What do you figure the Green Party is saying here?

[WilliamPitt]

Got this via email from one of the truthout editors:

===

Just information for all to see on what is being discussed. John
Rensenbrink was a driving force behind recruiting Nader in 92...he was
the leader of the wing of the party that pushed to move into National
elections. I think his precence on this list is a sign that that wing is softening for this election. Medea and Dee Barry are also very
influential...

scott


-----Original Message-----

Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 8:10 PM
Subject: Statement on Green Strategy in 2004

Below is a statement being circulated by a number of

individuals active in the national Green Party of the

United States.

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 .



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

[ShaneGR]

1. I think they're showing sanity, lets hope it keeps up

The worst possible move the Greens could do is help W get elected again.

[markus]

3. I got this on a local list I belong to...

Its the Red River Anti-War Coalition group in Fargo, ND.

My immediate response is: so, you guys wanna have coffee or something?

It was a little more formal than that, but I don't in any official capacity represent the N.D. Democratic Party. I'm just a past District Chair, candidate, and mega-volunteer (currently on self-imposed, past-district-chair-burnout sabatical).

However, since I agree with a lot of the Green world view on campaign finance, workers rights/economy and environment, I'm probably as good a person as any to see what precisely it would take to engage Greens in the Democratic push to dump Bush.

[Terwilliger]

12. and the worst thing Dems could do, they will do

repeat the same mistakes over and over again hoping for a different solution this time

[Ediacara]

2. Admitting that they had something to do with Bush's selection?

No, that can't be what I just read....

[madrchsod]

4. sounds like

they are going to hold their noses and vote for a democrat,then wash their hands of it all....

[ShimokitaJer]

5. This looks promising... both for the Greens and for everyone else

I think it means that the Greens are becoming aware that many within the party are disappointed with those in the party who embrace the label "spoiler." The Greens began as a group focused on issues, and some in the party have lost sight of the issues in favor of attention grabbing but counterproductive campaigns such as that against Wellstone. I think the relative success of the Nader campaign is what drove this, as some see the retaining of media attention to be the new strategy for success. This letter seems to be an attempt to bring the party back to its ideals and encourage cooperation rather than competition with organizations that share many of the same goals. Although it stops short of identifying the Democratic party as one of those organizations, it admits that some within the party are working for change in the same way the Greens are, and opens up the possibility of supporting certain Democratic candidates, if not the party as a whole.

The numbered items are revealing, in that they show a focus on methodology, specifically methodology which the party as a whole can embrace. I read this as a rejection of fielding Green candidates simply to "stir things up" or "take votes from the Dem." Now a candidate is required to show a strategy for the run, and one which the majority of the party can agree with. Combined with the focus on cooperation with other progressive organizations, I see this as opening the possibility of the Green party officially endorsing a non-Green candidate in order to advance Green issues. It could mean an endorsement of either a true liberal Dem (Kucinich, Sharpton (?)) or of Dean (the anti-establishment Dem).

Personally, I think it's a smart move on the part of the Green party to retain the loyalty, if not the votes, of those who supported Nader in 2000 but who don't like the some of the divisive Green strategies.

[Tatiana]

6. "The Corporate Party candidate"

Can we borrow that phrase? I love it!

Sounds like the Greens are going to be sensible, this time around.

At least I hope so.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

16. I thought Gore was "the Corporate Party candidate"

at least that's what Nader said... :shrug:

[John_H]

7. Easy as pie.

Some of the more politically astute and/or non-amoral operatives in the Green Party aren't about to let Ralph Nader ruin their all thir hard work, irreperably damage their party, and enable evil by repeating his 2000 exercise in megalomania.

Not only do they realize Buster Ralph is a liability, but also see their party achiveing real success in smaller races. They know their meager resources are much better used building their party from the ground up instead of being drained by presidential race in which ther vote totals will surely decline. And my reading-between-the-lines tells me that more than a fiew have rejected the strategy of "if things get bad enough, we'll seem like a viable alternative." Perhaps they love their country too much for their consciences to abide contributing to another 4 years of Chimp.

Want more,albeit anecdotal, evidence?

As a former political op and long time true believer, I still keep in contact w/ many within the party. About two months ago a leading grass roots organization tried to hire a top Green staffer. His/her reply? If Nader runs, he/she will come right over.

Will, the screaming greenies around here will not be pleased you posted evidence that their party's leadership is as politically cold-eyed as any McAuliffe sycophant. Not only have you done a service to your country, it sure will be fun watching them squirm.

[library_max]

8. It doesn't seem to be an official or representative communication.

But it may indicate a path down which other Greens may follow. Letting go of the myths that sustain the party (i.e. that there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans and that Florida Greens didn't enable Bush to steal the 2000 election) isn't going to be easy for them, clearly.

As a think tank, advocacy group, etc., the Green Party is worthy of considerable esteem, but as a political party that runs candidates in elections its only possible role is that of spoiler. The winner-take-all system of elections in the United States (which isn't going to go away just because some of us don't like it) dictates that the more successful the Greens become politically, the more they will hurt their own causes by dividing the progressive vote and throwing elections to Republicans. It will also allow those Republicans to be more and more narrowly conservative, because they'll only need the largest minority of the vote.

The more Greens there are who are prepared to step away from that role and do something positive, the better.

[Iverson]

9. seems pretty self-explanatory

It's a call for dialogue and action, and it's put together pretty thoughtfully too.

Most of the comments on this thread in response show the customary and deliberate jaundiced eye.

[mike_c]

10. agreed, the talk of interparty support is ALWAYS...

...one way, as in Greens supporting Dem candidates. I'll be more amenable to the idea of compromising in favor of the "lesser evil" when I hear dems expressing their willingness, at least in principle, to do the same.

