PROPOSAL NUMBER: 002-04
PROPOSAL SUBJECT: 2004 Green Party Election Strategy
PRESENTERS: Members of the Denver and Boulder chapters of the Colorado Green Party
TIMELINE EFFECTIVE:
Through the General Election, 2004
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:
The 2000 election was historic for the Green Party. The Presidential ticket of Ralph Nader and Winona LaDuke received approximately 2.7 Million votes. In the run up to the election, the Green Party was on the ballot in over forty states. For the first time in decades, liberal and progressive voters had a viable alternative to the Democratic Party.
That was the year 2000. We are now approaching the election of 2004, and the upcoming presidential race may be the most important in our lifetimes. After four years of Bush/Cheney, our basic constitutional and human rights are in the worst shape since the cold war. Rollbacks of the social safety net proceed at a horrific pace. The gains of the Civil Rights Movement, the Women’s Movement, Gays and Lesbians, as well as environmental protections are under siege. The quagmire in Iraq is killing our soldiers, consuming our resources, and opening us up for future retaliatory terrorist actions.
Many Greens have recently noticed and commented the increasing masses of progressively- minded citizens organizing to keep President Bush from winning re-election in 2004. In addition to the typical candidate-centric organizations surrounding the Dennis Kucinich and Howard Dean campaigns, many other groups are organizing to inform less politically-active and disenfranchised citizens on political issues, as well as getting them registered to vote. This movement is trickling down to neighborhood activist groups organizing voter registration drives. In the Denver Metro area, the organizations Colorado Progressive Coalition and Vote For A Change are highly visible in their outreach efforts.
Though it is quite likely that a large percentage of these citizen constituencies are registering as Democrats rather than Greens, it’s still impressive to see the progressive community mobilize to be a force at the polls in a way that has not been seen in decades. The clear message from the progressive community is their desire to remove from office an administration which has been more dangerous to human and environmental needs than any administration in our lifetimes. Though Greens are well informed enough to know that just ANY Democratic replacement for Bush is not a real solution, it remains nonetheless impressive to witness the silenced majority begin to become empowered after a long sleep.
GREEN PARTY STRATEGIC ISSUES
The stakes for the Green Party in 2004 are high. Active Greens are aware that the 2000 Nader campaign was not the reason that Al Gore lost his presidential bid. However, despite our best efforts to set the record straight, a large segment of the population continues to blame the Green Party for Bush’s “selection” to office. This is easy to understand, considering the Democrat’s efforts to promote this point of view, and the complacency of the national media regarding it. If the U.S. Green Party should choose to nominate a nationwide presidential candidate and run a strong third-party campaign, then it is likely that the growing U.S. progressive movement will look upon the Greens as potential spoilers again. At the crucial election juncture of 2004, the Green Party can ill afford to be viewed this way. The degree of inter-party alienation that can result from such an image can potentially set the Green Party far back, if not ruin its reputation and respect as a growing people’s party. Being perceived a “spoiler” in the 2004 election could permanently sever the Green Party from its current constituencies, as well as prevent the formation of any new relationships with future constituencies.
Many Greens are concerned that, without a 2004 Green presidential candidate, Green values will disappear from the national debate as Americans are encouraged to vote “against” Bush instead of “for” progressive issues. They recognize that the Green party is completely unlike either of the two major parties, and they believe that not running a national candidate is a sign that the Greens are willing to let the progressive message be co-opted once and for all by the Democratic party.
We too recognize that the Green party is completely unlike the two corporate parties. But we also believe that, as “Future Focus” is one of the Greens’ key values, we should keep sight of our medium- and long-term visions for America, rather than clinging to a purist viewpoint as we face a systematic dismantling of our country by the right wing. The Green Party presently has limited resources with which to advance a complex position in the simplified national media. We need to use our resources to bring our diverse constituents together, not to polarize this important debate. As a grassroots third party operating within the confines of a two-party system, we do not have much hope of creating an ideological shift in the national political landscape within the next eleven months. But we are uniquely equipped to introduce Americans to our values on the local level. There, we can work with other local progressive groups to achieve real results in people’s everyday lives, rather than alienating our voters by appearing to be spoilers unconcerned with the reality of social issues.
“LESSER EVILISM”
The US Green Party did most of its growing during the Democratic Clinton administration, including two national presidential runs by Ralph Nader. If George W. Bush’s administration was a bit more benign and more similar to the Clinton years, perhaps the Green voice of alternatives could be heard more clearly. But since the policies of the current regime are so extreme in regard to basic human rights and democracy, the general left-leaning public is very focused on change. Unfortunately, they are not yet setting their sights on a fundamental, Green brand of change, but are willing to settle for a shift back to the center for the time being.
