[statecom-discuss] (no subject)

[jamie mclaughlin]

forward piece from national "discussion":



The Crisis in the Green Party
The Magic Number 39 and My Meetings with Cobb,
Kucinich and the Steering Committee

By PETER CAMEJO

Many Green members want to know when the infighting is
going to end. When will people recognize there is
nothing wrong when Greens have differences? Why can't
we respect each other and figure out how to work
together? This sentiment is wide spread in the Green
Party, especially since many members do not have a
hard opinion about some of the differences within the
party. They are still listening to both points of
view. They want peace, understanding, tolerance and
unity in action where there is agreement.

Most Greens are not involved in the day by day or even
month by month debate that is now under way in the
Green Party. Over time however the issues being raised
will reach all Greens and they will express their
views in a variety of ways. We must all be patient and
understand that it is normal for there to be
differences and that our internal debates are
themselves part of building a party that can be
effective in its opposition to the two party
dictatorship. We must learn to allow the differing
points of view the freedom to try and convince all of
us through example that what they propose will really
work. In that way we generate respect between Greens
who differ.

It was precisely in that spirit that I proposed a
unified approach at the Milwaukee convention. I
proposed we accept that there is a sharp difference in
the party, recognize both currents, show respect for
each other by endorsing Cobb and Nader, then let
Greens in each state use their ballot line in the way
they thought best. But that vision was rejected by the
Cobb supporters at the convention.

When I speak of Cobb supporters I mean precisely those
who are in the leadership of that current. Many of the
Greens who voted for or supported Cobb are not in
agreement with many of the views being projected by
what I call the "Lesser Evil" current. I define that
current based on the statement by 18 Green leader
supporters of Cobb that refer to themselves as
supporters of voting for the Lesser Evil (their word).

They wanted to "win", to defeat Nader. Looking back we
can now see clearly that after being crushed in the
primaries (they received 12%) and in most state
conventions, the Cobb supporters could not win unless
they stacked the convention. By stacking I mean
something quite simple. Regardless of the vote in a
state convention or primary the Lesser Evil current
set out to get as many of their supporters to become
delegates. An example would be if in a State Cobb got
26% of the vote instead of only 26% of the delegates
from among those who voted for Cobb going to the
convention and 74% of those who voted for another
candidate going the majority of delegates going to the
convention were Greens who voted for Cobb. To do this
is not only anti-democratic it is a conscious effort
to over turn the will of the membership.

By doing this "packing" they refused to accept the
wishes of the membership. This fact more than anything
else is what threatens the Green Party today. If
democracy is not respected within the Green Party then
what exactly is the Party? Internal democracy is not a
negotiable issue. When the membership votes, its
collective will must be respected and recognized.

I thought after the election maybe the Cobb supporters
would step back, take a deep breath and reconsider
their approach within the Green Party. I hoped that
some of them might have some remorse over what they
had done. I reached out to David Cobb even before the
election was over in an attempt to find common ground
and see if we could get the party working together.
After the elections I called David three times but
received no reply. Months went by until one day Matt
Gonzalez called me to say he was having David over for
dinner and would I like to be there. I changed my
schedule cut short a visit and flew in from Chicago
for this opportunity to meet with David. A little
further on I will explain what happened at that
meeting.


THE 2004 ELECTIONS

I think all Greens recognize that something rather
peculiar has happened in our history. The formal Green
Party vote for President dropped 95% in 2004 as
compared to 2000, quite unusual even for a third
party. We came in sixth not third like in 2000. We
also lost ballot status in seven states and are now
down to 15 (Ballot Access News). In many states the
party has declined. Two important exceptions stand out
at least partially, California and New York. In both
states our large registration has held or increased
(NY went from 36,000 to 41,000 and California remains
above 150,000). In California we hit a new record of
elected officials. Nationwide our total number of
elected officials also increased. So while we have
declined in some areas in others we have held our own
or increased.

