The Crisis In The Green Party by Peter Camejo

[Itsthetruth]

CounterPunch
April 6, 2005

The Crisis in the Green Party
The Magic Number 39 and My Meetings with Cobb, Kucinich and the Steering Committee
By PETER CAMEJO

Peter Camejo ran for governor of California on the Green Party ticket and was Ralph Nader's running mate in the 2004 presidential election.

--------------------------------------------------------------------


Many Green members want to know when the infighting is going to end. When will people recognize there is nothing wrong when Greens have differences? Why can't we respect each other and figure out how to work together? This sentiment is wide spread in the Green Party, especially since many members do not have a hard opinion about some of the differences within the party. They are still listening to both points of view. They want peace, understanding, tolerance and unity in action where there is agreement.

Most Greens are not involved in the day by day or even month by month debate that is now under way in the Green Party. Over time however the issues being raised will reach all Greens and they will express their views in a variety of ways. We must all be patient and understand that it is normal for there to be differences and that our internal debates are themselves part of building a party that can be effective in its opposition to the two party dictatorship. We must learn to allow the differing points of view the freedom to try and convince all of us through example that what they propose will really work. In that way we generate respect between Greens who differ.

For Greens who want to build an alternative party to the two corporate controlled parties it is important to understand the evolution which is now happening in the Green Party. Our party is not immune from what is happening in our nation. Politics are now moving to the right. This is clear within the Democratic Party. This shift is obvious around the issue of the rights of women where the Democrats are back pedaling and their support for Bush on the illegal occupation of Iraq. This rightward shift within the nation acts as a magnet on everyone.

The Democrats are moving to the right under the pressure of the Republicans and the control of money, but they also have to try and shore up their base if they want to win elections. Like in nature where there are strong currents counter currents appear. It is understandable that as the Democrats move to the right some Democrats seek to regroup to oppose the right turn or at least to not lose their base that is suffering at the hands of the right ward shift.

This can be important to us. But we also need to fully understand the role such counter currents often play to keep the Democrats from losing their base that is disgusted with their politics. In the end do they just end up trying to keep those who are turned off to the Democrats from leaving and joining the Greens or forming some other opposition organization.

http://www.counterpunch.org/camejo04062005.html

[eridani]

1. I decided to stay with the Democrats instead of going back--

--to the Greens for one simple reason. The Dems have PCOs and the Greens don't. Still, I'll work for IRV and object to efforts to keep Greens off the ballot. I think Greens for the time being should stick to running in political subunits that are small enough for a candidate to walk alone or with a small support group.

I supported Nader in 1996 and 2000, and he never asked me for anything other than rally attendance, money, and to agitate for his inclusion in the debates. Kucinich asked me to be a PCO and talk to my neighbors, and that is clearly the way to build an organization.

[Radical Activist]

2. That is the biggest problem with the Green party.

It's why someone with Green values will have a better chance of getting elected if they run as a Democrat in 90% of the country than if they run as a Green.
The Green party has had deep divisions and internal conflicts for years. Its leaders either don't know how to organize an effective political party or are unwilling to unify around those who do. The Greens have a lot of great arguments about the need for a liberal third party but they have always been extremely poor at making that happen.

[Disturbed]

3. A leader with charisma is needed.

The Greens should ask Kucinich to join them. ;0)

[Radical Activist]

5. Some have asked

and he won't. Nader could have worked on building the Green Party after 2000 or 1996, but he was too busy starting another half dozen non-profits.

[burythehatchet]

10. I believe the Green party's biggest problem is over-reaching

one of the reasons the Greens make inroads in Europe is because European governments do not operate under a winner-take-all system of governance. In the US, with our winner (and sometimes loser) takes all, a party needs 100's of millions of dollars to run a national, or even a large state campaign. That will have no other result than to tear an organization apart because if you are able to raise that amount you're gonna be somebody's bitch (as in dog). Erdani's comment is very correct in that Greens should focus most if not all their efforts on local races. Paradoxically, the only way for the Greens to succeed is to keep money from them. Which, of course, is the reason republicans donate to the Greens.

[Itsthetruth]

18. Beware ..... Snake Oil, Snake Oil For Sale!

"Which, of course, is the reason republicans donate to the Greens."

Oh no. Now a new and improved version of the tired and old "The Republicans are bankrolling Nader" political line of the Democratic Party.

The Green Party is a right-wing outfit funded by Republicans. Sure. How about this one?

The Green Party is run by "communists" and other left-wing wackos who want to destroy America.

Now, who can I sell this snake oil to? Bet I can find some DLC'ers who would love to help me pedal it.

