>>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.
>
>It didn't work because it led to no party-building, and discredited
>Nader and the Greens among a large group of potential supporters.
>Just becuase the vote total increased doesn't mean there was any
>organizational progress. There was very little, in fact. In New
>York, they lost ballot status because of Aronowitz' dreadful
>gubernatorial campaign.
If Nader and the Greens had been really "discredited" by the 2000 presidential campaign, as you argue, what made the growth and advance that John Halle mentioned possible: "The 2000 Nader presidential run significantly enhanced the profile of the Green Party. The number of registered Greens since then has gone up by a factor of four, I believe, if not more. There are also now over 200 local officeholders, one of whom, the second highest elected official in San Francisco nearly became mayor" (at <http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20040216/003538.html>)? I don't know why you see regress, when there actually has been progress.
More importantly, why stand aloof and say that the Green Party didn't do this or do that or do other things, rather than get involved and help build the party, which you say you are in favor of? That's what John Halle has been arguing for, I think. Having your own newsletter and radio show, as well as writing for _The Nation_ and the like, you have more power in your hands to help build the party than ordinary Greens do. If you have power, why not use it for party-building?
>>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.
>
>I don't expect a Dem president to give me or my fellow thinkers very
>much. It's no substitute for organizing outside the electoral realm,
>whether for unions or the global justice movement; it just makes it
>easier to organize, legally and environmentally.
You live in New York, not in Ohio, though.
***** NEW YORK BUSH 2,403,374 (35.2%) GORE 4,107,697 (60.2%) NADER 244,030 (3.6%) OTEHRS 66,898 (1.0%)
<http://www.presidentelect.org/e2000.html> *****
***** OHIO BUSH 2,350,363 (50.0%) GORE 2,183,628 (46.4%) NADER 117,799 (2.5%) OTHERS 50,208 (1.1%)
<http://www.presidentelect.org/e2000.html> *****
It makes sense if some Ohio Greens who detest Bush hesitated to vote for the Green Party presidential candidate. It doesn't make any sense for you to waste your vote and vote for Kerry. Why not join Shane Mage? -- 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/>