The Undeniable Truth about the Greens:

[mdguss]

I wrote this article, which looks at the effects of third parties on their respective movements. My piece starts with Strom Thurmond and goes through Ralph Nader. If you know any greens, please have them take a look at this. We need to win next year, and to win we MUST be all on the same side. I think it's pretty clear that third parties don't help their causes. It's far more effective for progressives to fight within the Democratic Party.

http://www.eventsquarterly.com/7ed/13.html

[no name no slogan]

1. Nationally, maybe. Locally, not so.

There's a lot of greens represented on school boards, city councils and state legislatures in this country-- and this from a party that has only become electorally active in the last decade.

In Minneapolis, we have more Green city council members than we have Republicans. In a one-party city, that's an accomplishment.

The Greens are purely a symptom of what happens in our two-party system when both the major parties slide too far in one direction. This will resolve itself eventually, like all third-party movements do, with either the third party getting absorbed by one of the other major parties, or one of the old major parties disappearing, and its members moving to the other two.

The Democrats, while courting the progressive voters of this country for many decades, have refused to represent their views and/or agenda. Why should anybody feel "obligated" to vote for a candidate who does not agree with them on major issues, like NAFTA, the death penalty, "Welfare Reform", militarisation, etc? For most Green voters, the choice is similar to the one a Democrat would face when given the choice between Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond-- in other words, none.

Also, where do you get your information on Nader running again? The Greens have not nominated a presidential candidate; however a good many of them are working for Kucinich right now. Winona LaDuke, Naders two-time running mate, has endorsed Kucinich. Ralph Nader himself has encouraged Democrats to support Kucinich in the primaries and caucuses.

The Greens are officially a separate party from the Democrats. They have a right (some would say an obligation) to contest any/all elections as they see fit. No amount of cajoling from the currently center-right Democrats is going to change that.

[mdmc]

3. we spend too much time on the greens

If we just start standing for what we all believe in, they will come back.

[no name no slogan]

8. Agreed.

It's not about labels and party politics, it's about supporting liberals and progressives. Which is why I would never vote for Zell Miller, even if he is a Democrat.

[w4rma]

2. The Green Party isn't progressive. I read they asked Ventura to run on

their ticket. The Green Party is a con.

[Livadia]

4. Neither

is most of the Democratic Party.

[Padraig18]

5. A matter of opinion. n/t

[Forkboy]

6. It seems more progressive than the Dems

:shrug:

[mdguss]

7. Nader Has Endorsed:

Kucinich and Dean. In his endorsement, he has said that if the Democratic Party nominates either of those two, he wouldn't run, but he would "consider running" if we nominated anybody else.

I think there is a real issue about whether we as a party want to cow-tow to an aloof guy who is at the least partially responsible for Bush being president. I won't support anybody in the primary who has Nader's endorsement. Indeed Democrats and Greens are different. The Democratic Party is Center/Left, the Greens are left. As a Centrist, I am at home in the Democratic Party.

I certainly hope that Nader doesn't end up speaking in Boston. I'm a political activist and it will be hard to work for a candidate who welcomes Nader's support.

With regards to local elections, maybe the Greens are ok in places like Minneapolis and San Francisco that are one party towns. But when they start running for Congress in swing districts (like they did in a 2001 special election in Pennsylvania) they make it dramatically easier for Republicans to beat the Democrats--and thereby increase the Republicans grip on power. Republican city councils mean Republican state houses, Republican state houses means a Republican Congress and a Republican Congress means a stalled liberal agenda. It starts with the most meaningless offices, and goes up.

[no name no slogan]

10. ON the other hand....

If the Democrats were to run AS DEMOCRATS, instead of "me too, but not so much" apologetic REPUBLICANS, maybe they wouldn't have to face such stiff challenges from the left.

Like I stated before, it's accepted by political scientists that the US is basically a two-party system, but when one party's support on a major issue is too similar to the other party's, a third party is bound to crop up. This was one of the first things I learned as a freshman PoliSci major, and no amount of whinging and hand-wringing by "moderates" or right-wing apologists will change that.

And why all the hostility at Nader? He was the most Democratic of all the candidates running in 2000 and 1996. He's been a supporter of Democrats and has worked for them for many years.

I'm sick and tired of all the "blame" being placed on the liberals and progressives of this country because they refuse to support every Democratic Party-endorsed candidate. The Democrats are not "owed" anybody's vote, especially if their policies fly in the face of the values that liberals and progressives hold dear.

If you're looking to place "blame" for the lackluster showing of the Dems in the last ten years, don't look at the progressives. Look in the mirror instead.

[George_Bonanza]

19. Nader endorses Dean?

You know on CNN Crossfire, Nader only had kind words for Kucinich and Kerry. I guess he endorsed Kerry too.

