top
Government
Government
Indybay
Indybay
Indybay
Regions
Indybay Regions North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area California United States International Americas Haiti Iraq Palestine Afghanistan
Topics
Newswire
Features
From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature

Twilight of the Greens: The Chokehold of "Anybody But Bush"

by repost
Glick, for example, maintains that a safe-states campaign "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." True, but the job of an independent left political party should not be to help prowar, neoliberal John Kerry to sell himself more effectively at the polls.
Weekend Edition
July 3/4, 2004
Twilight of the Greens
The Chokehold of "Anybody But Bush"

By SHARON SMITH

For those who wondered why the U.S. left has never built a social democratic or labor party, last weekend's Green Party convention in Milwaukee offered a bird's-eye view. America's largest independent left-wing political party, which won 2.7 million votes and garnered ballot lines in 22 states and the District of Columbia after Ralph Nader's 2000 presidential campaign, rejected an endorsement for Nader in 2004--nominating David Cobb instead.

"David who?" many outside the Green Party will ask. Don't be too concerned if you have never heard of Cobb--his campaign intends to be quite muted. The Green Party candidate will campaign only in so-called "safe states," where either Kerry or Bush holds such a solid lead that Cobb's campaign is irrelevant to the outcome. Cobb will avoid as many as 20 "contested" states, where a Green Party presidential campaign could threaten a Kerry victory.

More than a year ago, a group of prominent Greens set an election-year objective of "replacing Bush with a Democrat (since we're not yet strong or organized enough to replace him with a Green or an independent)," as Ted Glick, national coordinator of the Independent Progressive Politics Network, wrote in July 2003. Nader rejected the "safe-states" strategy from the outset, saying it "sounds to me like political schizophrenia. You either run or you don't."

Nader's 2000 Green Party candidacy did much to propel the Green Party to national prominence, but this didn't spare him from a stream of invective from the Anybody-But-Bush faction that led the well-organized Anybody-But-Nader rallying cry at the convention.

Peter Miguel Camejo, the Green Party candidate for California governor in 2002 and in the 2003 recall election--and now Nader's running mate--was booed loudly by some Cobb supporters as he addressed the convention. "The only practical 'success' [Nader] can now have will be to bring W. back to the White House," scoffed Nader's 2000 Green presidential rival Joel Kovel shortly before the convention began.

"Ralph Nader turned his back on the [Green] party and announced earlier this year that he would mount an independent campaign for the nation's top job," the Nation's John Nichols sniped on June 28. In reality, those in the Anybody-But-Bush left--both inside and outside the Green Party--had ruled out support for Nader long before (See, for example, the Nation's "Ralph, Don't Run" feature article immediately after the 2002 mid-term election).

Cobb supporter Ted Glick has admitted that a Kerry campaign would be a "centrist, corporate-friendly, more-troops-to-Iraq Democratic campaign" that will "inevitably dampen the enthusiasm of the labor, community, feminist, people of color, peace and other activists." Yet Cobb couches his campaign as an effort to "build" the Green Party, even as the safe-states strategy undermines the Greens' political independence.

Glick, for example, maintains that a safe-states campaign "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." True, but the job of an independent left political party should not be to help prowar, neoliberal John Kerry to sell himself more effectively at the polls.

History has shown that, however tepid the left's support for a Democrat ("Half the way with LBJ," anyone?), the end result is strengthening the hold of the Democratic Party on the left, not the other way around. As the Avocado Declaration, initiated by Camejo in January, stated plainly, "[I]t is precisely by openly and sharply confronting the two major parties that the policies of the corporate interests these parties represent can be set back and defeated."

And as Nader supporter Howie Hawkins argued recently, "We can't defeat war, repression and economic austerity from the Republicans by supporting Democrats who also support war, repression and economic austerity." As such, the Green Party convention, marked the latest missed opportunity by the U.S. left, perpetually ensnared in the politics of lesser evilism, to escape from the chokehold of the Democratic Party.

Sharon Smith is a columnist for the Socialist Worker and a contributor to the book, Iraq Under Siege.
Add Your Comments

Comments (Hide Comments)
by Robert Sprye (beowulf [at] affv.nu)
I just can´t see it.

First of all, the nation already has a viable and proven advocate of egalitarian and ecologically sound venue:

Dennis Kucinich.

Check the man´s platform and track record. The very last thing the oiligarch wants to see is this guy in the lead role.

Secondly, the late and therefore unsettling announcement of Nader entry will in effect split the so called "leftist" vote even further, which in all cases will result in a continuation of this nation´s illegal and genocidal foreign and domestic policies in the interests of the corporate oiligarch.

Kerry = the wealthiest opportunist in the Senate
Bush = a highly paid yet fumbling toadie to corporate
interests

Kucinich = deliberately not profiled by media
Nader = not safe for the worlds current need

In the end we get Kerry.

Naders work will only do harm to the movement to galvanize the larger population of struggling Americans to use their voices and votes to remove the oiligarch representation. Nader will merely ensure that it remains in power and that the message of positive change is distorted and diffused.

Things are bad enough for efforts towards a democratic America operating under the rule of law. Nader´s only result will be to make the effort harder.

I have some serious questions that I think all voters should ask themselves now:

WHY is Nader claiming to run now at this late stage?

WHO is paying for his campaign? His largest supporters?

I say reject Nader completely. If he had wanted to assault the oiligarch the time was prior to the rush to criminal war, if he had wanted to lead that peoples crusade for justice in America, he should have announced long ago in order to:

1. Coordinate all "leftist" activities around one candidate
2. Consolidate the varying strengths of various orgs into a
coherent platform
3. Establish that a viable progressive movement WILL alter
the balance into something resembling genuine elections
4. Maintain his own credibility

As it is, I have now lost a great deal of respect and faith.

It may be too late in 2008.

We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!

Donate

$160.00 donated
in the past month

Get Involved

If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.

Publish

Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.

IMC Network