The pro-Cobb leadership needs to recognize reality and
note that most Greens who did not vote corporate voted
for Nader overwhelmingly. Most Greens who actually
participated actively for Cobb or Nader were
overwhelmingly involved pro Nader. Nader was only on
the ballot in states with half the population of the
country, and nonetheless he received almost 500,000
votes. If you assume in the other states his vote
would have been just half of that, Nader would have
received some 750,000 votes in spite of the massive
ABB campaign. If you calculate Cobb's vote and also
project what he might have gotten being on the ballot
in all states, you end up with a combined total of
both Nader and Cobb of close to 1 million people who
refused to vote for either pro-corporate party.

Amazingly, the ratio between Nader and Cobb's vote
followed pretty closely the ratios in the Green
primaries and state conventions: about 6 votes for
Nader to 1 for Cobb.

With the one exception of the year 2000, this is the
largest progressive vote for President in more than 50
years (according to Richard Winger, editor of Ballot
Access News). So rather than draw pessimistic
conclusions, let's recognize that the Green Party is
still here. In great part, this is due to Nader's
courageous stand against the two corporate parties. It
is clear that a large number of people accept being
outside of the corporate-controlled parties.

It is imperative that we look towards organizing and
unifying these forces in a growing independent
political movement. And from there we reach out to the
broad layers of millions of people betrayed by the two
parties. We need to reach out to those who either do
not vote at all or vote Democrat because they are
political prisoners in the two party dictatorship that
we live under.


CRISES GROWING IN THE GREEN PARTY

Unfortunately, the current that has organized behind
Cobb's campaign after the elections is moving in
another direction. It has become quite clear to me
that they have shown little interest in trying to
reach out to the majority current in the Green Party
or the hundreds of thousands who voted for Nader.
Instead, they have become quite attracted to the
Democratic Party 's latest "progressive" wing, the
Progressive Democrats of America (PDA). They seem to
feel threatened by the existence of a militant
pro-independence current in the Green Party.

Instead of seeing the danger of co-option by Democrats
John Rensenbrink recently warned of the danger of the
infiltration of socialists into the Green Party. This
red baiting approach is another way to say the left in
the Green Party is the problem and we need to get them
out. To Rensenbrink, calling for a vote for Kerry is
not the problem, the problem is those "socialists"
that won't vote Kerry. Of course he never mentions
that both the Communist Party and many of the
Democratic Socialist of America members were solid
backers of Kerry. For those socialists to be in the
Green Party, I guess, might be okay with Rensenbrink.
His problems are with other "socialists" like the ISO
that refuse to vote pro-war, and are helping to build
the Green Party.

Since the Nader/LaDuke campaign of 2000, the ISO has
worked alongside the Green Party in electoral
campaigns (endorsing our candidates, walking
precincts, organizing campaign meetings, etc.) and
many members of the ISO are registered Greens. The ISO
also works in various places with Green Party members
in non-electoral coalitions against the war, for
immigrant rights, against the death penalty, etc.
Other socialist groups, like Solidarity, have had
members helping to build the Green Party since its
founding. In New York we ran a leader of the Socialist
Party for Senate.

The facts are exactly the opposite of what Rensenbrink
states. It is a hopeful sign for the Green Party that
many of the ISO members and Solidarity are helping the
Green Party. The ISO has developed a large following,
especially among young people. The Green Party is not
socialist or capitalist, it welcomes all who are
willing to stand by the ten key values and respect
internal democracy. The danger to the Green Party is
from the Democratic Party, from pro corporate forces,
not from people supportive of our party.


THE ISSUE OF CONTROL

In their desire to cozy up to the "new" Progressive
Democrats of America (PDA), the Lesser Evil current
wants to keep their control of the Green Party. They
feel they must stop the membership from being able to
alter the present minority control. The fact is the
PDA is watching to see if the Lesser Evil wing of the
Greens can keep their minority control and help
deliver the Greens towards a fusion strategy with the
Democrats.

That is why we are now seeing the first signs of Cobb
supporters openly speaking out against one Green one
vote. They are trying to sow confusion over the issue.
They try to claim our call for democracy is somehow
hostility to smaller Green Party states. They accuse
California of wanting to "take over". The truth is the
exact opposite. Everything we achieve in California we
hope will help build the smaller Green Party units. We
respect, admire and want to help those states.
Rejecting democracy and trying to create a
non-existent inter-state conflict is not a way to help
the smaller states.