[burythehatchet]

19. I have no idea what that hysterical rant was about

I'm not sure you do either.

[crispini]

15. What's a PCO? nt

[eridani]

22. Precinct Committee Officer

I don't live in a close neighborhood--it will be a cold day in hell before there is a block party or anything. People mostly work and play elsewhere, and about 1/3 of the voting aged population is transient. However, as of last year I at least have a clue about the political leanings of my neighbors, and have uncovered a few Dems. No Greens, and no one even near as left as I am. But changing that is my problem now--I wasn't even aware of it until I started organizing in my back yard instead of heading off to the U-District or Capitol Hill to hang with people who already agreed with me.

[Radical Activist]

4. This lengthy letter

is an example of exactly what is wrong with the Green party and why it will never go anywhere. This is a party that has never gotten 5% of the vote nationally, but they have two Green parties, two factions within each party, and two more rivaling think tanks outside the party structure.

The letter references two separate occasions when the Utah state Green party split in half. How many people can there be in the Utah Green Party? If you can't keep a room of 12 people united as state party then you don't have a chance in hell of winning any serious election.

Calling Greens who want to work with Progressive Democrats of America the "right wing" of the Green Party is a juvenile and disingenuous attack. There's nothing right wing about supporting a left wing organization that might actually elect liberal Democrats with Green values.

This letter also shows what happens when someone becomes more loyal to a political organization than to the ideals that organization is supposed to represent. If Camejo's real priority was advancing the progressive cause he would be happy to see more Democrats with Green ideals being elected to office. Instead he seems convinced that advancing the Green Party is synonymous with advancing the progressive agenda. Its this kind of thinking that lead to a Green running against Paul Wellstone, who better represented Green views than anyone in the Senate.

Camejo complains that the fusion strategy destroyed past political movements like the populist party, but fails to mention that it was only after fusion that most of the populist party agenda was adopted and became law.

It seems that Camejo would prefer to see progressives go down fighting righteously as Greens rather than runs as Democrats and actually be elected to office.

[eridani]

6. In defense of the Minnesota thing--

--state law says that a slot unfilled by a party can be filled by anyone, regardless of whether they are in the party or not. So they had to run someone, and ran someone without name recognition instead of Winona La Duke, who would have been the obvious choice in a serious race.

[Radical Activist]

14. That's a problem with how the system is set up.

Its too bad Minnesota doesn't allow fusion candidates like New York does, but it sounds like Camejo wouldn't accept that approach anyway.

[Disturbed]

7. Perhaps you are correct.

The Green Party does need to seriously evaluate what is best for America rather than what is best for the Green Party. As a Green, I do vote and will vote for Dems Natl. level that advance the agenda and values that I believe is best for America and vote Green locally. I agree that Nadar, although I agree with quite a bit of his policies screwed up this time. It seems that he lost his sense of direction and the Green Party couldn't convince him to stay the course that he was on in the run up of 2000. I am not reved up by either party at this time and things are going from bad to worse for this nation.

[Radical Activist]

16. There are times when

I would prefer to vote for a Green over a conservative Democrat who is representing a liberal area. I can forgive conservative Democrats from conservative districts, but I can offer no excuses for conservatives Dems from liberal areas in Chicago.

Taking that strategy might get more Greens elected locally and even to Congress. However, most of the party doesn't seem content with that strategy. The strategy of taking down the Democrats at every opportunity is destructive and ultimately unproductive.

I chose to walk away from any form of support for the Green Party in 2001 after I saw a national congress meeting of the Green Party in Carbondale Illinois. It was a disaster and it became clear that they did not have the political talent or coordination to organize a viable national third party.

[Alpharetta]

8. Insightful

I can understand how he is currently more focused on party organization than on platform ideals (ecology, justice, etc.) He's decided those platform ideals are only given lip service by the 2 major parties. A perfectly understandable conclusion given the glaring Iraq War Resolution vote, the countless other surrenders of the Democratic Party, and corporate sponsorship of the 2 party system.

A decent analysis of the Green Party in 2004. I agree their convention was undemocratic. The party is screwed until they adopt bylaws and a structure that will allow them to proceed.

Now that Dean has a toehold in the Democratic machine, I have reason to hope the author is wrong about Democrats moving even more to the right.

[Radical Activist]

9. I seriously doubt

that Dean will move the party to the left since he's just as much a moderate, corporate sponsored Democrats as most of the party.

