22.09.2004

Stopping short

Phil Hamilton takes a look at the website of the Green Party of the USA

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.