It is obvious to most Greens that at best the Democratic Party is the lesser of two evils. Voting Democrat can only be a short term reply to long term problems, as systemic change cannot come through the Democratic Party. Resolution of fundamental injustice in our society — for example, the relationship of labor to capital, or the inequality of men and women, blacks and whites, gays and straights — will only happen by a fundamental challenge to the status quo of the American political and economic system.
It is no secret that the Democratic Party has co-opted almost every liberal or progressive movement of the twentieth century. The labor movement, the Civil Rights movement, the peace movement, Gay Rights movement and the Women’s movement are all associated with the Democratic party, regardless of their grassroots origins. This is not an accident. As grassroots movements originating outside the political establishment start to grow in popularity and influence, strategically placed Democrats will typically infiltrate the movements’ groups and organizations. Once in positions of leadership, Democrats are able to influence rank-and-file members to adopt centrist Democratic ideas, including abandoning the support of third parties. This “grassroots” Democratic involvement, combined with the “winner-take-all” two party system of the United States, leads voters to conclude that the only way to achieve any sort of social change or justice is to vote Democrat.
The Democratic party’s relationship to movements of societal change needs to be foremost in the mind of every progressive who sees building an independent third party as an important part of the progressive agenda. We should have no reason to believe that Democratic Party and its supporters won’t use the same — and even new — strategies to derail any sort of challenge to the Democrats’ control of liberal and progressive voters.
Nevertheless, a historical analysis alone does not a strategy make. The influence of the Democratic Party on progressive movements must be weighed against the current needs of human beings and the planet, and the ability of the Green Party to grow in the medium and long term. Opting out of the 2004 race because the majority of our current and potential constituents want to defeat George W. Bush does not automatically mean capitulating to the Democrats. If Greens are open and active in the movement to defeat Bush and slow the destruction of our environment and our human rights, a year from now we will be in an excellent strategic position. No matter what the outcome of the 2004 election, we will be supported by networks of liberal community organizers at the local level, with whose help we will be better able to take back our progressive issues, and with whose help we can work for true change while continuing to build our party from the ground up.
As far as the Green Party image is concerned, it is important to remember that it is the Democratic Party hierarchy that has fostered much of the mischaracterization about the Green Party, and not necessarily the well-intentioned but overly influenced rank-and-file Democrat voters. These Democrats are not our opponents but our potential allies. Some of them will remember our help and be attracted to the Green Party as the political landscape transforms over time.
POTENTIAL POLITICAL CLIMATE BASED UPON ELECTION RESULTS
A 2004 Bush Victory
* A possible demoralizing defeat for US progressives; it may make recently-returned voters apathetic again, and cause them to lose interest in future participation.
* With a re-election opportunity no longer in their sights, Bush and Co. may go all-out in their drive toward corporate domination and suppression of public discord; many forms of free speech may become outlawed, and organizers of opposition movements or even political parties may be labeled criminal terrorists.
* The US Green Party may feel it has escaped a black mark on its philosophical permanent record, only to find that progressives and liberals abandon the notion of supporting a third party. The “bunker mentality” will be pervasive, as liberals and progressives will conclude that the only way to get any sort of relief from eight years of Bush is to vote Democrat. The potential of this can already be seen, with the rise of the “Repentant Nader Voter”, and other anti-Green Party sentiments.
A 2004 Democratic Victory
* A Democratic victory and administration will be somewhat of a relief from Bush, and it may usher in a time when the level of engaged citizen participation will be at its highest since the Johnson years of the 1960’s. Progressive citizens may feel once again as though they have a chance of being heard, and will demand renewed environmental and social protections.
* Reversing the destructive policies of the Bush Administration will have to be accomplished at least partly at the local level, where Greens are currently the best able to engage citizens.
* An elevated level of citizen participation bodes well for the Green Party, since the key to advancing the GP and building the party’s future will be to hold the Democratic president’s “feet to the fire”. If the Carter and Clinton administrations can be used as an example, the Democratic President will submit to corporate financial influences. As Greens, we are aware that this will result in such things as war, failure to implement universal healthcare and “living wage” programs, failure to advance civil rights, etc. This will be an opportunity for Greens to rally, as the Democratic Party once again exposes itself as a party of corporate interests.
THE NEED FOR ACTION
In light of the above stated concerns, it makes sense to take action NOW, rather than just wait for any of these scenarios to take place. We are advocating an active stance NOW toward the issue of the elections, instead of a passive response LATER in response to future events. Later may be too late to take a strong position.
