|
Got this via email from one of the truthout editors:
===
Just information for all to see on what is being discussed. John Rensenbrink was a driving force behind recruiting Nader in 92...he was the leader of the wing of the party that pushed to move into National elections. I think his precence on this list is a sign that that wing is softening for this election. Medea and Dee Barry are also very influential... scott
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 8:10 PM Subject: Statement on Green Strategy in 2004
Below is a statement being circulated by a number of
individuals active in the national Green Party of the
United States.
Statement on Green Strategy 2004 and Call for Dialogue
and Action
As we move closer to 2004, Greens are debating strategy.
Both from within and outside of the Green Party, there
is enormous pressure on us. Greens and non-Greens alike
are strongly opposed to the policies of the Bush
administration. But Greens do not agree whether
defeating George Bush, or at least not assisting in his
reelection, should be a factor in our strategy.
The signers of this letter definitely agree that the
Green Party needs to develop a strategy for next year's
presidential campaign. We have different ideas at this
point on what particular strategy is best, though we are
in full agreement that any strategy which is likely to
assist in the reelection of George Bush should be
avoided.
We are not signing this letter in support of the
Democratic Party, or of any of its candidates, though
some individual signers may be supporting one of those
candidates. We are not signing this letter because we
regret past Green election efforts.
We are signing this letter for several important
reasons.
First, the Bush administration has demonstrated a
determined will and ability to manipulate the people of
this country following the tragic events of September
11, 2001. They have done this to a degree worse than
other political parties could have done. They have
seriously undermined the democratic foundations of our
country, done immense harm to the ecosystem, and
alienated scores of nations, big and small, who were
once our friends.
Second, the beliefs and opinions of many people and
organizations who share our views and struggles for
justice and the environment are important to us. They
have pleaded that we take the defeat of Bush into
serious consideration. We cannot totally turn our backs
on their opinions solely because they have not chosen to
be active in the Green Party or join our electoral
campaigns.
Third, the corrupted election system in the United
States creates a dynamic that harms our interest in the
short and long term. It permitted the corporate party
candidate with fewer votes in 2000 to take over the
White House. While all Greens hold sacred the right to
participate in the democratic process -- what is left of
it in the United States -- the signers of this letter
believe that we neither can nor should ignore the gross
faults in the system which assist the greater evil in
elections. The harm that can come both to this country
and to the Green Party by ignoring the corrupted system
that is used to count votes cannot be ignored.
Lastly, the continued growth and strength of the Green
Party depends upon how we address this issue. Contrary
to what some claim, we believe that to ignore the vast
numbers of progressives, many of whom are independent of
any political party, bodes poorly for the future
vitality of the Green Party. There are no easy choices
for the Green Party in 2004, and the growth of any
political party requires that it listen to its natural
constituencies, including those who have not yet fully
joined.
The use of the term "lesser evil" or "greater evil" in
describing major party candidates is instructive. The
great majority of the members of the Democratic Party
power structure have repeatedly demonstrated that they
are not prepared, willing, or able to offer solutions to
most of the problems the United States faces. But that
party is, nonetheless, and in general, the lesser of
evils. Looking at the greater of evils which we also
face, we do not believe we can ignore this difference.
While it is small enough to demand the presence of an
alternative political party, it is not small enough to
completely ignore. The history of the failures and
harmful actions of many Democrats are not so relevant to
voters in 2004 -- the choices we face in this election
are.
As already noted, we do not all favor a single strategy,
and some of us strongly disagree with each other's
strategy at this point. The strategies we severally
favor range from not running at all, to running in ways
that will focus our campaign energies in certain states,
to calls to possibly drop out of the race near election
day if it is very close.
But we all agree that the Green Party should not ignore
the damage to the country and to the Green Party that
could result by ignoring the reality around us and
pretending that there is no difference or that the
difference is insignificant. The forthcoming issue of
Green Horizon Quarterly features four articles that
detail different strategies. Publication date is
November 21. Copies can be obtained by writing Green
Horizon Quarterly, P.O. Box 476, Topsham, Maine 04086.
Sometime after hard copy publication, they will also be
available on the web at .
We call for:
1. Candidates seeking the Green Party Presidential
nomination to describe the strategy they would follow.
2. The Green Party to debate all strategies with respect
-- and for the national Green Party to take a stance on
its preferred strategy. All state parties are encouraged
to hold special meetings to discuss and democratically
decide, using Instant Runoff Voting, which strategy they
prefer, followed by a similar decision-process from the
national party's Coordinating Committee. We are a
grassroots party and must make decisions of our
grassroots known and not leave a void for our candidates
to fill.
3. All Greens to declare their solidarity with our
brothers and sisters in progressive organizations across
the country in calling for the defeat of the
illegitimate Bush administration, while at the same time
demanding that the electoral system be reformed to
include Instant Runoff Voting, fair ballot access and
public financing.
Agreed to, in alphabetical order:
Medea Benjamin CA
Dee Berry, MO
Jenefer Ellingston, DC
Tom Fusco, ME
Holly Hart, IA
Ted Glick, NJ
Pat LaMarche, ME
Rick Lass, NM
Linda Martin, CA
Dean Myerson, DC
John Rensenbrink, ME
Anita Rios, OH
Steve Schmidt, FL
Tom Sevigny, CT
Charlene Spretnak, CA
Ron Stanchfield, NY
Penny Teal, CT
Rhoda Vanderhart, KS
|