[Northampton-GP] Green & Growing: 2004 in Perspective

[Jim Bosman]

Please see the letter below: (note - two of the authors or signers are the two Massachusetts representatives to the USGP, Vanessa and Gil)

Regards,

Jim

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

Greetings,

We submit this article - "Green & Growing: 2004 in Perspective" - to you 
for your consideration. This perspective piece represents generally the 
views and opinions of its many contributors, although there may be some 
minor differences on one point or another.

Although the authors of this article represent a cross-section of the 
U.S. Greens, the article itself has not gone through official party 
processes, and does not necessarily represent official party policy. If 
you wish to sign on to the article, please email brmanski at yahoo.com. Please 
do post this article to your listserves - we want people to read it!

Green & Growing,

Nancy Allen - ME
Sara Amir - CA
John Atkeison - DE
Heron Baker - ID
Vanessa Bliss - MA
J. Roy Cannon - DE
Ginny-Marie Case - CA
David Cobb - CA/TX
Katey Culver - TN
Morgen D'Arc - ME
Sarah Davidson - IA
Masada Disenhouse - NY
Tyler Endsley - MO
Regina Etheridge - GA
Greg Garrett - RI
Marnie Glickman - OR
Annie Goeke - DC
Charlie Green - CO
Holly Hart - IA
Craig Harvey - MI
Howie Hawkins - NY
Steve Herrick - MI
James Henderson - NY
Craig Hill - VT
Badili Jones - GA
Dan Kinney - PA
Brenda Konkel - WI
Martin Nolan - PA
Karin Lee Norton - CT
Karen Lienau - DE
Paul Loney - OR
Susan King - CA
Ben Manski - WI
Rachel Markowitz - MD
Scott McLarty - DC
Kevin McKeown - CA
Bill Meyers - CA
Carol Miller - NM
Robert Miranda - WI
Amy Mondloch - WI
Gray Newman - NC
Gil Obler - MA
Larry Orr - IA
Andy Parks - HI
John Peck - WI
Brent Perdue - TX
Mike Piacsek - DC
David Pollard - TX
George Plumb - VT
Nick Raleigh - MN
Marc Reichart - MI
Juscha Robinson - WI
Dante Salvatierra - NE
Brian Sandberg - MA
Tom Sevigny - CT
Jake Schneider - WI
Steve Shafarman - DC
Elizabeth Shanklin - NY
Jeff Sutter - IN
Ruth Trujillo - WI
Rich Wenzel - KS
Diane White - PA
Dawn Wolfe - MI
Tom Yager - VA
Bahram Zandi - MD

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


GREEN & GROWING: 2004 IN PERSPECTIVE

The 2004 election season begins in an era of crisis:

- In eight years, the Clinton-Gore administration succeeded in 
establishing the NAFTA, FTAA, and WTO: The regional and global foundations 
of a new corporate supremacy. The fallout from the new order: A global 
economic recession, rising unemployment, declining standards of living and 
of work, all told, a new race to the bottom.

- The end of the Cold War harkened the beginning of a spiraling 
cycle of U.S.-led bombings, invasions, and occupations, beginning with 
Panama, and continuing on through interventions in Iraq, Haiti, Somalia, 
Sudan, Yugoslavia, Columbia, Iraq, Afghanistan, the Philippines, and again, 
Iraq.

- Global warming and ecological destruction have become hallmarks 
of the late 20th century, worsening by the year, even while global 
institutions commit to weaker, not stronger, standards for the reduction of 
greenhouse gas emissions and the preservation of biodiversity.

In sum, the 2004 elections find the sole superpower at the center 
of a spiraling global crisis, fed in part by the actions, and sometimes 
inaction, of the establishment political parties. The moment demands 
leadership in the form of an opposition party. Tens of millions of people 
across the United States thirst for opposition to the downward spiral of our 
government and politics, and many hope for a reversal. On February 15th, 
2003, in demonstrations of millions, the people of the world demanded it.

