Ampersand explains that the decision of the Naderite left to throw the 2000 election to Bush was a well-considered one, and necessary to prevent what is described as the rightward tilt of the Democrats. The fact that that the Bush Administration has been even worse than anyone expected shows, somehow, that this was a correct strategy: the awfulness of Bush is to be attributed to the lack of purity among the Democrats.

Ampersand then asks the following question:

Assuming the Greens run a presidential candidate, Is there any way Greens and Democrats can get through the 2004 elections without returning to our stations at each other’s throats?

Let me rephrase that question: “Given that some of us on the left, having handed Bush the Presidency in 2000 to teach the Democrats a lesson, decide to hand it to him again in 2004, is there any way to keep Democrats from being angry?”

I’d have to say that the answer is “No.”

Author: Mark Kleiman

Professor of Public Policy at the NYU Marron Institute for Urban Management and editor of the Journal of Drug Policy Analysis. Teaches about the methods of policy analysis about drug abuse control and crime control policy, working out the implications of two principles: that swift and certain sanctions don't have to be severe to be effective, and that well-designed threats usually don't have to be carried out. Books: Drugs and Drug Policy: What Everyone Needs to Know (with Jonathan Caulkins and Angela Hawken) When Brute Force Fails: How to Have Less Crime and Less Punishment (Princeton, 2009; named one of the "books of the year" by The Economist Against Excess: Drug Policy for Results (Basic, 1993) Marijuana: Costs of Abuse, Costs of Control (Greenwood, 1989) UCLA Homepage Curriculum Vitae Contact: