http://ga.greens.org/pipermail/gpga-news/2002-December/000330.html
- On the other hand, national third party campaigns generally change the course of events only when they've done better than the Greens have done so far. They can then be extraordinarily effective and often, as with the influence of Ross Perot's campaign, for years to come. For example, the Democrats bought many Populist Party proposals including the graduated income tax, election of the Senate by direct vote, civil service reform, pensions, and the eight hour workday. That's not a bad list of accomplishments for a party that got just 8.5% of the popular vote in the only presidential election in which it ran a candidate on its own. And W. Lane Statin has written, "The Progressive Party in Wisconsin in the early 1900s pioneered some of the most important social reforms of the day, things we take for granted such as workman's compensation insurance, unemployment benefits and the minimum wage. A generation later, a progressive faction called the Farmer-Labor Party became so powerful in Minnesota that it ultimately overshadowed and then merged with the Democrats."
- The Greens aren't there by a long shot, in part because of their own problems and in part because politics have become even more hostile to third party efforts. But today, with our government in the control of mad men, the country on the cusp of economic crisis, and the world lurching towards violent chaos, no one knows for sure what the situation will be in 2004. This seems a poor time for the Greens to drop out of the race.
- As a matter of self interest, Nader's run in 2000 was quite successful. The Greens, among other things, are the only party that is growing in numbers.
- In the long run, the choice is between some form of Green politics or some form of disaster. Some of us have to get things going.
- An election in which Nader did worse - or no better - than he did in 2000 would be damaging to the Greens and to Green politics.
- There are other options. For example, the Greens could launch an open, conditional candidacy in which they publicly declared that they would run for president unless the Democratic Party or its candidate did X, Y and Z. This would call the Democrats' bluff. They presently treat the Greens as the only potential constituency in history that does not deserve or require any favors. It is considered simply the duty of the Greens to support the Democrats. If, indeed, the Greens are as essential to a Democratic victory as is claimed, then the Greens should be treated at least as well as investment bankers, Dixiecrats, polluting industrialists, and others to whom the Democratic party willingly caters and whom, unlike the Greens, the party never scolds.
Another approach would be to run a candidate only for vice president if the Democrats aid the Greens in asserting their constitutional right to do this. It would involve considerable legal and legislative work at the state level but the effort alone would create an excitement and interest that could bring the Greens more attention that would a presidential candidacy.
Let's say Nader got 15-20% running as vice president in 5-10 states that made it possible. Wouldn't that be better than getting 1-2% running for president? The effort could be tied to instant runoff voting, public campaign financing and other real voting reforms.
- Over the past decade no Democrats have tried to attract me to their party based on its compatibility with my own political views. Instead I and other Greens were first effectively read out of the party by the Democratic Leadership Council and its ilk and more recently scolded, blamed, and otherwise hectored for not voting for it anyway in 2000. This is insulting, illogical and stupid. If you want me to vote for you, treat me as least as nice as a soccer Mom. But I'll be damned if I'll risk prosecution under the RICO statutes just because you think I owe it to you.
- Besides, Democrats who blame the Greens for losing in 2000 are like drunk drivers blaming the curve for their accident. The fact is that 11% of Democrats voted for Bush while only 2% voted for Nader. 4.5 million Democrats defected to Bush while only 800,000 went for Nader. 5.7 million union members voted for Bush as opposed to only 500,000 voting for Nader. 2.7 million self-described liberals voted for Bush as opposed to half that number for Nader. When will the Democrats face such facts?
- Finally, after one of the seminal Green meetings in 1995, a bunch gathered on my porch for beer and pizza. As I moved around I heard all this talk about running Nader for president. I thought to myself: who are these crazy people? They don't even have party and already they're running for the White House?
I dragged my heels on a presidential run because I didn't think it was the best way to build the party. I wanted us to concentrate on local races, challenge Democrats in tight contests where we could affect the outcome, and run against unopposed or weakly opposed candidates for such offices as state legislature.
I said my piece and then went along with the crowd. In the end, I even got enthusiastic about Nader. I'd like more hard thinking this time as well, but I know that the Green movement is also a wave and it's hard to tell a wave what to do. There are Green parties in nearly 100 countries without any central organizing or direction. The last time something like that happened was with a movement called democracy.
They are not errant Democrats; they are not the prodigal offspring of the DNC. They are something new and different. And the more Democrats treat them as apostates, the more the Greens will know they've made the right choice. If the Democrats want to woo the Greens, it is they and not the Greens who have to change.
In the meanwhile, I haven't heard Greens talking much about not running someone for president. This may not be wise for the party or for the nation but it is a pretty good indication of how alienated they are from the Democratic Party. I'd like to encourage them to be careful and wisely tactical about it but I'm afraid the Democrats have just been too cynical, corrupt, arrogant and indifferent to be believed much anymore. And that, whatever Democrats may say, is not the Green Party's fault.
- SAM SMITH
>From: mike larkin <mike_larkin2001 at yahoo.com>
>Reply-To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
>To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
>Subject: [lbo-talk] To Hell With the Green Party (Was: Anybody But
>Bush....)
>Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 11:51:32 -0800 (PST)
>
>
>
>
>
>I'll have the guts to be explicit about this: almost anybody but
>Bush. Not Lieberman. But just about anyone else. And if Nader runs,
>he will reveal himself as a grandiose and destructive naif and the
>ludicrous reincarnation of Harold Stassen.
>
>Doug
>
>
>
>Count me as a Green Party basher and nominate me for denunciation from the
>Counterpunch Central Committee. From bitter personal experience with the
>"People for Change" party in Hartford in the early 90s, I can attest that
>left wing third parties are a complete waste of time. And we at least got
>people elected and tried to do good things. The Greens, as evidenced by
>that local currency baloney, are completely clueless blunders. The guy who
>runs them in CT and has a radio show on college radio is an unbelievable
>buffoon, who basks in glowing portraits from the local alt press while
>accomplishing absolutely nothing. To hell with them all.
>
>
>
>---------------------------------
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
_________________________________________________________________ Is your computer infected with a virus? Find out with a FREE computer virus scan from McAfee. Take the FreeScan now! http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963