Yoshie wrote:
> 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.
I think a first question is what people that 3 million number represents. Are they committed to building a third party? Did they vote for Nader as a lark? I do not see that a numerical increase as a certain good, especially in the context of the last election.
> 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.
Well, here in New York City I do not see much Green Party activism. In the queer community and in Harlem and Bed-Stuy where I spend a good deal of my time, I do not believe the Green Party is much of a presence. To me, it would be logical to organize in a place like NYC since it is home to a certain amount of progressive people.
> It didn't and won't occur to Nader to actually take leadership in doing (2). In any case, that's not his job.
But why run Nader? He seems rather backward on racial and queer issues ("gonadal politics" and the bizarre hissy fit he threw over being asked if he was gay). It seems to me a serious party would nominate a serious candidate. But Nader in his own way is as tunnel-visioned as Bush. I do not think that a party struggling to become relevant nominates someone like Nader.
> 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.
I do not think that anyone wants to compel Greens to help elect anyone. But it would be nice for Greens to acknowledge that a Green Party candidate may help in the re-election of Bush. It would not be the only factor (in the last election it was one of many), but it could be one.
> The Greens' job is to build the Green Party patiently.
With respect, there is patient and then there is glacial. At some point one has to ask: is this party ever going to congeal into a force? I am not a politically aware as many on this list, so I am open-minded on the question, but my untrained eye does not see the Green Party as a force anytime soon. This does not mean I am against third parties or the Greens. Rather I find their appeal too narrow. My perception may be off.
> 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.
Unfortunately, I do not think Nader is a figure who can mobilize an opposition. Wrong horse.
> I recommend to Greens and other independents that they not allow Democrats to decide what's politically sane and insane.
But isn't there a larger question. Building the Green Party is a long term goal. In 9 months there will be a presidential election. Does the elction of Bush help or hinder the long term goal? Which is more destructive to progressive politics? Bush being re-elected or the Greens running Nader Cubed? If some progressives view Nader and the Greens as petulant spoil sports (I am not saying that they are) does that hurt the long term propects of the Green Party?
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister