Re: Nader/Camejo on C-SPAN

Aaron S. Hawley wrote:
> [I haven't seen this yet.  Did anyone see the weak response by The Nation
> to Camejo's letter to the editor?  Classic.]


IT'S NOT EASY BEING GREEN

Oakland, Calif.

The Nation has taken the lead in liberal Democratic Party circles in opposing 
Ralph Nader's independent candidacy and the Greens' running a presidential 
slate. It seems that The Nation's candidate is John Kerry and it hopes to help 
him win by silencing anyone who truly opposes Bush's policies. It urges a vote 
for Kerry, who voted for the Patriot Act, for "unequivocal support" of the 
Iraq war, who opposes the World Court, opposes the Kyoto Protocol and so on.

The editors want to help Kerry win by preventing any candidate from running 
who is for peace and democracy. So those who disagree with The Nation have no 
choice, no one to vote for. This reflects tremendous arrogance toward American 
voters because it is essentially the voters whose rights they would deny. They 
want to force these voters to vote against what they believe. To justify this 
policy, the editors hide behind the undemocratic, winner-take-all, no-runoff 
electoral laws. And these undemocratic electoral policies are fully supported 
by their candidate and party, Kerry and the Democrats (see 
www.avocadoeducationproject.org).

The Nation has joined the chorus of those blaming Nader for Bush's selection. 
Seven million Democrats voted for Bush in 2000, more than 200,000 in Florida 
alone. We are still looking for one Green who voted for Bush. The Democratic 
Party campaign blaming Nader for Bush is a transparent attempt to teach our 
citizens who question the two-party system that they must not dare challenge 
these two corporate parties. "It's either the Democrats or you get a 
Republican," they are told. "Learn to submit to the rule of money. If you 
challenge them it only gets worse. Remain silent and accept whatever the 
Democrats give you!"

The Nation's hostility toward the Green Party is reflected in its coverage, 
for example, of the gubernatorial recall election in California. For the first 
time, a party to the left of the Democrats, the Green Party, was included in 
nationally televised debates. In the eight months of the recall election, The 
Nation avoided any mention of the Green Party or its candidate, myself. All 
the major papers across the country and every mainstream TV station reported 
on all six "major" candidates. But like Stalin's servile editors, The Nation 
carefully edited out the Green candidate from its cover story ["California 
Chaos," Sept. 1/8, 2003], which showed pictures of all the major candidates 
minus the Green.

When historians look back, they will marvel at how presenting candidates who 
will fight for democracy and peace in the 2004 elections was opposed by so 
many who claimed to support those goals. Just as today we look back in disgust 
when, 130 years ago, The Nation, in a different context, opposed rights for 
African-Americans, whom it called "the least civilized race in the world."

PETER MIGUEL CAMEJO

THE EDITORS REPLY

Peter Camejo has many strong opinions--for which we admire him--a few of which 
are even correct. Others are not. It is misleading to describe our coverage of 
the Green Party as scanty or hostile or to say we support the major-party 
duopoly. A glance at our archives reveals extensive reporting on Greens, 
including this mention of Camejo, from Marc Cooper ("California's Gray 
Politics," Aug. 19/26, 2002): "With the two major-party candidates inspiring 
little excitement or loyalty, the November election ought to be fertile 
territory for third-party movements like the California Green Party. But while 
recent statewide polls show a surge of support for third-party contenders, 
Green gubernatorial candidate Peter Camejo, a Marxist-Leninist turned socially 
responsible investment banker, has yet to emerge from anonymity; his support 
is estimated at no more than 4 or 5 percent."

We're sorry Camejo found us insufficiently enthusiastic about his candidacy 
during the recall fight. We tended to focus on which candidate would capture 
the governor's office in Sacramento rather than on the fortunes of a minor 
party. Camejo himself embraced that sensible logic in the campaign, when he 
said he would "not condemn those voters who feel forced to vote for a Democrat 
like Cruz Bustamante."

On presidential politics we disagree. We believe the number-one priority this 
November is to defeat George W. Bush. To that end, we have criticized Ralph 
Nader's decision to run. We have not, as Camejo charges, editorialized against 
the Greens' running a presidential slate, especially if the party is wise 
enough to choose a candidate and strategy that avoid tipping the race to Bush 
in battleground states. Judging from the delegate count as the Greens convene 
their national convention in Wisconsin, it seems that the bulk of Camejo's 
party may agree.

Do we think winner-take-all systems are the best choice? No, and over the 
years we have run several articles and editorials supporting instant-runoff 
voting and other forms of proportional representation. Unfortunately, this 
November we have to deal with the voting system in place. In the end, the 
voters will of course make up their own minds, and despite Camejo's overheated 
imagination, no Nation editors will be standing at voting booths preventing 
them from choosing whom they wish. Also, The Nation has not in its editorials 
blamed Nader for 2000.

As for our California-recall cover: Camejo's thunderous invocation of 
Stalinist airbrushing strikes us as overwrought, but we are sorry he feels 
slighted by not being included on it. Our satiric movie-poster graphic, 
which--along with candidates Larry Flynt, Gary Coleman and "the 
Terminator"--featured the headline "California Chaos: A Political Epic With a 
Cast of Thousands," may have been in questionable taste, but it was scarcely a 
thought crime.

THE EDITORS


_______________________________________________
heads mailing list
[email protected]
http://ballistichelmet.org/mailman/listinfo/heads/
http://ballistichelmet.org/donate/