The Green Party of the United States has an obligation to go much, 
much further. In 2004 the Greens must present an active electoral 
opposition to the establishment parties and the interests they serve. The 
Greens must develop a positive, forward-looking strategy that involves 
elections at the bottom, the middle, and top of the political ladder. We 
must address the current crisis with our candidates and our campaigns, and 
provide voters and non-voters alike with reason to believe that the Greens 
are here to stay, to grow, and ultimately, to transform American society for 
the better.


II - WHERE WE'VE BEEN

In assembling any strategy, some of the key questions that must be 
asked include: "Who and where are we?", "Where have we been?", "Where do we 
want to
go?", and finally, "How will we get there?" Among these questions, the 
question of "Where have we been?" is most often overlooked, and of 
particular importance to the Greens.

We often forget that the Greens are not a brand-new entry to 
American politics. To a great extent, the history of the Greens known to 
most party members is informed less by real events in our party's 
development, and more by the media's portrayal of the Greens. Despite what 
many pundits say, the Greens are not a new party, not created from above by 
any single person, and not a faction of the Democratic Party. Who are the 
Greens then? Where have we been?

(A) Early 1980s - Origins - Inspired by the rise of Green movements 
in Europe and Africa, U.S. peace, ecology, international solidarity, farm, 
feminist, and labor activists begin to discuss the formation of a new Green 
political movement in North America. U.S. Greens hope to bring the practice 
of the European Greens "anti-party party" movement politics to the U.S., and 
to plant it in the indigenous U.S. tradition of independent progressive 
party politics.

(B) 1980s-Early 1990s - Initial Growth - Green parties take root 
across the United States and Canada. Greens across the continent contribute 
significantly to anti-war, anti-nuke, and anti-biotech movements, and also 
make electoral gains in states like Wisconsin, Massachusetts, Maine, Alaska, 
and California.

(C) Early 1990s-1996 - Divergence - Significant political 
differences within the Greens lead to the divergence of Greens into various 
camps; as a result, party growth at the national level stagnates, while 
local and state parties continue to grow. At this time, two other major 
national progressive political parties are formed in the United States: The 
New Party and the Labor Party.

(D) 1996-2000 - National Renewal - Greens decide to adopt a New 
Mexico proposal to build 40-state presidential campaign. The 1996 
Nader/LaDuke campaign puts U.S. Greens on the national electoral map for the 
first time, rejuvenating dozens of local and state parties in the process. 
The following years witness a coming together of the vast majority of Greens 
under the principles articulated in an agreement called the "Boston 
Proposal" of 2000. Meanwhile, the New Party collapses following a 1997 
Supreme Court ruling (Timmons v. New Party) hostile to the practice of 
so-called "fusion politics," and Labor Party languishes due to its failure 
to engage in electoral politics. Finally, 2000 Nader/LaDuke Campaign 
receives almost 3 million votes, the best showing by a progressive party 
ticket since 1924, resulting in the growth of Green parties in 47 states and 
the District of Columbia.

(E) 2001-2003 - Rapid Growth - Greens build on the 2000 election by 
forming a new national party - the Green Party of the United States - out of 
the elements of the ASGP and the Boston Proposal. Although a few states 
suffer setbacks, most state parties grow quickly. Within two years, the 
number of state parties affiliated with the national party increases from 29 
to 41, and various caucuses begin to apply for and receive accreditation. 
Other increases include the number of candidates (287 to 552), elected 
officials (87 to over 180), party members (increased to over 300,000), and 
annual budget (roughly $30,000 to almost $1 million). These years are also 
marked by the emergence of the Global Greens Network and of regional Green 
networks on all 6 populated continents. Finally, the 2002 elections witness 
a major increase in votes for Green candidates, a near doubling of votes 
from under 3 million in 2000 to almost 6 million in 2002.


III - WHERE WE'RE GOING

(A) From Alternative to Opposition

The experience of the U.S. Greens is typical of a textbook shift in 
the rise of political parties; this is the shift from alternative to 
opposition politics. Where the Greens of the 1980s were intent on building 
a cultural and political alternative to the dominant political 
establishment, two decades later the Greens are becoming a movement capable 
of offering not only alternatives, but also active opposition to the 
establishment.