DINNER WITH COBB

I sat next to David at a dinner attended by about ten
Greens. He asked me to help raise money for the
national party. I said sure, as soon as we vote in
democracy: one Green one vote. I proposed that we join
together and help raise money for the California Party
where we have democracy, where the membership votes
for each county council, where one Green one vote is a
reality. Cobb agreed to help California.

I asked him to meet with me so we could try to figure
out how to reach a consensus on the issues dividing
the party, to find common ground so we could work
together. He said that he couldn't because he's too
busy. Specifically, he mentioned that he has to go to
Europe.

Cobb did not seem to recognize that there is a serious
issue over democracy in the Party. I guess he thinks
the present system is okay. But David and all the
Lesser Evil Greens should recognize that large numbers
of Greens believe, as I do, that a minority has taken
over the leadership of our Party. This happened
primarily because of the extreme disfranchisement of
Greens where we have a large following, but also
because the membership's vote was not respected when
delegates were chosen (or self-appointed) at the last
national convention.

David did tell me he was quite excited about PDA and
that he wants them to endorse Greens. I did not have a
chance to talk to him about how we should approach the
PDA. In any case my door remains open. It would be
quite useful for the two us who both ran for office in
2004 representing the two different currents in the
Green Party to get together discuss these issues and
find common ground.


GREEN INSTITUTE AND LESSER EVIL

For Greens who want to build an alternative party to
the two corporate controlled parties it is important
to understand the evolution which is now happening in
the Green Party. Our party is not immune from what is
happening in our nation. Politics are now moving to
the right. This is clear within the Democratic Party.
This shift is obvious around the issue of the rights
of women where the Democrats are back pedaling and
their support for Bush on the illegal occupation of
Iraq. This rightward shift within the nation acts as a
magnet on everyone.

Within the Green Party those who thought we should
consider supporting Democrats, that is develop what
has been traditionally called a fusion strategy have
begun to become more open about their views. Greens in
some states have started withdrawing candidates when
the Democrats ask us to do so.

There has been a more conservative current in the
Green Party for some time. I have slowly become aware
of this as I watched the role of the Green Institute a
grouping of Greens organized as a not for profit
"Think Tank". Recently Greens have been hearing about
some large donations going to the Green Institute.

When the Green Institute was set up, its purpose
appeared vague but gave the impression it was an
organization reflecting the Green Party. It had a
large list of well-known Green Party members as its
supporters. However, as Green Party members began to
have differences over whether to support Cobb or
Nader, 100% of the Green Institute was pro-Cobb and in
favor of voting Democrat.

It was Green Institute Director Dean Myerson who wrote
the statement, signed by 18 leading GP members, laying
out most clearly the "Lesser Evil" position. Taking
these facts into account, it becomes clear that the
Green Institute was set up to help organize the Lesser
Evil or "right wing" of our party.

The power of money controls our society and its
influence reaches everywhere. We Greens who favor
democracy and independence must assume that the Lesser
Evil current inside the Green Party will always have
more funds than we will. That is always the case in
struggles like the one we are now in. Why this is
simple. Which wing in this debate do you think the
Democrats want to see prevail?

The Green Institute was created to attract money to
assist the right wing of the Green Party. What has
been circulating on the web is that they received a
donation from a German "Green" foundation that has
worked with the Democratic Party's DLC Progressive
Policy Institute and has pro-corporate views. Recently
they received 250,000 dollars from an individual.

It would be appropriate for the Green Institute to
reveal to the Green Party membership where its funding
is coming from and how it has spent it. We would in
particular like to know if any of their funds were
used to help get delegates to our convention in
Milwaukee. I was always struck by Dean Myerson's note
in an email where he asked why Nader had not funded
delegates in favor of his position to go to the
convention. Rather odd question to ask. Because the
answer is obvious, Nader has tried to respect the
Green Party. The obvious corollary is why did Dean
make such an odd comment? Did the pro-Cobb people
engage in some kind of funding the membership does not
know about? Our convention is not supposed to be a
contest over who will fund delegates.


