Green debate

Tony Abdo gojack10 at hotmail.com
Sun Nov 16 01:00:28 MST 2003


Howie Hawkins is absolutely right.    No one will take the Green Party
seriously if it engages in a campaign only in states where the Democratic
Party candidates can't win.    But the opposite side is right, too.
Nobody will like the Greens if they become seen only as spoilers that help
put Republicans into office.

This is the spot between a rock and a hard place that the US two party
system puts political opposition into, especially where the political party
is exclusively an electorialist outfit like the Green Party really is.
It means that electorialism cannot function and gain political power via
solely concentrating on 'winning' at the polls.     A political grouping
must offer itself as being more than just a vote getter.    But have the
Greens done any of that, or do they even have any plans to go that way?

Traditionally, oppositional political parties must have a purpose beyond
just vote getting in such hostile terrain to have any hope of staying alive.
    They must base themselves as parties that represent labor unions, or
parties that represent races or nationalities.     Representing Mother Earth
is all nice and good, but it will not be enough to get past the 2 party
obstacle course.    Since the Green Party seems paralized into not becoming
a Labor Party based on unions, it really has not much of a future beyond
being a lobbying tool for some activists to try to push the Democratic Party
into a more liberal imagery.    And internationally, the Greens have never
presented themselves as a party representing Labor.

The real problem in the US continues to be the passivity of the working
class.    Some socialists would like to try to use the Green Party to
somehow slip past that, but the majority of the Greens are not prepared to
really become much more than an electorialist grouping.     There really is
no way forward other than revitalizing the idea of a party of Labor and the
ideas of building a militant Labor.   Not to say that this idea will ever
come forth from the AFL-CIO mainstream who shall undoubtably remain in bed
with the Democratic Party.

Maybe the Greens should try to get Al Sharpton to be their candidate?
After running an Arab-American and a Native American last time, maybe it's
time to run a Black American and a Labor union activist or Hispanic like
their current candidate for SF mayor.  The Green Party as a new modern
version of a Rainbow Coalition that would not have Jesse Jackson leading
people back into the DP might have some potential.    But another run with
Nader seems like a dead end.

A Green Rainbow, but wouldn't that be a trip?    That would be a cause
worthy of support, as long as the pot of gold at the end of  the rainbow
would not be regression towards the DP.    But Sharpton doesn't seem to be
any different than Jessie, and this is still another version of being mired
in electorialism.     A Green Rainbow exclusively constructed around
electioneering will be poorly received.

And the real dead end is a Green Party that is principally dedicated to
staying as an electoral combo, and not much else.     Socailists that want
to tail end foraging for dropoffs out of this are not going to grow much at
all.    The future really does not look all that bright for the Greens being
much more than a "Left" version of H Ross Perot's shenanigans with his now
defunct political party.    They lack the poltical will to participate in
much more than vote getting.    The real question for the Greens is not what
they will do for 2004, but what they will do for 2005?

Tony

Tony

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Messenger with backgrounds, emoticons and more.
http://www.msnmessenger-download.com/tracking/cdp_customize


~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.



More information about the Marxism mailing list