To say that such a shift is "textbook" is not to say that it is 
common; recently the New and Labor parties have failed to make the shift 
from alternative to opposition. In fact, relatively few national political 
parties in the history of the United States have made such a transition 
(namely the Republican, People's, Socialist, Progressive, Communist, and 
American Independent parties). Today, the Green Party is entering a period 
of political opposition, in which one of our roles is to confront and oppose 
the deadly policies enacted by the establishment parties, as well as to 
oppose the establishment parties themselves. In this era of global 
corporate consolidation and control, the Green Party has a duty to embrace 
its role as an electoral opposition force both for democracy and against the 
practices of the two captured corporate parties.

(B) Towards Transformation

The long view of a political party's growth sees not only a 
textbook transition from the posing of a political "alternative" to the 
confrontation of the establishment with active political "opposition." This 
view sees also, finally, a shift from "opposition" to "transformation." 
Because the Greens take our purpose seriously, we cannot be satisfied with 
posing alternatives, or with the offering of opposition, but we must in the 
long run be working toward the democratic transformation of U.S. politics, 
culture, economics, ecology, and international relations. This means that 
Greens need to be thinking about, and preparing for, a shift in our party's 
role as well. The Greens will remain the anti-party party, refusing 
co-optation of all kinds, and yet the Greens must also commit to the end of 
actually succeeding in our work.

(C) Government Power

In a growing number of communities, Greens in elective office, 
together with local Green parties, now have the ability to use the power of 
local government to enact the policy proposals long offered only as 
alternatives. In these Green localities, our movement is already at the 
cusp of the transition from opposition to transformation. As Greens win 
more local and state offices across the United States, the task will be to 
use them effectively to further the goals of the overall movement.

Elected Greens have taken a lead in implementing expanded living 
wage and tenant rights ordinances, in democratizing municipal government, 
instituting Instant Runoff Voting, and in establishing public ownership of 
utilities. Greens holding office have also learned how to use local 
governments as instruments of resistance to authoritarian policies enacted 
by the federal government (for example, the PATRIOT Act, corporate 
personhood, biotechnology, military recruiters, etc). Recent progressive 
movements in the U.S.A. possess limited experience with the effective use of 
government power as an instrument of democracy. As Greens win more 
elections at the local, state, and eventually, national levels, we will need 
to learn how to make the most of our electoral successes. We will need to 
learn how to use local government power as an instrument for building the 
democracy movement.

(D) Resistance

As an electoral force, the Greens have the ability to provide the 
larger democracy movement with the use of a "no" vote at the ballot box. In 
those races where Greens are not yet winning elections, we can still affect 
them. That such votes would be characterized as protest votes is 
unsurprising, for they are. That protest votes are often denigrated in the 
U.S., even by those who applaud the traditions of electoral resistance in 
other counties (Brazil, Mexico, and Argentina, for example), only speaks to 
the weakness of much of the establishment U.S. Left. At the same time, the 
3,000,000 votes cast on behalf of Nader and LaDuke in 2000 represented a 
significant act of "ballot-box solidarity" against the economic policies of 
Bush-Gore. These were votes against neo-liberalism and neo-conservatism 
both.

Protest votes, like protest in general, should not be 
indiscriminate. Votes of resistance should be voiced first and foremost in 
the most critical races against the most responsible members of the 
political establishment. For example, in the 2002 congressional elections, 
Greens nationally named 10 incumbents responsible for tipping the balance on 
corporate trade proposals such as China-MFN status, the FTAA, and GATT, and 
Greens were recruited to run against them; the majority of the incumbents so 
named switched their votes in the course of the 2002 campaign and voted 
against Fast Track.

(E) Global Politics

The Greens are a global network of political parties. As such, the 
Greens are an almost unique movement in world history. Commitment to the 
common pillar values of non-violence, social justice, ecology, and 
grassroots democracy among Greens is near universal on six continents and in 
over ninety countries. Participation of Greens in continental Green Party 
federations and a new Global Greens Coordination has proved especially 
meaningful in this era of global corporatization and war. Global Green 
solidarity against the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan kept many nations 
out of those wars, and contributed to changes of government in such 
countries as Brazil, Scotland, Kenya, and Lithuania. The success, 
therefore, of the Green Party of the United States here in what the world 
views to be the "belly of the beast", is of keen interest to tens of 
millions of Greens around the world. The obligations of U.S. Greens are 
importantly not duties to ourselves alone.


