Whither the Green Party?

According to the June 3-6 Gallup poll, "Iraq" surpassed "Economy" and "Unemployment" as "the most important problem" for Americans in April, and "Iraq" has continued to rate as the most frequently mentioned issue since then:

Most Important Problem, March -- June 2004
June	%
Iraq	27
Economy	19
Unemployment	13
Terrorism	13
Fuel/Oil Prices	7
May
Iraq	26
Economy	19
Unemployment	16
Terrorism	12
Moral decline	6
April
Iraq	26
Economy	22
Unemployment	17
Terrorism	13
Moral decline	7
March
Economy	21
Unemployment	19
Iraq	11
Terrorism	10
National security	7

(Jeffrey M. Jones, "About 6 in 10 Americans Dissatisfied: Economy, Iraq Continue to Be Cited as Country’s Most Important Problems," June 15, 2004)

That's good news for US leftists whose project is to help build a mass political party and social movements that are capable of changing the nation fundamentally, refusing to bow to the chorus of Anybody But Bush and give a blank check to the Democrats. On the question of the occupation of Iraq, John Kerry is hardly distinguishable from George W. Bush. Nay, Kerry is trying to run to the right of Bush on foreign policy, through his repeated calls to add "40,000 troops to the active duty Army to prevent and prepare for other possible conflicts" and double "America's Special Forces" ("Kerry Campaign Fact Sheet: A New Military to Meet New Threats," June 3, 2004).

The problem is that the Green Party, the most promising vehicle for left-wing activists since the virtual demise of the Labor Party, has been so divided that it is difficult for the party to become a social force to reckon with at the level of the presidential election this year. Peter Miguel Camejo's latest message is indicative of the extent of the Green Party's crisis:

As we enter the last two weeks before our national convention the Green Party is clearly divided. No single position regarding how we should participate in the 2004 presidential elections has a consensus. . . .

The fear that the Green Party might be perceived as reelecting Bush in 2004 led a group of 17 Green activists to sign a statement saying that voting for a Democrat (i.e. the lesser of two evils) in some states is the best strategy for building the Green Party this year. The signers of this statement included well-known Greens such as Medea Benjamin, Dean Myerson, John Rensenbrink, Anita Rios, Steve Schmidt, Ted Glick and many others. Their presentation is clear and to the point.

In response to their position, other Greens presented an analysis in the Avocado Declaration stating that lesser evil voting is misguided and will block the development of the Green Party. The Avocado Declaration was also signed by a large number of Greens, including well-known activists such as Mayor Jason West, Donna Warren, Matt Ahearn, Howie Hawkins, Marybeth Wuerthner, Linda Schade, Forrest Hill, Jo Chamberlain, and Steve Welzer. . . .

Some Greens worked in the Democratic Party primary campaigns of Dennis Kucinich and Howard Dean. Some are calling for voting for Kerry and some favor our party not running or endorsing any candidate. . . .

We are approaching the national convention unusually divided. I believe, however, that there is a way for us to reach a substantial consensus and come out of the convention united.

I am calling for the national nominating convention to endorse both Cobb and Nader equally -- and to allow each state to decide whether to put David Cobb, Ralph Nader or "no candidate" on their ballot line.

Such an agreement will result in four candidates -- two presidential and two VPs -- campaigning for peace, the rule of law, abolishing the USA Patriot Act, defending our liberties, supporting fair taxes, promoting free elections (IRV and PR), fighting for alternative energy, raising the minimum wage, protecting human rights and those of immigrants, defending our planet. Instead of Greens walking out of the convention divided and fighting each other behind different candidates, we could adopt a win-win solution, allowing us to close ranks to oppose the two parties of money and defend the Green Party.

This proposal -- parity support for Cobb and Nader -- would allow each state to nominate whichever candidate they feel would be most advantageous to have on their ballot ("Free States"). The national Green Party would agree to do whatever it could to ensure that the relevant state authority recognized that candidate as the standard-bearer of the Green Party in that state.

By uniting behind a dual endorsement agreement, we will come out of the convention with a strategy that the overwhelming majority of Greens can support. We will move forward to build the party together, accepting that we have differences and that these differences are normal in a democratic organization. The key is how we handle these differences to best protect and build our party. (Peter Miguel Camejo, "The Challenge of 2004," June 14, 2004)

Camejo's call for dual endorsement of and parity support for Cobb and Nader, leaving the ultimate choice of how to use its ballot line to each state Green Party, is a sensible solution and perhaps the best that the Green Party can manage under the circumstances. This election year probably determines whether or not the Green Party will survive as a viable political party, so it makes sense for Green Party activists to prioritize the task of keeping the party together, instead of each faction in the party fighting the others to the bitter end at the National Convention, to the detriment of the party's future prospects.

Nevertheless, Camejo's proposal reminds us that the period from the end of the 2000 elections till the beginning of the year 2004 turned out to be a great missed opportunity for the Green Party. The Green Party could have very well benefited from the emergence and development of the movement against the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq, but the party never became the leading organizer of the anti-war and anti-occupation movement (the vacuum has been filled by International ANSWER, Not In Our Name, United for Peace and Justice, and Win Without War). If it had, it would have been well prepared to fight a good fight in the presidential election this year, clearly making the presidential election a referendum on the wars and occupations and allowing the 10-20 percent of Americans who consistently oppose any US war to embrace the Green Party as their permanent political home.