>However, I don't share Nathan's concern about federal funding for the
>Greens causing that much trouble. If they can't handle it, they'll
>be out of the running in the first two years (see how fast the Reform
>Party disintigrated, once Perot stopped running it).
The problem is that the fight over the money will cause havoc on the Left, costing more volunteer time than the money is worth. At least that is my fear. The money involved is actually pretty small and it is sad that the Greens cannot raise it without federal help, since money raised internally has a wonderful feature: it cannot be seized by hostil takeover, since it is an ongoing organic funding process that will melt away in a coup. Such internal funding encourages cooperation to maintain the support, whereas a pot of money encourages exactly the kind of hostile coup that Buchanan perpetuated in the Reform Party.
Of all the arguments for voting Green, the whole idea of getting the money from the Feds is the least attractive. I have seen too many organizations destroyed when they managed to get more money that they had political organization to sustain, and the results leave scars for years. If I didn't fear that result, I would be more seriously considering voting for Nader to support the policies in my "free vote" here in Connecticut.
>It might not work this way, of course, but our most likely alternative
>is the DLC-ization of the Democratic Party reaching 100%, so it's worth
>a shot.
Are you watching the same campaign I am? We are not only having debates on HOW to expand Medicare with a prescription drug benefit and HOW MUCH to expand education spending, but Gore is running none of the DLC-style conservative ads that Clinton ran back in 1992.
I'll even give Nader some credit for forcing Gore to move his rhetoric towards the populist side, but he has done so. Lest that sound like a rallying cry for more Nader, that doesn't get us squat if Gore loses. I won't go down the rest of my litany of why Gore is better than Bush by serious lengths, but the point is that the rhetoric of this campaign has moved significantly to the left on a range of social welfare issues.
And yes, this is due to a lot of hard organizing by our folks across the country around health and a slew of other issues areas.
It's worth checking out the DNC site where the Dems proudly note that Gore is seeking to deliver almost $10,000 per year in tax and spending breaks to families making $35,000 per year, while criticizing Bush for only delivering $2500.
See http://www.realplansforrealpeople.com/real_family1.html
This sure ain't the DLC campaign book I remember.
-- Nathan Newman