IV - THE MEANING OF LEADERSHIP IN 2004

The 2004 elections begin at a moment of profound global crisis. 
War, global warming, poverty, and corporatization are all common elements of 
what is at its source a crisis of democracy. Corporations rule the world, 
and an anti-democratic elite rule the corporations. Until the crisis of 
democracy is resolved, the many problems of the world cannot be.

In the United States of America, the crisis of democracy is 
especially sharp. The crisis is evidenced by the unparalleled power of 
corporations, the unequaled wealth of a tiny minority, a massive and 
faceless political bureaucracy, and the monopolization of political office 
by men, whites, older people, heterosexuals, and especially the super rich, 
to the exclusion of women, people of color, youth, LGBT people, and the 
working majority.

Part of the problem is, and has long been, the corporate capture, 
control, and subsequent elevation of the two major parties. As agents of 
the state, the establishment parties receive hundreds of millions of dollars 
yearly in federal and state subsidies. As private corporations, the central 
committees of the two establishment parties exercise broad Supreme 
Court-sanctioned rights to control the primaries, control the debates, bar 
"fusion" candidacies, harvest corporate contributions, invest heavily in 
elections, and control local and state parties affiliated with them. The 
establishment parties themselves pose as great an obstacle to democracy as 
the major corporations that finance them.

The Green Party stands against the establishment parties. Given 
the historic advantages of the establishment against all independent 
challengers, the relative success of the Greens is exceptional. Where other 
third party efforts have risen and sunk, the Greens row on. To succeed 
further in 2004, it is necessary to both understand and embrace the evident 
exceptionalism of the Greens.

Why the Greens? Why not the New Party? Why not, to date, the 
Labor Party? Or the Socialists? Why the Greens? Short answer: Because the 
Greens chose early on to do what political parties do - walk the electoral 
road. Dig deeper; why the Greens? Because the Greens spent decades 
building the party from the bottom up; national party leaders could not 
dictate a non-confrontational electoral strategy if they tried. Digging 
deeper still, why? Because the Greens recognize the current crisis for what 
it is; they will not accept crumbs, or even half a loaf, they know the world 
needs the whole loaf to live. Why? Because the Greens recognize that 
political parties should not be the exclusive domain of elites, but instead 
must become genuine community organizations made up of one's friends, 
neighbors and coworkers; thus, the dual nature of the Greens 
(movement/party). In sum, the Greens are exceptional among the independent 
progressive parties because they are committed to running and winning 
elections, rooted in grassroots organization and democratic culture, and 
because, in the current global crisis, the Green agenda is an idea whose 
time has come.

The challenge is exceptionally hard, yet the Greens are an 
exceptional party. This contrast reveals two facets of Green organizing in 
2004. The Greens must become an even more vibrant challenger of the 
political establishment. The Greens must also be realistic in our approach 
to creating a successful electoral strategy.

What factors should Greens consider in making realistic decisions 
about elections? The Green Party of the U.S. has established an elected 
committee to deal in part with exactly that question. The Green Party 
Coordinated Campaign Committee (GPCCC) weighs eleven general factors in the 
evaluation of potential campaigns.

These include:


i) Securing and maintaining state ballot lines.
ii) Existing on-the-ground support for candidate.
iii) Likelihood of winning.
iv) Racial inclusion, diversity, and gender balance.
v) Four Pillars and 10 Key Values of the Green Party.
vi) Potential for Green Party growth in targeted area.
vii) Past electoral success in targeted area.
viii) Likelihood of gaining legislative majority or of securing an 
executive office.
ix) Districts/States where incumbent is unopposed or only one other 
candidate has announced for office.
x) Districts/States where Green candidates are likely to run at least 
second.
xi) Districts/States where all other likely candidates are highly 
objectionable.


