Should the Green Party mollify the Democrats?
posted
to www.marxmail.org on
Ted Glick, a long-time leftist in the
It is what Nader himself described as a "liberal virus" in an interview with the NY Times on March 31:
Ralph Nader knows all the arguments against him. He can recite,
word for importuning word, the letters from old friends urging him not to run
for president -- "all individually written, all stunningly similar"
-- and he does so with the theatrical relish of a man whose public life has
been one long, unyielding argument with the world.
"Here's how it
started," he said, his soft voice taking on mock oratorical tones over
dinner with a group of aides in Charlotte, N.C., last week: "For years,
I've thought of you as one of our heroes." He rolled his eyes. "The
achievements you've attained are monumental, in consumer, environmental, etc.,
etc." He paused for effect. "But this time, I must express my
profound disappointment at indications that you are going to run."
"And the more I
got of these," Mr. Nader said, "the more I
realized that we are confronting a virus, a liberal virus. And the
characteristic of a virus is when it takes hold of the individual, it's the
same virus, individual letters all written in uncannily the same sequence.
Here's another characteristic of the virus: Not one I can recall ever said, 'What
are your arguments for running?'"
Although Glick doesn't position himself as an ABB type exactly, he certainly is willing to serve as their attorney. Mostly his article seems anxious to demonstrate that George W. Bush is Greater Evil and to belittle anybody who doesn't see things that way.
He was "surprised" to hear Peter Camejo saying at
a NYC meeting on March 28th that "Kerry will be able to do what
Bush wants to do better." Since I don't have Camejo's full text in front
of me, it is difficult to figure out what he was really trying to say. I do
know that Camejo could hardly have been accused of failing to distinguish
between Democrats and Republicans since he was highly deferential to Lt. Gov.
Cruz Bustamante in the recent recall election in
Glick is basically mounting a false polemic. He
characterizes radicals in the Debs and Malcolm X tradition as having the same
outlook as expressed in George Wallace's pithy observation that "there's
not a dime's worth of difference between the two parties". In reality,
this is not our view at all. If there were no substantive differences between
the two parties, the system would collapse. For example, if at the next
convention the Democrats announced that they were adopting a program of
opposition to abortion rights and affirmative action, etc., the Green Party
would begin to grow like wildfire. The only way that the Democrats can retain the
allegiance of leftwing activists who identify with the Nation Magazine or who operate
in the Committees of Correspondence milieu is by taking such positions. With
their support, the Democrats are in a better position to assist the Republicans
in their reactionary attacks as well as coming up with their own initiatives
such as abolishing aid to dependent children or bombing
Glick urges the left to be mindful of the needs of our friends in the Democratic Party: "We need to maintain our connections with those with whom we share generally similar positions on the issues (as in the Kucinich and Sharpton campaigns). Over time, if we do our first two tasks well, there will be an increasing number of Democrats who become former Democrats as they come over to our side." In other words, if we play nice with them, they will play nice with us.
This is not a Democratic Party that I am very familiar with.
Even after Matt Gonzalez endorsed Dennis Kucinich for President (a mistake in
my opinion), the Democrats ganged up on Gonzalez in a bare-knuckles fashion. Viewing
a Gonzalez victory as a potential blow to the class interests of real estate
developers, investors and law firms in
Finally, Glick urges the left to rally around the presidential
bid of Green Party leader David Cobb who promises a "strategic
states" campaign. This is a promise that the Greens will not be on the
ballot in hotly contested states, where votes for a Green might work against a
Kerry victory. This promise is meant to assuage all the angry Democrats who
blamed Nader for Bush's victory in 2000. Of course,
they fail to acknowledge the real problem, which was the lackluster, centrist
campaign of Al Gore, now being repeated by John Kerry. Kerry has just announced
that Roger Altman and Gene Sperling, two Clintonistas, will be responsible for formulating his
economic policy, which will include corporate tax cuts as a centerpiece. He has
also been curiously quiet on Richard Clarke's revelations. In 2000, if Gore had
simply won in his home state of
Right now, the Green Party future is questionable. As long as the majority of the party continues to see itself as on the side of the Democrats against the Republicans, and making decisions about where and when to run candidates on that basis, it has no future. The history of American politics is strewn with the wreckage of 3rd parties that took that tack.
The fundamental problem of the Green Party is *class*. With
so many of its members and leaders ensconced in middle class professions, shopkeeping, nonprofits, etc., it will be susceptible to
the mood swings of brethren Democrats from that same social milieu. Sooner or
later, the working class in the