What could move the party to the left is an organization inside the party that helps organize the left wing to win elections and pass progressive legislation, like PDA. Organizing at the ground level and taking over county and state Democratic Party organizations will move this party left. Its sad that Camejo disparages the organization most likely to accomplish that. Maybe he's so committed to the Green Party that the idea of a successful progressive movement from within the Democratic Party is threatening to him.

[Itsthetruth]

11. PDA Doesn't Have Much Punch

PDA does not come anywhere close to matching the money, resources staff and labor activists as the AFL-CIO. And the AFL-CIO's efforts to move the Democratic Party in a liberal (not even left) direction on issues important to working people have been fruitless.

Even with a Democratic President, Clinton, and a Democratic Party controlled Congress the labor movement was unable to get a very modest "labor reform" bill passed in 1994, S1. However, the labor movement did get NAFTA under President Clinton, something the Republican Presidents Reagan and George Bush senior could not accomplish.

Is it any wonder that top labor leaders now say publicly that perhaps the labor movement ought to end support to Democratic and "moderate" Republican politicians who do nothing for working people? And do well-meaning progressive activists in the PDA really believe they can accomplish what other more powerful organizations like the AFL-CIO have not been able to achieve?

Democratic Party like to talk about their "big tent" circus. The problem is that many of the performers in the tent have been Bush and Republican party enablers. Look at how many have voted for Bush's appointments and legislation this year. Of course, progressives, like those in PDA will be encouraged, by the Bush enablers to buy tickets to watch the show. In fact, the Democratic Party "moderates" hope PDA will sell lots of tickets to their show! But, PDA and other progressives will not be permitted to have any say about what acts are performed at that show. They can sit, and watch and romanticize about how they are going to end corporate control of the Democratic Party.

Some people just love spinning their wheels on ice while they brag about how "fast" the wheels are spinning. The wheels are turning fast but the car ain't movin!

[Itsthetruth]

12. Can't We Just "Buy" Politicians?

The AFL-CIO and its affiliates spent over 200 million dollars on John Kerry's election campaign.

And what did John Kerry say in support of workers and their unions in the Presidential debates? Nothing. Not a word.

Labor union officials use to brag about how they could "buy" votes and politicians. 200 million spent on John Kerry and we didn't even get a kiss! Union officials don't talk that way anymore. Big business has a lot more money to spend on politicians than organized labor. Corporations can buy lots of Washington political whores in both major parties.

And if corporate representatives in Congress should be "defeated" or retire, big business can make them lobbyists or find some other lucrative corporate job for them. They leave "public service" and join the "private sector"! How often have we seen both self-proclaimed liberal and not so liberal politicians do that? Almost all of them. So it's a "win win" situation for members of Congress who play ball with big business special interests. Just one term in Congress can lead to riches for those who vote "right".

How will PDA fight that when the union movement can't?

[Radical Activist]

13. Your comparison to the AFL-CIO is a poor one.

I think its a mischaracterization to say that AFL-CIO unions have been primarily concerned with moving the Democratic Party to the left. Many unions are more than happy to endorse conservative Democrats or Republicans if they represent the specific interests of their members. In Illinois the Illinois Education Association and several trade unions who have endorsed Republicans in the past come to mind.

Even more prevalent is the habit of picking a likely winner to ensure access once the candidate is elected, even if that presumed winner doesn't best represent their views. A good example is AFSCME and SEIU endorsing Dean when it appeared that he was going to win and backing out after Iowa as soon as things looked rough. This was done despite the fact that at least three other candidates for President had better records on labor issues than Dean.

The AFL-CIO's strategy doesn't operate like one that is committed to moving the Democratic Party to the left, so your comparison is weak and inaccurate. Why the AFL-CIO has failed to see much of its agenda enacted at the national level is a good question and makes for an interesting discussion, but its not one that applies to PDA.

PDA isn't designed to ensure access with policy makers for its members, like many AFL-CIO unions. It has a different purpose and approach. I think PDA's approach is much better suited to the goal of moving the Democratic Party to the left. Yes the organization is small now. It has been in existence for less than a year, but it is growing rapidly. Its an idea whose time has come.

If you believe a third party strategy is the way to go then I would ask you how the Greens expect to match and defeat the organization and resources of the Democratic and Republican Parties. Is there a single county in America where the Greens have a committeeman or precinct captain in every single precinct? Is that likely to happen in many states in the near future, besides California? If not, is the purpose of the Party to win election or lose while making a statement? The AFL-CIO has about 100 times more union members elected in America than there are elected Green Party officials, so its hard to see the Greens as a preferable alternative.