[ShimokitaJer]

11. That would require Dems owning up to the problems within the party

The party establishment don't seem inclined to accept the blame for past mistakes that they would need to move beyond being simply the "lesser evil." I think that's why the appeal of a political outsider working to change the party from within is so strong, both to former Naderites and to disgusted Dems. Anyone appealing to the same old interests can't be expected to rock the boat once they get elected.

[library_max]

14. How many Greens are there, vs. how many Dems?

Be reasonable. Do you expect the tail to wag the dog sometimes?

[Terwilliger]

15. better get back to appealing to that racist vote

GO DEMS!

[library_max]

22. I wouldn't have bothered asking YOU to be reasonable. (nt)

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

13. I think it is a carefully parsed letter to delineate what their actual

goals are as a party versus what their perception has been since the 2000 elections and an owning up to that perception. I agree that the Democratic party also needs to look at what their goals are versus the perception of them. But also more importantly, I DO think that this letter takes into account some of Nader's more damaging statements such as his goal to destroy the Democratic party. I have to imagine SOME greens take into account people like myself who have in the past been sympathetic and even supportive until we finally came to the conclusion that all that is happening is the liberal vote is losing momentum even though the NUMBERS are there.

If they want to qualify for federal funds so that they get a place at the table, then SURE..run a candidate where you can accomplish that but NOT be perceived as helping the other side (since one MUST acknowledge that progressives/liberals have more in common that conservatives and NEOCONS)

I appreciate this memo and frankly I would LOVE to see Medea get a place at the table in ANY Dem administration...maybe like head of the EPA.

[Zuni]

17. If the Greens are smart

they will not participate in national elections. They need to go local and build up a solid electorate before they go throwing elections to Bush and destroying the only effective opposition party.

[Terwilliger]

19. I love it

the Greens are capable of destroying the "only effective opposition party" while the opposition party itself doesn't get the same scrutiny or expectation

[rustydad]

18. Today

I read today that there is a developing open rift in the Democratic leadership that has the Clinton machine (not Gore), the Democratic Leadership Council, pitted against the much further to the left Dean candidicy. As Dean moves ever further ahead of the pack the Greens have an opportunity to leverage their small numbers by offering to throw their weight to one side or the other depending on who makes the better consessions to the Green agenda. My guess is that the Greens are much closer to Dean than Clinton et al. Bob

[Selwynn]

20. If Green party would adopt this attitude wholesale, they would....

...mend many, many fences.

[jpgray]

21. The Green Party is putting too much responsibility on its own shoulders

They should be responsible for only themselves and their party members who they wish to represent. If they always preclude themselves from a race for this purpose, they will lose weight as a political party.

But if they choose to not run a candidate, or to run one that at least avoids saying "the two parties are the same", I would be grateful. but they're not supposed to listen to me, they're supposed to listen to their party membership.

[BurtWorm]

23. These signers are not the Green Party, but they're influential nonetheless

and their argument is sound.

Which is a more important task for progressives and Greens in 2004: to make the Green party more of a viable contender in presidential elections, or to defeat the Bushist regime?

[Zorra]

24. It appears that

the Greens recognize the necessity of everyone who opposes shrub to unite in order to stop the neocons from destroying America and the world. Although they do not support the policies of the Democratic party, they recognize that the Democratic party is the only political body that can, at this time, realistically field a candidate that can defeat shrub in the 2004 election.

If the Greens support their own party candidate, and fail to support the Democratic candidate, and shrub wins the election, the Green party will become a national pariah, and will possibly not only lose some of their current membership, but will also lose future membership, effectively destroying their chances of becoming a major party. (And the US will be in danger of becoming a full blown fascist nation that might go so far as to eventually outlaw the Green party).

It seems that they may be willing to temporarily suspend party solidarity in the instance of the 2004 presidential election and unite with democrats to defeat shrub, and return to party solidarity after the fascist threat of shrub and the neocons is ended.

Although I have never voted for anyone but a Democrat, I, like the Greens, have been very disappointed with the shift to the right that the Democratic party has taken since the foundation of the DLC and its split from the traditional principles of the Democratic party.

If the Greens unite with Democrats in order to defeat shrub, I'll probably join the Green Party after the 2004 election, unless it appears that the Democratic party radically reverses its pro-transnational corporate direction. (If Greens don't unite with Dems to defeat shrub and shrub wins the election, I'm hoping that there is a safe place to hide in the Andes).

[Zorra]

25. It appears that

the Greens recognize the necessity of everyone who opposes shrub to unite in order to stop the neocons from destroying America and the world. Although they do not support the policies of the Democratic party, they recognize that the Democratic party is the only political body that can, at this time, realistically field a candidate that can defeat shrub in the 2004 election.

If the Greens support their own party candidate, and fail to support the Democratic candidate, and shrub wins the election, the Green party will become a national pariah, and will possibly not only lose some of their current membership, but will also lose future membership, effectively destroying their chances of becoming a major party. (And the US will be in danger of becoming a full blown fascist nation that might go so far as to eventually outlaw the Green party).

It seems that they may be willing to temporarily suspend party solidarity in the instance of the 2004 presidential election and unite with democrats to defeat shrub, and return to party solidarity after the fascist threat of shrub and the neocons is ended.

Although I have never voted for anyone but a Democrat, I, like the Greens, have been very disappointed with the shift to the right that the Democratic party has taken since the foundation of the DLC and its split from the traditional principles of the Democratic party.

If the Greens unite with Democrats in order to defeat shrub, I'll probably join the Green Party after the 2004 election, unless it appears that the Democratic party radically reverses its pro-transnational corporate direction. (If Greens don't unite with Dems to defeat shrub and shrub wins the election, I'm hoping that there is a safe place to hide in the Andes).

[John_H]

26. Kick...here's to smart Greens!!

nt