THE LESSER EVIL CURRENT IS SMALL

The pro-Cobb current became fully aware of how small
they really are as David campaigned. But they also saw
that they could control the Green Party by pushing
their people forward to fill positions in the Green
Party. In most cases who ever volunteers is simply
given the position.

Throughout the Cobb/LaMarche campaign, the
votecobb.org web site avoided mentioning how many
people attended or even sometimes whether there
actually were campaign meetings. Most of the campaign
was really an organizing effort for the Lesser Evil
current within the Green Party. As far as we know,
Cobb' s campaign meetings were miniscule. Cobb's big
launch in California managed to draw only 25 or so
people even though the Bay Area has over 40,000
registered Greens. That compares with about 1,000
mostly Greens at Nader's Bay Area opening rally.

The Cobb current wants control. They are prepared to
maintain control by a small minority and to refuse to
allow democracy in the Green Party. I say this because
no leading Cobb supporter (for instance none of the 18
who signed the pro Lesser Evil statement) has up to
now stated they accept that leadership bodies and the
nomination of our presidential slate must reflect the
will of the membership by establishing a system based
on one Green one vote.



KEEPING THE MEMBERSHIP IN THE DARK

Traditionally, part of what right wings do to keep
control is to prevent information from reaching the
membership of the group they are a part of. For
instance when the primaries and state conventions were
being held in preparation for our convention in 2004,
the Green Party national website avoided printing how
many Greens attended conventions or participated in
caucuses or how many voted in our primaries and for
whom. They only listed the number of delegates
allocated to candidates.

If they had listed the actual votes in the primaries
and the size of the State conventions it would have
been so transparently clear that Cobb had lost
overwhelmingly inside the Green Party. Do you think
for one second if Cobb had done well in the primaries
those figures would not have appeared as headlines in
the Green Party web site? After being crushed in three
primaries where thousands of Greens voted in
California, New Mexico, and Massachusetts, the
pro-Cobb Greens did not want the membership to see
those figures. They still do not exist on our national
web site.

Now through the effort of Greens for Democracy and
Independence (GDI) we have started to discover what
each state party's membership is. That is what these
states themselves say they have. Do you think for one
second the Green Party's national web site will show
the membership what those figures are? In the future
that should become a standard list adjusted once every
four years for anyone to see.


MY MEETING WITH THE STEERING COMMITTEE (SC)

I was invited to go to Washington DC and meet with the
Steering Committee during the 2004 campaign. I agreed
to do that. At that meeting, an interesting exchange
took place when I mentioned that it was wrong to hide
the results of our primaries or to not report how many
Greens attended each state convention. Brent McMillan
who has worked hard to provide a lot of the
information available, protested thinking it had been
posted.

Not being the world's best computer person I figured I
was wrong and apologized. I assumed I just didn't know
where to look. When I got home I searched where Brent
had told me to go and emailed him asking for further
help since I could not find the figures. Finally Brent
realized himself that in fact the votes at never been
posted.


UTAH

The main question of interest, at least for some of
the SC members was what I had said in Utah to the Utah
Greens. In Utah the Green Party had a rule that they
had to reach a pretty high level of consensus before
decisions could be made. Some of the members had asked
Cobb to come to Utah for a meeting and others asked
that I also be invited so both points of view could be
heard. David was unable to make the meeting so it
turned out I was there alone to speak to a meeting of
about 15 or so Greens. Some time after my meeting in
Utah the Utah Greens could not reach a consensus on
what to do regarding whether they would place Nader or
Cobb on their ballot and decided not to place either.
All three of the delegates sent by the Utah Party to
Milwaukee had returned saying they were quite upset by
what they saw.

Immediately the Cobb current went to work and split
the Green Party. There were two Greens in charge of
the treasury, one a Nader supporter the other a Cobb
supporter. The Cobb supporter went to the bank and
cleaned out the $3,000 or so dollars the Green Party
had in Utah. This is usually referred to as a robbery.
They proceeded to hold an emergency conference by
phone where only certain Greens were invited and
declared other Greens expelled. They proceeded to
"elect" a new leadership so that it would be 100%
pro-Cobb and then went into court declaring the Cobb
current the Green Party. The lower courts ruled
against them. They appealed using the funds they had
taken from the Green Party all the way to the State
Supreme Court but they all ruled against them.

