Friday, August 27, 2004

Greens at Crossroads: Party Fights for its Future

By Josh Frank

Read full article...

Posted 08/27 | Add a Comment

    Comments:

    You must register to comment.

    Login | Register

  1. Josh, do you think the Greens will splinter after November? Maybe a devolution on a state-by-state level?

    Posted by Mickey Z. from  on  08/27  at  09:28 PM

  2. I think it is a strong possibility. We’ll see though. If Nader really tries to make a new 3rd Party, the Greens may b done. Time will tell.

    Posted by Josh from  on  08/27  at  10:20 PM

  3. IMO, there won’t be a state-by-state devolution or split.  The only state Green parties that may end up supporting Nader are the Vermont and Utah Greens.  Hardly a major revolution.  All the rest seem to be supporting Cobb.

    Even the Greens in California, with many of the most vocal Naderite “leaders”, didn’t go for Nader over Cobb for our ballot line. 

    In that vote, Nader supporters who had a vote at the state level found there was little political support locally and voted against going Nader in California.  Not exactly the massive support for Nader that Camejo, Hill and others have asserted, eh?  Curious, no?

    Now we’re all going to be finding out what kind of evil cabal of Demogreens took over the California Green Party too I suspect.  (Damn!  They’re everywhere! It’s like the Bodysnatchers!  <g>) Camejo and his coterie will continue to huff and puff but I don’t think much is going to come of it in the end. 

    Just saying that the Greens are deeply divided and that the Cobb people are all conspiratorical anti-democrats doesn’t make it so.  Our county organization certainly has disagreements on presidential candidates and strategies but we all still work together just fine. 

    Read this piece for a counterpoint to what the Counterpunchers, Trots for Nader and other Naderites are saying and judge for yourself what happens:

    Greens Lose Nader Training Wheels - Marc Salomon
    http://cybre.net/nader/training_wheels.txt

    Personally I don’t see Nader going third party unless he thinks it can be a significant step up from the Greens.  He has said as much. 

    I don’t see Camejo abandoning the Greens as long as he sees some kind of power base there.  Likewise for the other Greens for Nader in the post-Cobb era.

    Neither group wants to do a Citizen’s Party re-animation, imo.  The prospects for success there are just about nil compared to the ever expanding Greens on local, state and international levels.

    The Greens will get along just fine without fearless leader Nader and his celebrity loving ("But he can get us votes!") followers.  Matter of fact, I hope they do go about their business elsewhere if all they have to offer the Greens is more of this nasty infighting rhetoric. 

    I’ve heard that Camejo made a rather unpleasant speech about Cobb that turned a lot of potential Nader/Camejo supporters into Cobb supporters.  What works with the Socialist Worker Party must not work so well with the Greens.

    Another California Green

    Posted by Another California Green from  on  08/27  at  10:33 PM

  4. ACG seems to have all the answers...except one. He didn’t address the “safe” states/ABB strategy.

    Plus, just saying that all Nader (and the Greens who support him instead of Cobb) have to offer is “more of this nasty infighting rhetoric” doesn’t make it so.

    Posted by Mickey Z. from  on  08/28  at  09:04 AM

  5. I am with Mickey. I talked to a Green PA state delegate the other day. He said one thing I thought was interesting. He told me the Greens will grow regardless of Cobb. But is simply riding the wave. However, this doesn’t mean that the Greens will ever again be a force to be feared. If indeed they continue, under Cobb’s guidance, to run a “smart states” approach, what impact will they really make?  That’s the point. When I say the Greens may be dead, or as St. Clair put it, kaput, we don’t mean that they will cease to exist. Rather, they will cease to exist as a viable alternative to the Dems and Reps because they will not run like they mean it. That means run at the national level ONLY in swing states.  Indeed the Left will only be dealt with if we play the few cards we have. That means challenging the Dems where it hurts the most.

    Posted by Josh from  on  08/28  at  09:43 AM

  6. We will take a huge step forward if we take the view that The Greens --as presently constituted--are as big a threat to healthy progress as Bush @ Co. and the Dems.  Their engaging radical activists in conversation about the nooks and crannies in their crumbling house is something we really cannot afford. Not on an ongoing basis.  The whole tone of talk surrounding their viability, etc. props up too much faith in the electoral process, delaying/avoiding confrontations that must take place.  Red-eyed MonsteROX

    Posted by Red-eyed MonsteROX from  on  08/28  at  11:01 AM

  7. Mickey Z, what’s to say about the “safe states” vs. “scorched earth” strategy?  Reasonable people differ on it.  That’s fair and normal.

    But much of what is coming out of the Nader/Camejo camp is way more than just a disagreement.  Far too much of it is personal and untrue, imo, and that crosses the line especially for people who call themselves Greens.

