MAKING THE GREEN CASE.

Green Party presidential hopeful Ralph Nader puts himself forward as the alternative to gay politics as usual

In his quixotic presidential bid, Ralph Nader refers to the Democratic and Republican parties as "Republocrats" whose two interchangeable standard-bearers are "Gush" and "Bore." Yet when it comes to gay rights, the legendary consumer crusader faces an uphill battle convincing voters that his Green Party is a credible alternative to the major parties.

Not only are Democrats Al Gore and Joseph Lieberman staunch gay rights advocates, but George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have sought to blur long-standing partisan differences on gay issues by tentatively reaching out to gay Republicans. Nader himself can hardly boast a stellar record of gay advocacy. In fact, he has spent much of his long political career avoiding the topic. In a 1996 interview with columnist William Safire of The New York Times, Nader famously dismissed gay rights and abortion as "gonadal politics."

After an early surge in national polls, Nader has slipped to between 2% and 5% of the vote in key battleground states such as California and Michigan. Even so, in a close election he has the potential to siphon enough progressive votes from Gore to cost the Democrats the election, a possibility that infuriates many gay Democrats. In an August 15 press release, the National Stonewall Democratic Federation declared that "any votes for Ralph Nader will only serve to help elect Governor Bush" and that "Al Gore is the only electable presidential candidate with a proven record of support for the goal of ending prejudice in society."

In an attempt to overcome such skepticism, Nader has begun to grapple with gay politics in a sustained way for the first time. During an August 7 appearance on Meet the Press he endorsed recognition of same-sex unions, calling the Vermont decision on civil unions "a good one." In the process he has sparred with Rep. Barney Frank, who has called Nader "indifferent" to gay politics, and California assemblywoman Carole Migden, who implied in an interview with California Triangle magazine that Nader is a closet case. Nader "has strong ties to the [gay] community--and has for years--and hasn't been forthright about it."

"That's like asking, `When did you stop beating your wife?'" Nader responded when the San Francisco Chronicle sought his reaction. "But the answer to her inference is no."

While Nader has long been loath to speak about his private life, there is no doubting Nader's passion or intelligence. In an exclusive interview with The Advocate, Nader spoke at length and with great enthusiasm about his differences with Gore, his spat with Barney Frank, and "gonadal politics."

What are you doing to attract gay votes?

I haven't seen evidence that gay people are supporting me in great numbers. The main gay rights groups have endorsed Gore. It's true with any community faced with a "least worse" proposition. Look at Barney Frank. Here he's chastising me, and I'm way ahead of Gore on these issues.

What's up with you and Barney Frank anyway?

He goes into areas that are based on a lack of knowledge--like saying that we haven't done enough over the years for low-income people. Is he kidding? I didn't start this fight with Barney. He just shoots his mouth off. Barney has worked hard to forge an alliance between gay voters and the Democratic Party, which has come a long way on the issue. In the case of gay voters, why should that alliance be questioned? Barney and other gay leaders should recognize I've taken far more progressive stances on gay issues than Gore or Bush. He's a partisan Democrat, and he's not about to divert from that path, but the least he could do is recognize that.

Actually, on gay rights issues the difference between the parties is pretty stark.

Yes, there is a difference on that issue and on abortion rights. But if you laid out the top 100 issues that need to be addressed, Bush and Gore would be on the same page with 90% of them. Corporate welfare, corporate fraud, the World Trade Organization, consumer rights, the military budget, foreign policy. They both have very similar positions.

Why would the majority of gay voters want to jeopardize the progress--even if only incremental progress--the White House has made on gay and HIV/AIDS issues?

Because the Democrats don't stand strongly on those issues. If you set aside the rhetorical differences between the two parties, the differences become even narrower. Democrats sound better on abortion, for instance, but we know that when push comes to shove, Republicans don't want to destroy their own party by making abortion illegal. The Democrats talk like gay rights supporters, but they haven't actually accomplished very much. They just sound good.

But Clinton's gay rights efforts were blocked at every turn by the GOP majority in Congress.

