The Economist

Blues of The Greens: An invigorating candidate is unjustly pushed to the sidelines
September 18, 2002

PETER CAMEJO hates to be called a spoiler. As the Green Party candidate for governor of California in the election on November 5th, he is often warned that he could end up helping Bill Simon, the Republican candidate, to defeat Gray Davis, the incumbent. That, claim his Democratic detractors, is exactly what Ralph Nader did to Al Gore in Florida.

On the face of it, there is no danger of that happening in California. A Field poll released on September 5th gave Mr Davis a lead of seven percentage points over Mr Simon, considerably larger than the 3% of voters who supported Mr Camejo. But the poll also showed 22% undecided, a share that has risen--at a stage in the campaign when opinions would normally be becoming firmer, not softening--from 16% in July. And both the main candidates have higher negative than positive ratings.

That makes Mr Camejo a potentially dangerous man as far as the governor is concerned. It is a familiar position for him; back in the 1960s, when he was a leader of the student radicals at the University of California at Berkeley, the governor of the day, Ronald Reagan, named him one of the ten most dangerous men in California. As a first-generation Venezuelan-American, Mr Camejo could broaden the appeal of the Green Party among Latino and minority voters who, up to now, have disproportionately backed the Democrats. According to Mike Madrid, a Republican consultant, one-third of Latinos say they dislike both candidates from the main parties--the highest share ever to do so.

That threat and potential explain a lot about what happened in Beverly Hills on September 17th, when Mr Camejo and Mr Simon--but not Mr Davis--took part in one of the only debates of the campaign. Showing up to a debate with Mr Camejo would not help the governor (who has agreed to debate Mr Simon only once). Mr Davis would have had to bear the brunt of Mr Camejo's attacks, and his presence would have guaranteed more media attention.

The audience for the debate was small; but it was both larger than Mr Camejo can normally reach and slanted to groups he hopes to impress, ethnic-minority businessmen and media folk. Mr Camejo duly stressed not only environmental issues but education, workers' rights (including a minimum "living wage"), universal health-care and a shift away from "three-strikes" laws towards rehabilitation--all of which may well endear him to poorer Californians. For good measure, he also got in many a dig at corporate crime. Yet Mr Camejo is no anti-capitalist. He founded Progressive Asset Management, a financial advisory firm that applies stringent environmental, social and ethical criteria to investment. Mr Simon's background is also in investment management (to his delight, a fraud verdict against his family investment firm had been thrown out of court a few days earlier) and the two financiers were positively fulsome in their gratitude to each other for showing up. A common enemy is a wonderful bond.

Mr Camejo knows he has no chance of winning, nor even, probably, of helping Mr Simon to win. At best, his campaign may raise the profile of the Greens a little. California already has 51 Greens in local offices, including four mayors. Michael Feinstein, the Green mayor of Santa Monica, notes that many local elections employ systems such as instant runoff voting, approved this year by San Francisco, that give minor parties a greater say. Mr Camejo wants IRV extended statewide. He still wouldn't win, but at least Mr Davis might deign to debate him.