Rather than viewing the omission of a nationwide presidential candidate as a setback for the Green Party, we should recognize its potential as a positive recruiting tactic. By having Greens work alongside progressive Democrats in key campaigns or political action groups, others will learn that Greens are practical, concerned citizens who have thought through both their political philosophy and their political strategy, not a far-left fringe group. In short, opting-out of the 2004 presidential campaign could be a long term plus for Greens, and not merely making the best of a bad situation.
STRATEGY
As members of Colorado Green Party, we hereby request the state council to review and endorse this resolution. If council votes to endorse, within 30 days the authors will make the resolution publicly available to Colorado Greens via e-mail, the Colorado Green Party website, as well as the websites and e-mail lists of local chapters. The authors will then submit it to the website of the Green Party of the United States for posting, and will attempt to circulate the endorsed resolution via national and regional e-mail list serves and discussion groups. Finally, the authors will introduce the endorsed resolution at the Green Party of the United States National Convention in Milwaukee, 2004.
IMPLEMENTATION – RESOURCES:
None
FULL PROPOSAL:
As members of Colorado Green Party, we hereby request the State Council to review and endorse the following resolution. If Council votes to endorse, within 30 days the authors will make the resolution publicly available to Colorado Greens via e-mail, the Colorado Green Party website, as well as the websites and e-mail lists of local chapters. The authors will then submit it to the website of the Green Party of the United States for posting, and will attempt to circulate the endorsed resolution via national and regional e-mail list serves and discussion groups. Finally, the authors will introduce the endorsed resolution at the Green Party of the United States National Convention in Milwaukee, 2004.
The RESOLUTION:
1. The Green Party recognizes that there are more similarities than differences between the two corporate parties. Neither party can honestly claim to hold the same values, or share the same goals as the Green Party.
2. Although the Green Party is not responsible for the outcome of the 2000 Presidential election, the perception that it played a “spoiler” role is wide-spread. Despite the facts, this has been and will be exploited by the two corporate parties for their own interests as well as their mutual benefit. Since the U.S. continues to rely on a “winner take all” voting system, the Green Party is still at risk of becoming the “spoiler” in 2004.
3. The Green Party also recognizes that the election of 2004 is unlike that of 2000, and may be the most important presidential contest in our lifetimes. Since the election of 2000, basic constitutional and human rights have been vigorously attacked. Four more years of the Bush/Cheney administration will mean a continued assault on People of Color, Immigrants, the poor, Women, Gays and Lesbians, and the environment. The middle and working classes of our society will bear the brunt of this administration’s economic policies, with continued devaluation of the social security program, unaffordable health care, ineffective transportation systems, and the continued migration of jobs to third-world nations. Furthermore, another George W. Bush Presidency will most likely result in continued, unchecked war.
4. Grassroots organizers in the Green Party have seen many of the party’s constituencies, community supporters, and registered voters mobilize in a national effort to defeat the ticket of Bush/Cheney in 2004. The mobilization reaches across race, gender, sexual orientation and class lines. We believe that this movement speaks to Green values, and that if the U.S. Greens join this movement, we have a golden opportunity to influence its mission while increasing our national recognition. In ways that may not be so clear at first, the Greens can actually be viewed as heroes of the progressive movement. We can turn a potentially disadvantageous situation into an advantage. We can make our weakness and vulnerability before current election rules an admirable strength. Success generally occurs by transforming seeming misfortune into good fortune.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
1. That in an effort to prevent the (re-) election of Bush/Cheney, the Green Party will not nominate candidates for President and Vice President of the United States for 2004. The Green Party will also not endorse a candidate from either the Democrat or Republican parties.
2. That the Green Party encourage its members, registered voters as well as state and local affiliates, to work toward the defeat of Bush/Cheney in 2004, and to do so as registered and proud Greens.
3. That where mandated by statute or regulation, state Green Parties nominate local candidates for President and Vice President of the United States in order to be in compliance with the law. Where possible, local Green Parties should seek to run candidates for other offices — such as for Governor — that will preserve their ballot access.
4. That the Green Party continue to seek out candidates to run on the Green ticket for local, regional and state offices (thus building the party from the bottom up), and to encourage local candidates to address “Green” values.
5. That the Green Party take advantage of the current progressive movement by increasing our voter registration efforts, recognizing that strong Green numbers influence politicians as much as any other organizing tactic.
6. That the Green Party place a focus on developing important electoral initiatives in all states to pave a smoother path for the GP in the future, such as increased ballot access, campaign finance reform and Instant Runoff Voting (IRV).
7. And that even without a national candidate, that the Green Party work collectively as a party to recommend sound solutions to domestic and international issues, such as the Iraq occupation and the U.S. economic slump.
