You see, you just revealed yourself, as well as other ex-Green voters in the Anybody But Bush camp, to be lacking in patience, by simply saying that the Green Party presidential campaign in 2000 "didn't work." The campaign "didn't work" only if you look at nothing but the proportion (2.7%) of the total votes that went to the Green Party and conclude that, since it didn't amount to 5%, unable to secure federal matching funds, it "didn't work" at all.
The Green Party in 2000 didn't do as well as many Green voters hoped, but it did receive nearly 3 million votes for its presidential ticket -- that's an impressive number for the second presidential campaign. The question that we should be asking is what we can do with *the power of 3 million people* who are opposed to the system that puts profit before people.
***** Green Party Year Pres. Candidate VP Candidate Total Votes 1996 Ralph Nader Winona LaDuke 684,872 2000 Ralph Nader Winona LaDuke 2,882,955
<http://www.marxists.org/history/usa/government/elections/president/timeline.htm> *****
Looking at the total votes, organizers and activists who have more patience than you do would (1) take note of the fact that between 1996 and 2000, the Green Party votes in presidential elections *more than quadrupled* and (2) think about the strategy and tactics to turn as many of 2,882,955 Green voters as possible into Green Party organizers and activists and to make the total Green Party votes in the 2004 presidential election surpass 11,531,820. It didn't and won't occur to Nader to actually take leadership in doing (2). In any case, that's not his job. That's why leftists need to get involved in the Green Party, so that the party, as an organization, will take leadership in re-connecting ballot boxes with streets and forums (where theories as well as actions get debated), rather than looking to an individual.
As for how to gain "slightly better policies and a better discursive and organizing environment," what does theory of Marxism -- especially the autonomist branch of the Marxist tradition, which you say you favor -- say about that? Elect a Democratic president, hoping that he will give them to you, even though he has not and will not promise any such things? Or get organized, so that any president will have to concede them to us? The latter is surely much more important than the former.
Campaign to elect Kerry if you like, but the ABB camp followers must *not* do so by compelling Greens to help Democrats elect Kerry. It's the job of Democrats to elect Kerry. The Greens' job is to build the Green Party patiently.
***** The Avocado Declaration The Avocado Declaration was initiated by Peter Miguel Camejo (www.votecamejo.org). Peter was the Green Party candidate for Governor of California in the 2002 general elections and in the 2003 recall election. January 2004. . . .
LESSER EVIL LEADS TO GREATER EVIL
. . . Behind this view [the "lesser evil" campaign] is the concept that politics can be measured in degrees, like temperature, and that the Democrats offer a milder and thus less evil alternative to the Republican Platform. This view argues that to support the "lesser evil" weakens the greater evil.
Such a view fails to grasp the essence of the matter. Political dynamics work in exactly the opposite way. To silence the voice of the Green Party and support the Democrats strengthens George Bush and the Republican Party because only the appearance of forces opposed to the present policies, forces that are clearly independent of corporate domination can begin to shift the relationship of forces and the center of political debate. Despite the intention of some of its promoters, the anti Green Party campaign helps the policies pursued by Bush as well as his re-election possibilities.
Although some claim that George Bush's policies represent only a small coterie of neo-conservative extremists, the reality is otherwise. Bush and his friends serve at the will of the corporate rulers. His standing with the American people can be crushed in a moment if the corporate rulers so choose -- just by the power of their media, which today is concentrated in the hands of a half dozen giant conglomerates.
It is in the interests of the corporate effort toward a new colonialism to have Bush re-elected in 2004, thereby legitimatizing his government before the world. In order to safely achieve that, the voices that truly oppose Bush's policies need to be silenced. . . .
GREEN VOICE MUST BE HEARD
. . . The call for a "lesser evil" is what makes possible the greater evil. Those voices who say Ralph Nader should not run, that the Greens should consider withdrawing, that the Greens should not campaign in states where the vote is close are unconsciously helping Bush's re-election by weakening the development of an opposition political movement which could shift the balance of forces. Nothing is more important than the appearance of candidates and mass actions that tell the full truth, that call for the rule of law, respect for the Bill of Rights, and speak out for peace and social justice.
There is nothing more threatening to the rule of the corporations than the consolidation of a party of hundreds of thousands of citizens, especially young people, that fearlessly tell the truth to the American people. Only such a movement can in time become millions, then tens of millions and eventually win. But it is also the best strategy for the short term, to force a shift away from the direction being pursued today.
<http://www.avocadoeducationproject.org/avocado.shtml> *****
>[lbo-talk] Bush expected to announce candidacy any day now
>John Lacny jlacny at earthlink.net, Thu Feb 19 15:56:02 PST 2004
<snip>
>Yoshie's position as stated right here is pretty sane
I recommend to Greens and other independents that they not allow Democrats to decide what's politically sane and insane. The politics of empire is a trip down the rabbit hole -- what's sane in the light of reason (e.g., civil liberties, universal health care, no foreign military bases) becomes insane, or "unelectable," once you go down the rabbit hole. Unless Greens and other independents are capable of saying, "Stuff and nonsense!" to the idea of having the sentence first, they can never grow to their full political stature.
>Bush's theft of the election in 2000
Who let Bush steal the election? None other than Gore and the Democratic Party. *By conceding the election to the Thief*, Gore turned votes for the Democratic Party into completely *wasted votes.*
>Chief among these has been September 11, before which the regime was
>on the run, and after which the regime cranked into high gear for a
>reactionary assault on the people of new and dangerous proportions.
Many individuals and organizations in the ABB camp cancelled their actions or otherwise retreated after September 11, leaving WWP and anarchists to take leadership in the first protests after the terrorist attacks. They have only themselves to blame, for they helped to make the reactionary assault possible. -- Yoshie
* Bring Them Home Now! <http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/> * Calendars of Events in Columbus: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html>, <http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php>, & <http://www.cpanews.org/> * Student International Forum: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/> * Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osudivest.org/> * Al-Awda-Ohio: <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio> * Solidarity: <http://www.solidarity-us.org/>