DEMOCRATIC RESPONSE

Mr. Pfeifle: As I understand it, your summary of the mainstream Democratic perspective served the rhetorical purpose of supporting Ralph Nader’s involvement in the 2000 presidential election (“Nader Nation,” June 28). I think you presumed too much about what we believe.

The crux of our disagreement rests on differing interpretation of the voting process. What does it mean to vote? Should we try to act on the dictates of our minds and hearts? Or should we try to act as stewards of society?

There is no easy answer, of course. Yet your cursory treatment of the Democratic perspective suggests that you saw the 2000 election through the lens of a narrow interpretation of what it means to vote.

Yes, many Democrats think that beliefs should be tempered with pragmatism. Yet you should not judge people who argue “voting for Nader was voting for Bush” as pessimists resigned to realpolitik. We are not, to borrow a phrase from self-styled radicals, “sell outs.” Real radicalism — according to Christ, Ghandi, Allah, Buddha, and King, to name a few authoritative political theorists — is compassion, and moderation means, at least to me, choosing compassion over ideology when the two conflict: even if I admire Nader’s uncompromising environmentalism, I won’t support it if a Green vote betters Bush’s chances of getting his oil-greased hands on the Alaska Wildlife Refuge. (Incidentally, of course Nader’s views are uncompromising. His political integrity is intact because he hasn’t been pushed through the meat grinder of electoral politics. His intellect and courage are admirable. His integrity is not — it’s the luxury of being a maverick.)

In sum, I think you misrepresented the view of mainstream Democrats. We do not all see Ralph Nader as a “spoiler.” Many recognize his larger purpose. Like other third-party candidates, he can be seen as a “proto-realignment phenomenon” because his arrival on the political scene serves to alert the major parties to the presence of a substantial body of disaffected voters. If the Democratic Party wants to stay in power, it will have to reassess the sentiments of its constituency. In this sense, Ralph Nader is the harbinger of change whether or not he wins office.

If the ultimate purpose of third-party candidates is to bring about an ideological shift in the major parties, your discussion of Debs, van Buren, and LaFollette could have just as easily been supporting evidence for the virtues of the status quo. The success of Debs and the Socialist Party in the early 20th century forced the Democratic Party to incorporate much of the Socialist Party platform (minimum wage, child labor laws, etc.) into its own.

The Socialist transformation was slow, and the Green one will be, too. That’s not a cynical stance; it’s a structural constraint. As Will Durant once wrote, revolutions never last unless they occur gradually from within.

Ellen O’Brien

Portland

NADER'S SELLING

Ralph Nader might not be for sale (“Nader Nation,” June 28) but he’s selling voters a bill of goods, and like thousands of disaffected young people fed up with political cynicism, Sam Pfeifle is buying.

Disappointed by Clinton’s opportunism and encouraged by his advocacy of the only serious campaign financing proposals then on the table, I voted for Nader in 1996. Four years later I was torn between Nader and Gore until (along with several high-profile Nader supporters) I figured out what Nader was up to.

Even as Nader continues to encourage idealism in his young supporters, he pursues the most cynical and riskiest of strategies. Many prominent progressives were mystified when, late in the 2000 campaign, Nader focused his efforts on swing states — including Florida. They were equally mystified when, in several interviews following Bush’s narrow (perhaps manufactured) victory, Nader seemed to gloat. They needn’t have been surprised:

Nader’s long-term objective — privately confirmed after the election by several Nader insiders — is to undermine what he considers the Democrats’ strongest claim to progressive votes: their ability to win elections. If Democrats are rendered unelectable, progressives will have little reason to support Democrats. This, in Nader’s cynical calculation, will liberate millions of potential Nader voters and allow the formation of a new, less cynical progressive party. Even by the standards of American politics, the irony is impressive.

Nader is playing a dangerous game, and there should be little doubt that the appalling consequences of the Bush administration — in America, the Middle East, and especially for Nader’s beloved environment — are a direct, predictable result of Nader’s cynicism and the gullibility of thousands of young idealists in the last election — not to mention Pfeifle, who should know better. What many people do not seem to understand, however, is that, though he is unlikely to admit it publicly, Ralph Nader considers Bush’s reign a victory.

