home 
|
| contact
|
| action
|
| weekly worker
|
| european social forum
|
| theory
|
| resources
|
| what we
fight for
|
| programme
|
| join |
| search
|
| communist university
|
| links
|
| our history
|
Enjoy
the
Weekly Worker?
How about
showing us your appreciation? Producing the Weekly Worker costs a substantial
amount of money. Our only source for that financial backing comes from
people like you: readers and supporters of our newspaper. You may not
agree with the CPGB on every dot and comma, but we know that 1000s of
comrades appreciate our open, critical and democratic press
Send cheques, payable to CPGB, BCM Box 928,
London WC1N 3XX or donate online:
Weekly Worker 545 Thursday September 23 2004
Green Party USA - www.gp.org
Stopping short
If you relied on the mainstream media for coverage of the USA’s
presidential election, you could be given the false impression that this
contest is between the Democrats and Republicans, with the small sideshow
of the Ralph Nader campaign looking to pick up some ‘radical’
votes. Predictably this media spin is something of an oversimplification,
as a number of smaller groups are running for office, among whom are Nader’s
former partners in the Greens.
So why is Nader not running on the Green ticket this time around? A quick
search of their website turns up an ‘opinion’ article by Patrick
Barrett that looks at the current state of play. Beginning with a lament
over the way some Green activists have turned on each other over party
strategy, he goes on to outline the three criteria that should govern
progressives politics. First, he says, the necessity for democratic political
practice is linked to the radical outcomes which mobilisation “from
below” can entail. Second, the paucity of resources requires that
actions with strategic benefits are pursued, and thirdly an awareness
of the political opportunity structure confronting the Greens (ie, the
potential obstacles and opportunities that may present themselves) is
needed. Barrett uses these criteria to approach the Greens’ internal
debate over the elections, arguing that to support David Cobb, the duly
selected presidential nominee, over Nader was preferable to collapsing
into the ‘anyone but Bush’ camp.
According to Barrett, Nader did not wish to participate in the party’s
nominating procedures because he ran the risk of losing, and wished not
to be “restricted” by the Greens’ policies if he won: “This
amounted to a declaration of unaccountability” - a situation in which
he wanted the activist support the Greens can provide but without any
input into his campaign. What made matters worse was Nader’s selection
of Peter Miguel Camejo (a prominent Green) as his running mate, which
was interpreted as a heavy-handed attempt to influence party strategy.
Therefore it was entirely proper that the Greens did not capitulate to
Nader by selecting Cobb as their candidate. For Barrett, Cobb’s victory
affirms the first criteria of democratic politics, while Nader’s
independent campaign subsequently violates the latter two.
Internal wrangling aside, the site provides an interesting insight into
the corrupt and partial nature of bourgeois democracy. For example, despite
their mutual hostility, a prominently featured press release exposes how
the Democrats are happy to stitch up the electoral system between themselves
and the Republicans, while squeezing out third parties. Apparently Florida’s
Republicans forgot to register Bush as their candidate prior to the September
1 deadline, contravening state election law. But do not expect the Democrats
to make any hay of this; they were too busy in an unsuccessful attempt
to keep Nader off the ballot on similarly arcane technical issues. The
site goes on to show how Green candidates elsewhere have fallen foul of
bureaucratic gate-keeping.
But as an alternative to Kerry and Bush, what do the Greens have to offer?
Boldly stating, “the Green Party is the answer”, its pep talk
neatly describes itself as “the only party with a long-term vision
that will not succumb to short-term politics”, while positioning
itself as representative of those oppressed groups the Democrats no longer
pretend to have time for. The ‘About’ section’s platform
page is yet to put up the policies the party will campaign around, but
‘10 key values’ provides a rough indication of what to expect.
Broadly grouping them under democracy, social justice and environmentalism,
it tentatively suggests that something more than just green capitalism
is required to fully realise its politics.
For example, the Greens’ goals suggest centralised wealth and power
be replaced with cooperatives, enterprises that encourage democratic participation
and socially responsible, “independently owned” companies. This
decentralising move goes hand in hand with prioritising sustainable economics
before short-term profits. But like all Green parties it stops short of
taking this vision to its logical conclusion: that a consistently democratic
and environmentally sustainable political strategy must break with capitalism
for it to be realised.
To say the Greens are preferable to Kerry and Bush is stating the obvious,
and they also compare very favourably to the ‘radical’, ‘reclaim
the Democrats’ nonsense the Nader campaign is peddling. However,
the Greens will be competing for votes with groups of socialists standing
for independent working class politics in this election, and radicals
should think long and hard before supporting a party that cannot bring
itself to follow its politics through to their anti-capitalist conclusions.
Phil Hamilton