Because I attended a meeting in Utah, some of the
Steering Committee members seemed to want to find a
way to blame me for the split. I oppose the split.

Now the committee in charge of accrediting states
within the Green Party, under the guidance of Steering
Committee member Jody Haug, has declared the Cobb
split the legitimate and official Green Party of Utah.
Neither the SC nor the CC has approved that decision
yet to my knowledge. Nor has there been any effort by
the national leadership to reunify the Greens or even
to have a non-partisan investigation. Utah is the
first case where such a split has taken place and
where Greens were "expelled" for supporting Nader.

The "expelled" Greens and many other Greens in Utah
who supported Nader waited to see if the Green Party
Steering Committee would stop this split. They
informed me that in their opinion Dean Myerson and
Holly Hart were orchestrating the split, and that in
fact the national leadership supported splitting the
Utah party in two. Utah Green candidates withdrew
their candidacy in protest against the pro-Cobb coup.
But those who would not go along with Cobb felt the
Utah Green Party was being destroyed. Both wings now
have a web site. The pro-Nader Greens consider the
pro-Cobb Greens as part of the Green party. They want
unity. The Cobb supporters want to continue the split.
The national party web site only lists the Cobb
Green's web site and has refused to include both.

In Utah some Greens pointed out to me that some of the
leaders of the splitters where people who had
supported Howard Dean and Dennis Kucinich. They also
explained how this was the second time the Greens in
Utah had had a split. The first time it was a group
that also wanted to work with the Democrats. They
split and then decided to join the Democratic Party.

Another example where Jody Haug is also involved is
Vermont. The Vermont Greens decided not to place
anyone on their ballot. Now the Lesser Evil current
wants to do something about this. Note the difference
in approach. We GDI Greens who believe the Lesser Evil
current did not carry the 2004 convention fairly do
not want to expel anyone. We want to try and work
things out with them and accept there are differences
in our approach to the Democrats. That cannot be
achieved without coming to an agreement around issues
of democracy. The Lesser Evil current supports the
split in Utah and is seeking action against Vermont
and opposes one Green one vote.


ON THE WRONG TRACK

They are on the wrong track. This is the opposite of
what is needed now. We need to mend the Green Party,
establish rules that both currents can accept and try
to maintain unity, and not seek to create a split.
Forget the Democrats. They are not going to help us
build the Green Party. The Democrats are part of the
problem not the solution.


THE DEMOCRATS AND THE MAGIC OF 39

It is becoming clear to me that the Cobb current,
which has previously tried to obfuscate their
pro-Democratic Party views, is now beginning to become
more openly pro-Democrat. Jack Uhrich, a strong "safe
state campaign" supporter, who should be given an
award for honesty, laid out an open call that the
Green Party's future depends on it beginning to
endorse Democrats. He wrote his views in John
Rensenbrink's magazine Green Horizon. Not a single
Cobb supporter, to my knowledge, has said Uhrich is
wrong.

Following Uhrich's lead, Medea Benjamin has taken a
step further and is raising money for the Democrats,
specifically the PDA. In the fund appeal for the PDA
she says the PDA is not the Democratic Party. It is
like saying the Panama Canal is not Panama. I'd have
to say it's still in Panama. The Progressive DEMOCRATS
of America are not the Democratic Party but they're in
the Democratic Party. In fact they are the front line
fighting to prevent an independent force from
developing against the two parties and clearly in
competition with the Green Party. Part of their goal
is to co-opt the Green Party back into the Democratic
Party.

They make this perfectly clear themselves. Kevin
Spidel, National Field Director for Kucinich for
President and now Deputy National Director for
Progressive Democrats of America said, "The most
important thing we do is that inside-outside strategy:
Pulling together members of the Green Party, the
Independent Progressive Politics Network, the hip hop
community, the civil rights community, our allies in
congress, the anti-war community. We are bringing
together all the social movements within the
Democratic Party under one effective tent, and we will
do it better if people can contribute to our cause."
(Ordinary Heroes and the Rising Power of the Roots -
an interview by Williams Rivers Pitt, truthout, 27
January 2005.)