Jim Austin

Portland, ME

TO COLLINS'S DEFENSE

I am totally taken aback by the tone and substance of the one-sided attack on Senator Susan Collins in your June 7 issue (“The Power of the Incumbent”). I have known Susan for over 20 years and she does not deserve the sharp comments directed at her by some of my gay friends.

First of all, it was not “to shore up her reputation as a moderate” that Susan stated that, if elected Governor, she would sign a gay rights law. She took that stand because it was the right thing to do, and she certainly lost some Republican support as a result of her position.

She did not “oppose” the Employment Non-Discrimination Act “until last month.” She simply did not state her position prior to the debate in the Senate committee of which she is a member. Several of my gay friends on the Portland City Council also do not publicly state their positions prior to certain controversial votes, to spare themselves the emotional, often offensive, and sometimes threatening lobbying that occurs over such issues. In fact, Susan has become a cosponsor of ENDA and was quoted in the widely-read “Perspectives” column in Newsweek: “To do this is not to create a special right for gay men and lesbians, but to end discrimination against them, as we have done for others.” Principled words, with special impact because they come from a Republican.

I am surprised to read my friend Mayor Karen Geraghty’s overstatement that “ENDA is completely meaningless for people in Maine.” As far as I am aware, it is still legal for employers in the vast majority of our cities and towns to discriminate in employment based on sexual orientation. Even though many Maine employers are not covered by this federal initiative, it is a beginning and it is certainly more protection than we have been able to pass on a statewide basis here in Maine.

Finally, I am one of seven city councilors who passed Portland’s landmark Human Right Ordinance in 1993. I have contributed to and raised funds for the statewide equal rights ordinance. I have many friends in the gay community. But I gather from the comments made about Susan that if one does not “toe the line” on every single element of the gay agenda (whatever it is), one is considered an unworthy candidate, notwithstanding past votes. I am often encouraged to run again for elected office (I served on the City Council from 1990 to 1994, including a year as Mayor). I guess I’d better forget it, despite my record of political courage in passing a local ordinance which has resulted in a dramatic transformation of the tolerant tenor of our City. I stand proud of my record and that of my friend, Senator Susan Collins.

Anne B. Pringle

Portland

WHAT ABOUT RUNOFF?

Thanks for your “report” (“Young Greens,” June 28). I too, am a registered Democrat who will probably vote Green next time, especially for Carter. What I wish you had made mention of, in pointed terms, is the necessity of instituting “Instant Runoff Voting” here, and eventually, it is hoped, everywhere in the country. It is the single most important change that needs to be made in our electoral system for there to be any significant chance for third, or fourth parties, like the Greens, to get elected, and the single best way to re-enfranchise the Voter! Please! Let’s get down to where the “rubber meets the road,” and get this onto a referendum in time to make a difference!

Bia Winter

Mount Vernon

THE DIAMON TREATMENT

As many letter writers do after they’ve had the Al Diamon treatment, I have to take exception to something he wrote (“Dennis Bailey’s new deal,” June 14), not about me but about one of my clients.

Diamon’s gratuitous swipe at Prof. Matthew Hudson of Scotia Prince Cruises, a man whom Al admitted to me he has never met nor talked to, was way off the mark. In his short time here, Prof. Hudson has shown himself to be an active and concerned member of this community. His business generates more than $50 million a year in supply contracts, lodging, meals and other activity, and his generous contributions to local charities should not go unnoticed. And Professor Hudson is and always has been the chief spokesman for Scotia Prince Cruises.

Instead, Al chose to revive a year-old dispute with former Scotia Prince employees. When he mentioned it to me during our interview, I suggested that he check the court records. While several reporters wrote about the original employee complaints and their lawsuit, few bothered to follow up when the charges were dismissed by the court, which sided with the Scotia Prince in finding that the company treated these employees appropriately. Had he done so, Diamon would have discovered something important about my profession: what he and others often perceive as “spin” is actually the truth.

Oh yeah, and all my friends agreed: the drawing doesn’t look anything like me.

Dennis Bailey

Portland