Four years ago, Ralph Nader's Green Party presidential campaign had a simple message for Democratic voters unhappy with their party's nominee: "Don't go for the lesser of two evils because at the end of the day you end up with evil."

Excerpts from Ralph Nader's open letter to Democrats: Apart from their ways, the Democrats need to be shown additional ways — strong, rational, emotive ways to defeat Bush and the Republicans. Why? Because their leaders and consultants are either too cautious, too unimaginative or too indentured to vested interests to even conceive, not to mention field test, these vulnerabilities of the Bush regime. The Democrats need to be shown in the field how to appeal to the millions of voters whom they have turned their back on because many of them are against abortion and gun control. It is one thing when litmus paper tests are applied to candidates by groups or voters, but candidates are foolish to do this in reverse — after all even your friends don't agree with you on everything. ... (An) independent candidacy that generates more political and civic energies by the American people helps to generate more understandings and support for major new directions for our country ... public financing of public elections ... universal health insurance... a serious drive to abolish poverty ... a living wage for tens of millions of workers making under $10 an hour ... You can agree with all this and still say that this candidacy will take away votes from the Democratic candidate. If so, you also have to assess how many more votes the Democratic nominee will receive by (a) being pressed to appeal more forcefully for the interests of the people and (b) how many effective modes and critiques he can pick up from the independent candidate to improve the prospects of defeating Bush and (c) a more exciting campaign that brings more progressive voters out which, in a rigged, winner-take all system unfortunately would go to the Democrats in large percentages. By the way, there are astute political observers who believe that the Greens pushing Gore to more populist rhetoric allowed Gore to get many more voters. Generally speaking, with a few luminous exceptions, the Democrats have been on a losing team for ten years — the House, the Senate, the state legislatures and the state Governorships. Their language is stale when it is candid, and servile when it is bought and paid for. The alternative in a rigged political system to defeat Bush is to respect small candidacies that can demonstrate high standards and big ways to defeat Bush as well as produce a spillover vote to recover at least one House of the Congress. At the very least, kindly consider withholding judgment and wait and see.

This year Nader makes a much more complicated — some say far-fetched — argument, reflecting the tougher sell he faces with liberal voters convinced President Bush was elected because Nader drained votes from Democrat Al Gore.

Yesterday, America's best-known consumer activist released a nearly 2,000-word open letter to "Anybody-But-Bush Liberal Democrats."

It's part strategy memo and careening thesis on his candidacy, arguing that national Democrats are "too unimaginative or too indentured to vested interests," to understand that his campaign could help Democrat John Kerry unseat Bush.

Nader sees a dual-pronged approach where his candidacy helps Democrats, particularly the liberal wing of the party.

On issues that he and Kerry agree on, Nader says they will work collaboratively to weaken Bush. But Nader will also continue to beat up on Kerry to try to push the Democratic nominee farther to the left, which Nader says will attract progressive voters to Kerry in November.

He claims his campaign will bring more votes for Kerry by making him "appeal more forcefully for the interests of the people," by giving him ammunition to use against Bush and by creating a more exciting campaign that will drive up voter turnout.

"It sounds like a manifesto to rid himself of the spoiler image that the Democratic Party has pinned on him pretty successfully," said Linda Fowler, a political scientist and director of the Nelson A. Rockefeller Center for Government at Dartmouth College in New Hampshire.

And clearly Nader wants to get away from that label.

"To wallow in the squabble of 'spoiler' is to plunge into second-class-citizenship scapegoating, which will get the Democrats nowhere," he wrote.

Nader also is readying a pitch for Republicans.

As early as today, he will release an open letter to Republicans making the case for why conservative and libertarians unhappy with Bush should back him, said Kevin Zeese, a Nader spokesman.

It may be hard to imagine too many conservatives voting for Nader, who holds many positions to the left of Kerry. But in his letter yesterday, Nader says his attacks on Bush will convince some conservatives to stay home on election day.

Nader's letter makes clear he no longer views the two major parties as equal evils.

Now he sells his campaign as a boon to Democrats.

"So, in summary, our approach can help defeat Bush, strengthen the progressive forces inside the Democratic Party by successfully amplifying ways to end this regime, while simultaneously furthering the longer range expansion of the forces of peace, justice and democracy," Nader wrote.

Nader says issues like solar energy, public transit and union organizing will be given prominence in the Democratic campaign if his candidacy is taken seriously by liberal Democrats.

"You can agree with all this and still say that this candidacy will take away votes from the Democratic candidate," Nader wrote, hitting the central argument Democrats use against him.

Zeese said yesterday's letter reflects not a change in Nader's "lesser of two evil" theory, but instead a change in America's political environment.

While Nader railed four years ago about the "massive similarities" between the two parties, Zeese said, "Bush has made the Republicans even worse, more extreme."

A strong pitch was needed to liberal Democrats, he said, because "they are so afraid of Bush that they need some convincing."

Fowler, though, doubts it will work.

She says 90 percent of the electorate already has chosen to vote either Democratic or Republican.

"If it's addressed to Anybody-But-Bush Democrats, this kind of letter isn't really designed to attract support from swing voters who conceivably might be up for grabs," she said.

Even if Democrats lose the presidential campaign again this year, Nader sees his candidacy as a good thing for liberal Democrats. He said important issues will get attention, the party can be tilted to the left and he can help bring out liberal voters.

He said his candidacy creates a "spillover," bringing out voters who then vote for Democratic U.S. House and Senate candidates. He contended "spillover" votes played a role in Democratic Sen. Maria Cantwell's 2000 win.

It's help state Democratic Party Chairman Paul Berendt says he can do without.

"Nader's arguments are kind of Orwellian," Berendt said. "If you lose, you win. If we have four more years of Bush and he takes us into another war, by Nader's argument we win. It's a bizarre argument to me."

Copyright 2004 The Seatle Times Company

###