[lbo-talk] statement on 2004 Green Party strategy

Seth Kulick skulick at linc.cis.upenn.edu
Fri Nov 14 12:28:57 PST 2003


--
> From Ted Glick's IPPN list.

======================================================================= Below is a statement being circulated by a number of individuals active in the national Green Party of the United States. For more information contact John Rensenbrink, rensen at gwi.net.

Ted

Statement on Green Strategy 2004 and Call for Dialogue and Action

As we move closer to 2004, Greens are debating strategy. Both from within and outside of the Green Party, there is enormous pressure on us. Greens and non-Greens alike are strongly opposed to the policies of the Bush administration. But Greens do not agree whether defeating George Bush, or at least not assisting in his reelection, should be a factor in our strategy.

The signers of this letter definitely agree that the Green Party needs to develop a strategy for next year's presidential campaign. We have different ideas at this point on what particular strategy is best, though we are in full agreement that any strategy which is likely to assist in the reelection of George Bush should be avoided.

We are not signing this letter in support of the Democratic Party, or of any of its candidates, though some individual signers may be supporting one of those candidates. We are not signing this letter because we regret past Green election efforts.

We are signing this letter for several important reasons.

First, the Bush administration has demonstrated a determined will and ability to manipulate the people of this country following the tragic events of September 11, 2001. They have done this to a degree worse than other political parties could have done. They have seriously undermined the democratic foundations of our country, done immense harm to the ecosystem, and alienated scores of nations, big and small, who were once our friends.

Second, the beliefs and opinions of many people and organizations who share our views and struggles for justice and the environment are important to us. They have pleaded that we take the defeat of Bush into serious consideration. We cannot totally turn our backs on their opinions solely because they have not chosen to be active in the Green Party or join our electoral campaigns.

Third, the corrupted election system in the United States creates a dynamic that harms our interest in the short and long term. It permitted the corporate party candidate with fewer votes in 2000 to take over the White House. While all Greens hold sacred the right to participate in the democratic process -- what is left of it in the United States -- the signers of this letter believe that we neither can nor should ignore the gross faults in the system which assist the greater evil in elections. The harm that can come both to this country and to the Green Party by ignoring the corrupted system that is used to count votes cannot be ignored.

Lastly, the continued growth and strength of the Green Party depends upon how we address this issue. Contrary to what some claim, we believe that to ignore the vast numbers of progressives, many of whom are independent of any political party, bodes poorly for the future vitality of the Green Party. There are no easy choices for the Green Party in 2004, and the growth of any political party requires that it listen to its natural constituencies, including those who have not yet fully joined.

The use of the term "lesser evil" or "greater evil" in describing major party candidates is instructive. The great majority of the members of the Democratic Party power structure have repeatedly demonstrated that they are not prepared, willing, or able to offer solutions to most of the problems the United States faces. But that party is, nonetheless, and in general, the lesser of evils. Looking at the greater of evils which we also face, we do not believe we can ignore this difference. While it is small enough to demand the presence of an alternative political party, it is not small enough to completely ignore. The history of the failures and harmful actions of many Democrats are not so relevant to voters in 2004 -- the choices we face in this election are.

As already noted, we do not all favor a single strategy, and some of us strongly disagree with each other's strategy at this point. The strategies we severally favor range from not running at all, to running in ways that will focus our campaign energies in certain states, to calls to possibly drop out of the race near election day if it is very close.

But we all agree that the Green Party should not ignore the damage to the country and to the Green Party that could result by ignoring the reality around us and pretending that there is no difference or that the difference is insignificant. The forthcoming issue of Green Horizon Quarterly features four articles that detail different strategies. Publication date is November 21. Copies can be obtained by writing Green Horizon Quarterly, P.O. Box 476, Topsham, Maine 04086. Sometime after hard copy publication, they will also be available on the web at [www.green-horizon.org].

We call for:

1. Candidates seeking the Green Party Presidential nomination to describe the strategy they would follow. 2. The Green Party to debate all strategies with respect -- and for the national Green Party to take a stance on its preferred strategy. All state parties are encouraged to hold special meetings to discuss and democratically decide, using Instant Runoff Voting, which strategy they prefer, followed by a similar decision-process from the national party's Coordinating Committee. We are a grassroots party and must make decisions of our grassroots known and not leave a void for our candidates to fill. 3. All Greens to declare their solidarity with our brothers and sisters in progressive organizations across the country in calling for the defeat of the illegitimate Bush administration, while at the same time demanding that the electoral system be reformed to include Instant Runoff Voting, fair ballot access and public financing.

Agreed to, in alphabetical order:

Medea Benjamin CA Dee Berry, MO Jenefer Ellingston, DC Tom Fusco, ME Holly Hart, IA Ted Glick, NJ Pat LaMarche, ME Rick Lass, NM Linda Martin, CA Dean Myerson, DC John Rensenbrink, ME Anita Rios, OH Steve Schmidt, FL Tom Sevigny, CT Charlene Spretnak, CA Ron Stanchfield, NY Penny Teal, CT Rhoda Vanderhart, KS

[This message sent using the IPPN Announce e-mail list. You can join this low-traffic email group on alternative politics by sending a blank email to: ippn-announce-subscribe at topica.com You can unsubscribe by writing ippn-announce-unsubscribe at topica.com

To participate in a more active discussion of independent and third party politics, please send a blank email to: ippn-discuss-subscribe at topica.com

--^---------------------------------------------------------------- This email was sent to: skulick at central.cis.upenn.edu

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?b1ddtL.b2EXe4.c2t1bGlj Or send an email to: ippn-announce-unsubscribe at topica.com

TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html --^----------------------------------------------------------------

----- End forwarded message -----



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list