I wonder how Nader feels about Clinton. I know a lot of the more liberal Dems do not like Clinton's willingness to concede key liberal ideals to the Republicans. Howard Dean is just like that. I hope Nader is a big Clinton fan.

[no name no slogan]

9. Proof? As in, links?

That's funny, because Jesse went up against a Green candidate when he ran for governor. I have a good friend who worked on the campaign of that candidate (Ken Pentel), and Jesse was continually trying to suck them under his control. They wisely resisted, and have stayed free and clear of the Independence party in MN.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

11. And as I recall, it wasn't the whole MN Green Party

but a small group of Greens who asked Jesse to run.

[nocreativename]

12. Ive already stated

That if the nominee was

Clark (Kosavo (sp) war)
Kerry (his I'm the rightfull owner prosona)
Lieberman (an elephant in donkey clothing)

I was going to vote green, again.

[bread_and_roses]

13. I'll say what others have said...

...if the Democrats were representing their traditional core constituencies, this would not be an issue. Here in NY, for instance, the Working Families Party was formed by Labor Unions and Community Action groups who essentially got fed up with the Dems coming round every four years for money and votes and then forgetting them. Of course, we have the luxury of fusion, meaning we can endorse candidates already on another line and the candidate gets the total votes from all the lines s/he is on. Thus in upstate NY you will see some Dems also on the Conservative line, believe it or not.

But even were this not so, I would argue that a healthy Democracy requires more than two parties, and would agree with the posters who asked why they should vote for candidates who represent policies which are anathama to them, like the death penalty.

Well-written piece, btw, concise and clear.

[a_lil_wall_fly]

14. Without 3th party movements

This country would turn in to a autocracy society under the boot of the extreme Republican agenda!!!!

[GreenPartyVoter]

15. Sorry, no

I will vote my conscience. This time around my conscience says get Dubya outta the White House, so I'll vote Dem. My preference is for Dennis, but I'll put up with anyone at this point. After Dubya is out, who knows who I'll vote for next time.

But no, the way to get progressive politics rolling again is not to revive the DNC but to look to clean elections, ranked voting, and proportional representation. It's more democratic, and therefore more progressive, than being forced to choose between only two candidates.

[UrbScotty]

16. The most telling statement

"...(A)nyone who votes for Ralph Nader in 2004, votes for him knowing they are voting for the end of environmentalism as we know it, the end of the consumer rights movement, and the end of modern progressivism."

[nomaco-10]

17. Just what every forum on du needs....

another Green thread. Excuse me while I sit this one out, it only makes the Greens on this board think thay have some importance in the national political scheme of things, they love it, thay crawl out of the woodwork to reply. Enjoy your moment in the sun, but my pleas to them as always is and will always be; get behind a dem this time, your irrelevance could mount to something good for a change.

[George_Bonanza]

18. I agree with much of your article

In happier times, 3rd parties would be more welcome than they are now. But let's face the truth. From where you are right now, could you fathom another 4+ years of neo-con rule? Economy will be hurt, more soldiers will die, and America will be as cool and popular as parachute pants. Does the duty to relieve ourselves of that burden rank foremost in 2004? Of course it does. Speaking realistically, the most likely candidates, from my point of view, is Edwards, Kerry, Dean, or Clark. Put your Liberman paranoia away. It's an unlikely situation that only causes trouble. Now is anybody here going to say that one of those four men are so reprehensible that four years of neo-con rule is actually preferable? to that? Who says that here? Anybody? Please speak up.

Conscience is good, but put it into context. We're not starting a brand new nation with no baggage. There's tons of baggage. If the Dems do not win in 2004, you know what the result is. Where's your conscience there?

Some of these wild fantasies about a new America reborn from the ashes are so selfish and short-sighted. There's no guarantee of a new America. You know what there's a guarantee of? Loss of civil rights, loss of social rights, loss of jobs, loss of lives, loss of prestige, loss of credibility, loss of money, loss of security, loss of friendship, etc.

[a_lil_wall_fly]

20. I agree with you

But the people that have decide to leave the Democratic party for various reasons should not come back until those reasons have be resolved.(As well as they left the Republican Party too for various reasons.)

I know that it is not the best solution about--so who is truly to blame--no those that left but those that are in charge of the parties!!!!!

[genius]

21. This is why I support Dennis. He's bring the third parties back

home to the Democratic Party.

[a_lil_wall_fly]

22. This is another reason why DK is stock is rising in my book

Yes I know that Nader has stated DK or Dr HD. But I think Nader and company will throw thier support to DK over Dr HD for this reason only: Clarity of the issues and not have double talk about it.