[Itsthetruth]

17. Let's Get Back To Reality And Practical Politics

"I think its a mischaracterization to say that AFL-CIO unions have been primarily concerned with moving the Democratic Party to the left. The AFL-CIO's strategy doesn't operate like one that is committed to moving the Democratic Party to the left, so your comparison is weak and inaccurate."

That's not what I wrote. I said: "And the AFL-CIO's efforts to move the Democratic Party in a liberal (not even left) direction on issues important to working people have been fruitless." Organized labor, without any notable success, has tried to transform the Democratic Party into a pro-labor organization.

You wrote: "Why the AFL-CIO has failed to see much of its agenda enacted at the national level is a good question and makes for an interesting discussion, but its not one that applies to PDA."

The AFL-CIO has failed to see "much" of its agenda enacted? That's a understatement if I've ever heard one. There really isn't much of a question of why workers and their unions have failed in this quest for support. It's not really a great mystery at all. The Democratic Party and many of its leaders are financed by the corporate interests that wish to weaken and eventually destroy organized labor. That has been explained by many representatives of the union movement.

I'm was surprised when you asserted that the union movements agenda does not apply to PDA. Yes it does. I'm sure that all members of PDA are pro-union and that the labor movement can count on the support of PDA in our fight to defend the jobs, working conditions and living standards of workers.

You wrote: "PDA isn't designed to ensure access with policy makers for its members, like many AFL-CIO unions."

AFL-CIO unions have always tried to influence the policies, platform and positions of both the Democratic Party and its candidates. With far more resources than PDA they haven't had much success lately. And unlike PDA, they also have access to leaders of the Democratic Party. PDA hopes to do better inside that Democratic Party "tent"?

You wrote: "If you believe a third party strategy is the way to go then I would ask you how the Greens expect to match and defeat the organization and resources of the Democratic and Republican Parties. If not, is the purpose of the Party to win election or lose while making a statement?"

I don't think any members of the Green Party expect it to evolve quickly or even slowly into a new major political party that can challenge the Republican and Democratic parties for political power. It seems many of their members and leaders want their party to plant the seeds that can lead to emergence of a such a party. They don't believe that transforming the Green Party into a modest discussion group inside the Democratic Party will help lay the groundwork for a future new mass political political party. How in the world could you convince anyone to join the Green Party and the need to organize a new mass political party if you're mainly building the Democratic Party? That's one hell of a contradiction. That would be like an unorganized worker telling co-workers to join an independent AFL-CIO union while they personally belonged to a company controlled union and tried to recruit to it!

I tend to agree with Green Party members who are skeptical about "taking over" the Democratic Party. Of course, if you're opposed to the formation of a viable new political party you wouldn't want to see their viewpoint prevail in the Green Party and you certainly wouldn't want to see a viable third party emerge.... would you?

I wish PDA and all other progressive Democrats well in their quest. However, I just find it hard to believe that their plan will succeed. Many organizations far bigger, with tons of money, huge resources and with many more talented people have been trying to accomplish that for years. How have they done?

[Radical Activist]

20. You ignored my point

that the comparison is poor because the tactics and goals of organized labor are different than that of PDA. Its not just a matter of what resources the AFL-CIO can bring to the table as compared to PDA. It does matter that their tactics and priorities are different. Unions exist primarily to support the interests of their members, not reform a political party. That isn't what they're there for, and some unions within the AFL-CIO have never been an active part of that kind of electoral agenda you describe. Some are even pursuing the strategy of supporting Republicans to hedge their bets. Its a misnomer to suggest the entire resources of organized labor have ever been used to fundamentally change the Democratic Party.

Is there any group specifically designed to foster a more progressive electoral movement within the Democratic Party like the PDA? It isn't organized labor. Its time to have an organization with that goal as its primary purpose. They don't even have to take over the entire Democratic Party. If PDA elects more real progressives to Congress than the Green Party would then the group is a success.

The fact that most PDA members support union issues equally has no bearing on the fact that PDA and AFL-CIO have different tactics and primary missions for how they organize. You're still comparing apples to oranges. Sure, the AFL-CIO has a much bigger crop of apples, but they still aren't oranges.

[Itsthetruth]

21. Thanks

I just read your response. Sorry I can't reply right now, I do have a life outside of this computer!

I'll try to respond tomorrow.

I appreciate your civil tone in this discussion. Some people prefer to engage in personal attacks and flaming wars rather than debate and discuss. I'm glad you're not one of those.

Nothing positive can be learned and real honest debates and discussions cannot happen when bitter personal attacks and name calling become part of that discussion. So thank you again!

I like your quote from Che.