    If the short term goal is to try and get 5% of the vote to get federal funding (a non-trivial issue in terms of growth), the “safe states” strategy makes the most sense, imo, given our limited resources.

    Basically in swing states, many progressive voters will be looking at Kerry as to where their vote will be going.  It’s going to be very difficult to pry those voters, especially the independents that make up a large chunk of Green voters, from Kerry.  Only people who will vote Green or Nader, without any campaigning at all, will be pulling the lever there.

    IMO, if you put your limited resources in states where people feel more free to vote Green without putting Bush in, what most progressive voters would probably like to do, there’s a much greater likelihood of getting votes.  So the focus should be on places like Massachusetts and California not on any of the swing states like Florida or Missouri. 

    Even conservative states could be good sources of votes.  As I recall, the province in Canada that the Greens most recently did the best in was one of the conservative oil-rich provinces.

    The other thing that the Greens should be doing, to push towards that 5% goal, is working on vote swaps between states.  Lots of progressive voters who want to vote Green feel pressured to vote Kerry but don’t look to a vote swap to conserve that vote for the Green candidate. 

    That could be a significant pool of votes if there was more organising to make it work.  Even if someone is dishonest at least there’s a chance of getting an extra vote towards that 5% figure whereas without an effort at a swap that chance goes to zero.

    Of course if the goal is to split the vote and make the Democrats pay for their sins then you certainly don’t want to push vote swaps as it gives such Greens an option that works against this.  Nor that “safe states” stuff.

    I know of one Green who switched to “Decline to State” before running (successfully) for office because of the “spoiler” stigma from the 2000 race.  It may be unfair to carry that burden but it’s certainly a political reality. 

    When you’re doing tabling for the Greens the ABB issue is a huge one to get around.  It helps if you can tell the person that it’s not going to make any difference and you can vote for the Greens (in California, Kerry has firm double digit lead).  It’s a lot harder sell in swing states. 

    Another California Green

    Posted by Another California Green from  on  08/28  at  01:41 PM

  8. Quick replies:

    ACG: Believe me, I’m not tabling for the Greens...I just asked you to comment on the main thrust of Josh’s article. You ask “what’s to say?” but you obviously have a lot to say...and that’s what I was looking for.

    Ox: There’s nothing “ongoing” here (unlike the majority of other comment sections). I commented on Josh’s article and asked a question. Josh replied and ACG disagreed. No confrontations avoided or delayed.

    Posted by Mickey Z. from  on  08/28  at  02:01 PM

  9. Nothing so personal intended, Mickey. I was directing my comments at the general malaise regarding Green talk. Other sections beg for comments...but receive none (on what’s truly important)...except for words of peripheral concern, questionable relevance.  Speaking for my own comment sections, I wrote a whole article recently (the O’Connor piece)...in large part --as I pointed out-- the comments rec’d (over 100) were, admittedly, so wanting...on several counts. However, there’s a world of difference between making an attempt to generate public discussion about action-related matters and/or difficult-to-understand spirtual matters (to cite two examples) and back and forth about overworked subjects.  This is NOT --in spite of appearances-- drawing a blanket criticism over anything Josh wrote or you commented on.  I’d say it’s not my place to even broach the subject with respect to you and Josh; I have too much respect for you and him on that count.  However, again, my remarks are very important, I believe, in the sense that general remarks leveled at redundant subjects...seem to have fallen on deaf ears here (and on sites across the country).  On deaf ears, for the most part.  Dumb Ox P.S. No time to watch my words carefully enough, I guess.

    Posted by Lummox from  on  08/28  at  03:59 PM

  10. Ox, I was funning with you a bit because you tend to have little patience if you feel the discussions are missing your point or “the” point, as it were. No offense taken.

    Posted by Mickey Z. from  on  08/28  at  07:22 PM

  11. Perhaps I was “funning” when I was addressing what you’re characterizing as responding to people missing my point. Not sure what the “little patience” refers to as, from my point of view, I have suffered fools gladly...long before I hooked into Press Action...as part of my nature, in tune with my concern regrarding education.  However, there comes a time when --although “fuming” should not replace “funning"-- a line needs to be drawn...and people who are disagreeing for silly reasons...or who are not doing their homework...or how are certifiable...or who are, obviously, not open to learning, etc. must be put in their proper place.  That’s to remain intellectually honest, honor the value of my own heartbeats and not get distracted by lost causes...so as to get back to hands on stuff vis-a-vis the so-called Movement.  Respectfully, Ox

    Posted by Respectful Ox from  on  08/30  at  03:14 PM
    12. Commenting is not available in this weblog entry. {/if}

    Next entry: The Declaration of Independence

    Previous entry: Media Declares War on Anti-War Protests

    [ads]

    Support Press Action