Clinton and Gore made a calculation. If they went a certain distance, they would get support from the gay rights movement. But if they went too far, they would lose support from other voters. Do you think they would have done anything if gay rights supporters were not organized to the limit? The key test of politicians is whether they will do the right thing whether or not they get votes.

So as president how would you get beyond the opposition to gay rights in Congress?

You can't be a transactional president, cutting deals. You have to say, "This is a country dedicated to equal rights and equal responsibility, regardless of race, gender, sexual preference, whatever. That is the basic touchstone from which all other policies flow." When you rise to that level, you force the opposition to say, "Oh, no. We don't want equal rights." The civil rights movement forces the bigots to either recede or display their bigotry. When you start cutting deals, that's when you slow down rights and put yourself in a credibility gap.

Yet the reality is that in many cases Americans are not ready to embrace gay rights, especially on the issue of same-sex marriage.

Gay people want to do three things that most Americans think are pretty good except when it comes to gay people. They want to serve in the military, they want to get married, and they want to adopt kids. Those are three traditional American values. That's the kind of transforming language that Clinton and Gore never use because they are tiptoe politicians. If you believe in the principle of equal responsibility and equal rights, you can't justify getting only a fraction of that principle because it's just that--a principle.

But isn't politics more incremental than you allow? For instance, your own understanding of gay rights has evolved over the years, has it not?

My views haven't changed, but the sense of urgency has. I was impressed when gay people hit the streets. I was impressed with ACT UP. There are so many injustices in the world, and you ascribe different levels of urgency based on your knowledge and your temperament. I really had a sense of urgency about people getting killed in auto crashes, for instance, and respiratory illnesses in the coal mines. No human being can have equal senses of urgency for all the world's injustices. It takes street power to illuminate the conscience of the power structure.

Do you remember your own first epiphany about gay rights?

I was in California at a university in the early days of AIDS. A gay man came up to me and said, "You have to do something about this." He was very sick. At the time all I knew about AIDS was what I saw on the Donahue show. It made me realize the human toll.

Before the national media coverage of the slaying of Matthew Shepard, did you realize the extent of antigay violence?

Growing up in the '40s and '50s, you saw it all the time. The words aimed at those perceived to be gay were degrading, dismissive, derogatory-"sissy" and words like that. You heard them all the time. At the time, the words were not as violent as they are today. I think the violence comes when an aggrieved group becomes more powerful.

What did you mean by your remark about "gonadal politics"?

I was being interviewed by Bill Satire, and he says, "What are you going to emphasize in your campaign? Gay rights? Abortion?" I said, "Look, my focus is on indiscriminate injustice. Corporate pollution, fraud, HMOs. That's what I'll work on because the press won't give you much time. I'm not going to focus on gonadal politics." I meant it generically. Gonadal means, in one dictionary I use, "that which begets." That simply meant that I wasn't going to focus on all the social, hot-button-type issues about interpersonal rights.

But isn't there a deep connection between "gonadal politics," by which I suppose you mean "sexual politics," and the kind of corporate and economic issues you address?

Yes. That's why I've supported over the years the efforts of gay activists against the Federal Communications Commission. They have petitioned the FCC to have the right of reply and the fairness doctrine applied. They were interested in reform that was to help everyone as much as it was to help them. That's when a movement matures. Class and identity politics are intimately connected. But the connections are not made enough. I keep telling people in the African-American community, "Yes, it's about race, but it's also about class." If we make progress on class issues, African-Americans will have more economic power and thus more ability to deter discrimination.

You have been involved in politics since the '50s. What do you think of the changes in the way America views gays and lesbians?

In a few decades people will look at the bigotry against gays and lesbians as medieval. They will say, "How did we do that?" the way people in the South now say, "How did we ever have separate fountains for Negroes and whites?" And I say that because our attitudes have changed toward women, minorities, and the elderly. So I'm very confident about the future of gay rights. Once you know it's going to happen, you don't want to live in a medieval mind-set any longer than necessary. We don't want to live in a medieval mind-set, period.

For more information on Ralph Nader and the Green Party, go to www.advocate.com