To make her position even clearer Medea Benjamin has
also stated that she now feels it was wrong to vote
Green in 2000 that is to vote for Nader at least in
some states. This follows quite logically from her
position of support to Kerry. If you believe a vote
for the Green Party candidate could result in shifting
whether a bad Republican gets elected versus a milder
Democrat, then you will, over time rarely vote Green
in partisan races, since we have no run offs. That is
the whole point of the two party dictatorship. Set it
up so people will never vote for what is in their
interest. When voters are not in agreement with the
Republican, openly pro-corporate platform, they have
another way, a milder way, to vote pro-corporate. What
Medea is challenging is the whole reason for having a
Green Party. Clearly this is the New Party strategy.
Run only local candidates, vote lesser evil in
partisan races, with an exception once in a while.

Recently I had a conversation with her where she told
me that she did not say it was wrong to vote for Nader
in 2000. So that I do not miss represent her views I
will quote exactly what she said in Common Dreams.
Org.:

"So while Bush refuses to admit mistakes maybe its
time for people who voted for Bush in 2000, the people
who didn't vote at all in 2000, and yes, people like
myself (Medea Benjamin-PC) who voted for Ralph Nader
in 2000 to admit our mistakes. I'll say mine - I had
no idea that George Bush would be such a disastrous
president. Had I known then what I know now, and had I
lived in a swing state, I would have voted for Gore
instead of Ralph Nader. And this time around, if I
lived in a swing state (which I don't) I wouldn't make
the same mistake. What about you?"

Well I for one will answer Medea. I would have voted
for the Liberty Party, the Greenback Labor Party, the
Populists, the Debsian Socialists, just as I supported
voting for Nader in all states in 2000. I will not
vote for a Gore or Kerry or any other pro-war, pro
corporate, anti-labor, anti-the environment and
anti-democracy candidate whether I live in swing or
swing less states.

Because I disagree with Medea on her approach on this
issue does not diminish my respect for the work she
has done in exposing many injustices through out the
world. GDI Greens should recognize that our admiration
for people like Medea and many others who do not agree
with our views is not in contradiction with debating
over policies. To state your political difference is
not disrespect. We must return to the days before
Stalinism destroyed open dialogue among progressive.
There was a time when progressives could argue in
sharp terms about policies and maintain our ability to
work together, especially given our large areas of
agreement. We must return to that culture.


THE MAGIC OF 39

The problem all the progressive-minded Democrats have
is that their party is rapidly moving further
rightward and more openly showing how pro-Bush,
pro-Republican the party really is. Hillary Clinton
and Howard Dean are now openly questioning the
Democrats' traditional positions on reproductive
rights for women; Hillary Clinton has also joined in
the right wing "abstinence" campaign that both Kerry
and Bush pushed in the presidential "debates".

But most amazing is how, after telling the world in
thousands of speeches how terrible a president George
Bush is and how if Nader runs it is such a crime
because the terrible Bush might get elected, the
Democratic Party-including the so called progressive
Democrats (Ted Glick a hard core Cobb supporter claims
there are 130 progressive Democrats in Congress)- gave
George Bush 39 standing ovations at the State of the
Union address, surpassing the previous year's amazing
18 standing ovations with an additional 21 ovations
all in one hour. The Democrats are not an opposition
party. They are a prevent-an-opposition-from-arising
Party.

We have not heard a peep from the PDA, The Nation,
Moveon.org, The Progressive, Norman Solomon etc.,
about the fact that their choice for president just
gave Bush 39 standing ovations. Apparently it is not
something they feel is worth commenting on. In fact
the silence is deafening as Democrats cheer Bush and
openly declare how they are shifting away from what is
majority opinions in America on one issue after
another. An amazing numerical coincidence has just
occurred when the Democrats in congress overwhelming
voted for Bush's request for funding for the continued
illegal occupation of Iraq: only 39 Democrats voted
no. Of course many Democrats vote no when they know
the motion will pass. Their no vote becomes cover when
they live in strongly anti-war districts. The pro war
vote included some of the more famous progressive
Democrats like John Conyers and Jesse Jackson Jr.