Considerations of these factors, not necessarily in the order 
listed above, form the backbone of the GPCCC's Campaign Resource Programs. 
(For a full description of the GPCCC, go to 
http://www.gp.org/committees/campaign/index.html).

And what of the 2004 elections? What are realistic, yet 
meaningful, goals for the Greens in 2004? We suggest the following:

(A) In congressional races, our goal should be one of steady 
improvement. In 2002 we ran 72 congressional candidates; our best showing 
was 24%. This time we can do better. We should run 100 candidates in 
targeted races. We should especially choose to run in races where the 
incumbent would otherwise be unopposed, or where the Green candidate is 
likely to place at least second; our goal with these races is to increase 
the percentage and number of voters who vote Green, and thereby increase the 
overall sense of identification with the Green Party. We should also run in 
any race that a Green candidate has a realistic chance of winning; these 
races would deserve substantial national assistance. We should choose to 
run in races, furthermore, where all of the other likely candidates, 
especially the incumbents, are really objectionable; these races would 
constitute the 'protest' races for the Greens, and should be tied to 
specific issues where the other candidates are out of step with their 
constituencies.

(B) In the presidential race, our goal should be to hold our own as 
the nation's opposition party. The presidential race is vital for the 
Greens. It's the race which deals directly with national policy, and which 
defines for the voters the Greens as a real party with a distinct policy 
agenda. In those states where the Greens are currently less developed, 
roughly half the country, this will be the only race of note; weaker Green 
parties rely on the presidential race to gain ballot access, establish the 
party identity, and to seed Green locals in new regions of the state. The 
presidential race is also essential to the growth of new skills and new 
leadership within the party.

The presidential race is also vital for the country. A strong 
Green presidential ticket will provide voters with the means to confront the 
establishment parties for their disastrous economic, international, 
ecological, and social policies. A strong Green ticket will force the 
establishment to address the failures of the electoral system, and to choose 
between the implementation of reforms such as Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), 
and the continued loss of votes to the Greens. A strong Green ticket will 
bring non-voters into the arena of electoral politics, and thus strengthen 
the overall movement for democracy in the United States.

What would a strong Green ticket in 2004 look like? How would we 
measure it? In some regards, holding our own in the presidential elections 
would represent a significant victory. No one expects the Greens to break 
out in this race. Given the history of third parties in the U.S., the 
Greens are not even supposed to exist anymore. Thus, to capture several 
million votes, as we did last time, would be a major victory in itself.

Expectations regarding the 2004 presidential race will really 
depend in large part on what happens in the Democratic primaries. Should 
the Democratic Party nominate a Lieberman, Edwards, Kerry, or Graham, as 
seems likely, the Greens can expect to do very well, indeed, to improve on 
our 2000 showing. Should the Democrats choose a Kucinich or a Sharpton, no 
one will be surprised to see Green votes dwindle significantly. If Dean, 
Moseley-Braun, or Gephardt are the nominees the impact on the Green vote 
will likely be middling.

We believe that the Democratic primaries are most likely to produce 
a Lieberman Democrat, not a Wellstone Democrat. We think it essential to 
build a vigorous presidential campaign now, so that in that likelihood, 
there is a Green opposition ticket in full bloom next Spring.

(C) In local and state races we see several achievable goals for 
2004. The Green Party is currently represented by Rep. John Eder in the 
State of Maine and by Rep. Matt Ahearn in the state of New Jersey. The 
Green Party nationally should seek to at least double their number, which 
would mean we would hold four or more seats in state legislatures after 
election day next year.

In local offices, the Greens are nearing a point of national 
effectiveness. In a growing number of communities, Greens are in the 
position of not only offering policy, but of setting the policy agenda. 
Today, 175 Greens hold elected office. In 2004 Greens should work to far 
exceed the 200-seat threshold, bringing new activists into elective office, 
and enabling for the first time the creation of a working national alliance 
of Green municipalities.


V - GETTING TO WORK

The Greens have come far and have a long distance yet to go. The 
2004 elections pose important challenges along the way. The work of the 
Greens for 2004 is already well begun, and yet the hands and voices of many 
more will be needed to complete it.

