candidates engage - sometimes to the left and sometimes to the right. You draw attention to issues that would otherwise go un-discussed. You motivate disinterested people to engage in electoral politics, and you motivate those who would otherwise still be involved to become more active. You may compel John Kerry to use a populist's rhetoric, but that's not worth much if corporate-party language shouldn't be believed - and it often shouldn't be - or if Kerry doesn't win. There are far too many variables in play for any human mind to process.
We are, however, comfortable in asserting that had you, in early November of 2000, asked your supporters who lived in swing states to vote for Al Gore, Gore certainly would have prevailed over George W. Bush. You would respond that you had no obligation to do as much, that nobody "owns" votes - that they must be contested, and that they must be won. We wish that we were governed by political and electoral structures that would allow us to accept such rhetoric. But we are not.
As progressives, we pride ourselves in looking at, understanding and acting upon, all of the ramifications of our actions, in their totality. We can and should lament the present state of American politics. We should attribute blame to those who are responsible for it, and talk about how things could be different.
But none of this absolves us from our responsibility to act in the manner that does the most good, given the parameters in which we operate. Were your current campaign a component of a coherent strategy to advance the causes of the left, we could support your effort. But we are not aware of you ever articulating a justification for staying in the race to the end, no matter what else. The proverbial revolution is more than one election cycle away.
The world, our nation's poor and disenfranchised, and the people of Madison and the people of Providence - largely among our nation's poor and disenfrachised - cannot afford four more years of Bush. We know voting for you on Election Day will not facilitate Bush's defeat, and we do not understand how voting for you will yield long-term gains for the progressive movement.
But we do think a change in your strategy could make your effort eminently worthwhile.
Ralph, you have amassed a tremendous amount of cache since the last presidential election. The Democratic Party is scared of you, and you are in a position to make concrete demands of Democratic leadership. To these young activists, who will likely be working in government for decades after you are gone, it is transparent that it is a consequence of American political and electoral structures - namely winner-take-all elections and the lack of public financing - that we find American politics in such a dreadful state.
We implore you to ask concessions of the Democrats that would promote instant runoff voting and to ask your supporters in swing states to vote for Kerry if these demands are met.
A modest request (and you are probably in a position to make much more profound ones) would be to ask Democrats to amend the RECORD Act , currently before Congress (which would mandate that new voting machines produce paper trails), to require that new voting machines also be equipped to process IRV.
At present, perhaps the most formidable obstacle to the implementation of IRV at the local level is the argument that upgrading equipment would be too costly a burden for a locality to shoulder. An amendment to the RECORD Act could negate that argument in perpetuity, and begin to truly open up our system to third parties and independent candidates. In extracting such a concession from Kerry and the Democrats, you would be planting the seeds of the real democracy that you and we all long for.
Last month, Noam Chomsky told David Barsamian that anyone who says "I don't care if Bush gets elected" is basically telling poor and working people in the country, "I don't care if your lives are destroyed. I don't care if you're going to have a little less money to help your disabled mother. I just don't care, because from my elevated point of view I don't see much difference between them.'" That's a way of saying, "Pay no attention to me, because I don't care about you." Apart from its being wrong, it's a recipe for disaster if you're hoping to ever develop a popular movement and a political alternative.
Ralph, by beseeching progressives to "relax and rejoice" and assuring them that your campaign will help defeat Bush, you indicate a tacit recognition of the importance of ousting the current administration - even if it is to be replaced by a Kerry administration with significant failings. We wish you luck in convincing conservatives to vote for you - and you will probably find some success in that endeavour. Still, Chomsky is right.
So though we do not oppose your running or begrudge you your right to run, we will do all we can to make sure that swing-state voters who would otherwise vote for Kerry do not vote for you on Election Day. It would be tremendous if you were to join us in that effort and if IRV were our reward.
David Segal is chair of GreenforImpact.com and the Providence City Council Ward 1 representative. Austin King is an alder who resides in Madison, Wis.
