[lbo-talk] Greens: National vs. State?

JBrown72073 at cs.com JBrown72073 at cs.com
Tue Nov 11 09:23:43 PST 2003


Anders Schneiderman wrote:
>The Nation had an interesting article about debates w/in the Green Party
>on 2004 election strategy (see below). After reading it, I've got a
>question for Green / Third Party folks on the list. In an election
>like 2004, where if Bush wins we are seriously screwed and where there's
>a clear difference between the likely Dem presidential candidates and
>Bush -- not on all issues, but on plenty -- why not focus on state-level
>races and skip the national race?

The Labor Party's strategy is to you put _issues_ on the ballot (where you can). Just Health Care (the LP's universal health care plan) is the one we're working on most, but also education and workers rights. These are local referenda. The theory is that instead running a candidate who has no chance of winning, what a good issue campaign does is it challenges the politicians who are running, and gets out working-class voters--the ones who aren't voting, mostly--in any elections. If we had more union support (say, 10 cents of every dollar spent by unions on all-talk no-action Democratic politicians) we could do plenty more.

The problem we see is that most people don't vote, and the less money you have the less likely you are to vote. I mostly blame the Democrats for not standing up for working class issues in a way that would wake anyone up. So most people don't really see any immediate impact on their lives.

A Democrat running on "I will remove all U.S. troops from Iraq" might change that for some people. A Democrat running on "I will institute universal health care" would wake up a lot more. The question is, will having a third party candidate cause the Democrats to have to take these positions more than they would if the competition is only from the right? And is it the only thing that can do that? Gore sounded a more popular, even populist note in the last 6 weeks of the campaign, partly (unprovable, I'm sure) because Nader was getting some real press coverage and Gore had to account for himself. His numbers also experienced an uptick and he narrowly won the election. Can't prove a causal relationship.

The 2004 election is that it is a referendum on the Bush agenda--it just is. Whether the Democratic nominee is, to us, mildly objectionable or very objectionable will not affect that political fact. Any positive programs for this country (including creating credible, workable third parties) are predicated on defeating Bush. But we can't fall into the trap that we therefore have to stop talking about the issues, toe the line, and support some Democratic drone. If we let the Dems. go their merry way without challenge, they'll take the safe, corporation-friendly route, and it'll be a miracle if enough people will get out to vote to defeat what I think is actually a very defeatable clique currently occupying DC.

Jenny Brown co-chair, Alachua County Labor Party Gainesville, Fla.



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list