A - Vigorous primaries - The Greens have a nominations process. As 
with other parties, the work of determining who the Green Party presidential 
team will be is a matter for a national convention made up of delegates from 
state parties. Each state will determine, by convention, caucus, or 
primary, depending on state law and state party rules, which candidates 
their delegates must vote for at the national convention.

We call upon Greens everywhere to engage wholeheartedly in the 
nomination process. May the best candidates receive the nomination. Those 
who support Ralph Nader should work to get the state delegates behind him. 
Those who support Cynthia McKinney should work to gain delegate votes for 
her. So too with the backers of David Cobb, Paul Glover, and, potentially, 
of candidates who have not yet expressed an interest in the nomination. So 
too also, although we may disagree with them on their objective, those who 
back NOTA (None ofthe Above) should campaign actively for their choice. The 
members of the Green Party have created a nominations process; it is up to 
all of us as members to use it. A vigorous presidential primary can and 
should produce a strong Green team in 2004, equipped with a full campaign 
staff, a strong campaign-party relationship, oriented toward working with 
down-ticket candidates, ready to energize the alienated non-voting majority 
in a new insurgent campaign.

B - Ballot Drives & Registration Drives - The Green Party of the 
United States has established a Ballot Access Working Group (BAWG). 
Already, this group is working with Greens in tough ballot access states 
like Kansas, North Carolina, Texas, Indiana, Illinois, Ohio, the Dakotas, 
and Georgia to kickstart their ballot drives. These states, and a 
half-dozen others, will need outside Green support. Greens living in 
ballot-qualified states should start thinking about taking a vacation to 
help less-fortunate Greens who live in tough states that allow "outside" 
petitioners to collect signatures.

C - Congressional, State, & Local Races - Local and state Green 
Parties need to be actively engaged in the recruitment of talented, 
attractive, diverse teams of candidates to run for congressional, state, and 
local offices in targeted races next year. The Greens need to tirelessly 
work to increase the quality, quantity, and diversity of our elections 
campaigns. Greens who have not started to actively recruit candidates, both 
from within and without the current ranks of the party, need to get going 
now.

E - National Support - Several working committees of the Green Party 
of the United States are dedicated to assisting our candidates at all 
levels. The Coordinated Campaign Committee is preparing regional campaign 
schools throughout the country, and is about to embark on a matching-fund 
program for campaign staff in targeted races, among other projects. The 
Diversity Committee is doing outreach and inreach in challenging the Greens 
to grow more inclusive, and in challenging broader communities to examine 
the Greens. The Platform Committee is hard at work soliciting proposals for 
amendments to the 2004 party platform. The Presidential Exploratory 
Committee is communicating with potential presidential nominees, insuring 
that they have the information they need to effectively seek the party's 
nomination. A Green Network of Officeholders is also in the works, 
committed to providing Green Party elected officials with policy support, 
and to highlighting their successes as examples of what Green government can 
look like.

F - Media and Message - There is a real need for party members 
everywhere to contribute toward the development of a strong, positive, 
future-focused campaign message. The party platform will to some extent 
convey this message to those voters who read it. But the majority of those 
we hope to reach will likely never read our party platform. Green 
candidates, activists, and spokespeople need to work together to develop a 
simple, clear, agenda for the United States that is distinctly Green, 
appealing, bold. The major national campaign themes in 2004 need not be 
comprehensive of all Green concerns, but they need to address and offer 
specific solutions to the fundamental crises our country is experiencing. 
We hope that existing Green bodies, such as the national Coordinated 
Campaign Committee, Platform Committee, and Media Committee will work with 
Green Party and Campus Greens members across the country to create such 
campaign themes.


VI - CONCLUSION

The Greens are entering their third decade in the United States, 
and yet the Greens' race is just begun. We believe that the 2004 elections 
pose a great challenge for the Green Party, and we urge Greens everywhere to 
rise to meet the opportunity. The world community is demanding the rise of 
an opposition voice within the United States, and Americans deserve one. 
The information is all at your fingertips. Please visit www.GP.org and join 
us.




---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.green-rainbow.org/pipermail/northampton-greens-discuss/attachments/20030605/ff6000c3/attachment.htm