Well, then, why complain that the 2000 Green Party presidential campaign "didn't work because it led to no party-building" (at <http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20040216/003867.html>)? It appears that you are not so in favor of party-building as to be willing to actually participate in it.
Meanwhile, many Greens have paid their dues building the party and succeeded in making quite a bit of progress, as John Halle described (qtd. in <http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20040216/003874.html>). Perhaps, the Green progress is not as fast as Brian likes or as dramatic as you wish, but you are in no position to trivialize Greens' work, since you present yourself as a free rider -- desiring to enjoy the benefits of party-building without doing anything for it.
As for the claim that helping build a political party "would compromise my credibility and risk destroying my brain," I don't see why that has to be the case. "Einstein was a member, sponsor, or affiliated with thirty-four communist fronts between 1937-1954. He also served as honorary chairman for three communist organizations" ("Albert Einstein," <http://foia.fbi.gov/einstein.htm>). Was Einstein's brain destroyed because of his service to the party? Why would helping build the Green Party compromise your credibility more than declaring that you would vote for John Kerry in a *super-safe* state of New York? I'd venture to say that the latter compromises your credibility much more than the former ever could. The former would at least restore your credibility in the eyes of the Mages. :->
BklynMagus magcomm at ix.netcom.com, Fri Feb 20 13:20:21 PST 2004:
>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, you, like Doug, are a New Yorker, right? So, you too can vote for the Green Party without fearing that your vote would help re-elect Bush. That's what Ted Glick argues:
***** Synthesis/Regeneration 32 (Fall 2003) A Green Party "Safe States" Strategy by Ted Glick, Independent Progressive Politics Network
. . . Everyone knows that a Green Party presidential candidate will not win in 2004. A presidential campaign, however, can help to build the party, give it visibility, attract new members, keep or attain ballot status in a number of states. If it pulled out 5% or more of the popular vote it would mean millions of dollars for party-building leading into 2008.
The best way to do all of these things is to explicitly focus the campaign only in those "safe states" where past voting histories and current polling indicates that either Bush or the Democrat is very likely to win.[2]
By running this kind of campaign in the 25-35 or so almost-certain "safe states," the Greens cannot be accused, at least accused in good faith, of just being spoilers out to deny the Democrats the Presidency.[3] . . .
It should increase the popular vote for the Greens toward 5% as the argument can be made in the "safe states" that voters should not waste their vote by voting for the Democrat or Republican but should instead vote for the candidate they know is closest to their own views. . . .
It is also possible that such a strategy will actually increase the likelihood that the Democrat, whoever he is, defeats Bush and/or that the Democrats win at least one house in Congress. A Green Presidential candidacy will motivate possible non-voters to come out and vote. This will add to the vote totals of some local and Congressional Democratic candidates where there is no significant Green opposition. It will put pressure on the Democratic presidential candidate to use more populist-sounding, anti-corporate language, as was the effect of the Nader/2000 candidacy on Al Gore, which then increased his standing in the polls and helped lead to his popular vote victory. . . .
<http://www.greens.org/s-r/32/32-17.html> *****
>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.
Let's say you have a political project that you want to initiate in the queer community and in Harlem and Bed-Stuy. Find out about the local Green and Democratic Party meetings, attend the meetings of both parties, propose the project to them, and see which party will take it up and implement it sooner. Test both the parties and see for yourself.
>>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.
I personally would prefer Peter Camejo or Matt Gonzalez, the latter of whom galvanized San Francisco's queer activists, so much so that he almost won, despite being immensely outspent by Gavin Newsum:
***** Newsom's $5.1 million campaign steamroller Gonzalez spent only $899,000 in mayoral race
Rachel Gordon, Chronicle Staff Writer Wednesday, February 4, 2004 San Francisco Chronicle Chronicle Sections
Gavin Newsom spent a record $5.1 million to win the San Francisco mayor's race, a new campaign finance disclosure report shows.
His opponent in the December runoff, Board of Supervisors President Matt Gonzalez, reported spending $899,000, according to his latest disclosure report on file with the city's Ethics Commission.
Newsom began campaigning for the office more than a year ago and had a big head start on Gonzalez, who jumped into the mayor's race in August.
The Newsom campaign shelled out $1.2 million between Nov. 23 and Dec. 31 -- spending associated with his Dec. 9 one-on-one runoff contest against Gonzalez following the Nov. 4 general election. Newsom, who won the runoff with 53 percent of the vote, outspent Gonzalez by more than 2 to 1 during that period. . . .
Money to Newsom poured in from real estate interests, corporate executives, city officials, police and firefighter groups, the owners of the 49ers, a variety of businesses and thousands of residents, the disclosure report shows. . . .
Gonzalez said Tuesday he wasn't at all surprised by the big gap in spending by the two campaigns, and isn't ready to concede that money was the deciding factor.
"Certainly this race was close,'' said Gonzalez, who lost by 14,217 votes. . . .
<http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/02/04/BAGL84OI1F1.DTL> *****
Gonzalez' popularity in the queer communities in San Francisco motivated Newsum to move faster on the gay marriage issue. That's one of the reasons for building a powerful and energetic Green Party -- it puts pressures on the Democrats to move to the left and quick.
>>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.
If John Kerry loses swing states like Ohio, it will be only because he refuses to steal the Green ideas. If the Democratic Party implemented all or even most of the demands on the Green Party platform, no one will bother to vote for any Green candidate. The Democrats must first make concrete offers to Greens in swing states. They must first tell us what they will do for us in exchange for votes.
>>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.
I've already discussed the Green Party's Black deficit at <http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20040216/003760.html>. There are problems that Green Party organizers and activists must remedy, so that the party can grow. The Green Party, like anything else, is not perfect. It is the job of leftists to make it better.
Now, to Dennis Redmond:
***** OREGON BUSH 713,577 (46.6%) GORE 720,342 (47.1%) NADER 77,357 (5.1%) OTHERS 19,273 (1.3%)
<http://www.presidentelect.org/e2000.html> *****
Oregon is actually a good example of how a pretty strong showing for the Green Party (5.1%) can go hand in hand with a Democratic Party victory (47.1%) in a presidential election. -- 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/>