Nathan Newman wrote:
>Ronnie Dugger, who presented Nader to the 1996 and 2000 Green conventions,
>has rejected any Nader run in 2004 and agrees that it is absurb for Greens
>to continue to deny their role in putting Bush in office.
-You know, even if this were true, and I don't think it is, you might -think that it'd cause Dems to reflect on what they did to inspire -this kind of opposition, and do something about repairing the damage.
You make the Greens sound like petulant children who the daddy Dems should recognize why they were acting out, damn the consequences. But then the daddy Dems have to worry about pro-Confederate working class folks acting out over getting rid of the rebel flag and other such stuff.
But I really don't care about the Dem elected leaders actions or reactions. At least in the House, their reelection rate is 98% - so the Greens sure have a pretty lousy way of taking revenge on most Dem leaders. But they sure got their revenge on fellow progressives. The Greens sure had a chance to act out against the union workers who are being fucked every day because ergonomics rules were overturned, responsible contracting rules were repealed, NLRB rulings are allowing employers to fire them more often, and so on. And got to act out against poor women around the world who have seen US funding cut off for reproductive services worldwide. And the list goes on.
It isn't the opposition to reactionary Democratic policies that inspires the ire of other progressives, who fight those policies every day, despite the conceit of the Greens that they are the only ones doing so. It is the fact that the Greens are in opposition to the broad organizing strategy of other environmentalists, labor unions, womens groups and civil rights groups. In Florida, the unions and NAACP moved heaven and earth to expand turnout in that 2000 election and it was the effect and promise of that mobilization that moved Gore to the left, not the Greens self-conceited belief that black leadership is irrelevant. Or that labor was irrelevant in forcing Gore to back them on a number of issues in order to get union support in primaries.
Gore isn't moving to the left to get Green votes in the general election. He's moving to the left to get labor and other progressive votes WITHIN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY primary. It is not Green strategy but progressive Dem strategy that's pushing Gore in that direction.
But guess what-- to the extent that the Greens register people and take them out of Democratic primaries, they weaken the power of progressives within those primaries and help shift Dem debate to the right. Which is Dugger's other point about the need for mobilization in the Democratic primary in Spring 2004, not just when it's too late on the general election line in the fall.
-- Nathan Newman