Let us not forget the massive totalitarian campaign to
not allow a pro peace candidate, Ralph Nader from
being on the ballot. Not one elected Democrat in the
nation publicly opposed their party's campaign against
democracy. Not one leader of the PDA said one word in
opposition to this totalitarian campaign.


CONTRADICTION IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY

The Democrats are moving to the right under the
pressure of the Republicans and the control of money,
but they also have to try and shore up their base if
they want to win elections. Like in nature where there
are strong currents counter currents appear. It is
understandable that as the Democrats move to the right
some Democrats seek to regroup to oppose the right
turn or at least to not lose their base that is
suffering at the hands of the right ward shift.

This can be important to us. But we also need to fully
understand the role such counter currents often play
to keep the Democrats from losing their base that is
disgusted with their politics. In the end do they just
end up trying to keep those who are turned off to the
Democrats from leaving and joining the Greens or
forming some other opposition organization.

In fact the Democrats electoral failure is in good
part due to their inability to mobilize their base.
Therefore even as they shift to the right, expect to
see all kinds of maneuvers to try and appeal to labor,
minorities, women, gays, environmentalist and others.
Making Howard Dean the head of the Democratic Party is
one step. There may actually be an increase in
activity of "progressive" Democrats as they try to
keep hope alive for this degenerating instrument of
money among its traditional base. I would not be
surprised to see some State and local Democratic
candidates appear that are more progressive than
usual.

The Democrats do not mind having such candidates if it
shores up their base and weakens the Greens or any
other current moving towards independence. They
especially do not mind such candidates in races they
expect to lose.


GREENS AND THE PDA

Our attitude should not be sectarian towards the PDA.
We should reach out to the members of the PDA where we
have agreement to engage in actions together. We need
to recognize that there are many specific points where
we have agreement with the PDA. We should show respect
for them as individuals and not engage in personalized
attacks. We should also not confuse expressing our
political differences with them and personal attacks.

But the last thing we should do is suggest to them
that membership in a pro-war, pro-corporate party is
the way to go. Nor should we follow Jack Uhrich's
proposal to follow the fusion policies of the now
defunct New Party, a policy that will only tear the
Greens apart by arguing over what Democrat to support.
In the end the road towards fusion is the road to
oblivion. That is what has happened through out the
history of our nation. Where ever progressives, trying
to build an independent political force, were seduced
into a fusion strategy they ended up being destroyed.

The Cobb current is free to endorse all the Democrats
they want. That is acceptable. But NOT IN OUR NAME.
The Green Party as an institution must remain
independent. The Green Party belongs to all its
members not just the Lesser Evil current.

The PDA held a national convention with about 600
people present where they invited Medea Benjamin and
David Cobb to speak. They refused to allow Ralph
Nader, who had just gotten almost 500,000 votes for
president to come and be heard. Isn't it clear? To the
PDA the condition for political collaboration is that
you are willing to vote for war, for the Patriot Act,
for pro-corporate candidates like Kerry or you are not
welcome.


MY MEETING WITH DENNIS KUCINICH

Wouldn't it be nice if Amy Goodman on Democracy Now!
asked Dennis Kucinich or Barbara Boxer the next time
she interviews either of them how many times they
stood up and gave Bush a standing ovation? Kucinich
has fought for many positions that the Green Party
supports such as opposing the Patriot Act. But he buys
in to the two party dictatorship and will not dare to
stand against the betrayal that standing ovations for
Bush mean to the future of our nation.

During the primaries I met with Kucinich and spoke
twice at Kucinich meetings. In both meetings I thanked
him for taking good stances on many issues but I also
made it clear that I was a Green and would not endorse
any Democrat, any candidate of a party that was
pro-war and anti-labor.

I think it is quite possible that the majority of
people working on Kucinich 's campaign were Green
Party supporters. We built a progressive independent
party that attracted hundreds of thousands of people,
especially with the Nader campaign in 2000. Kucinich
saw this development as an opportunity to build a
current inside the Democratic Party by trying to win
Greens back to working inside the Democrats. Similarly
the PDA that is much smaller than the Green Party sees
the opportunity to build their current inside the
Democratic Party by recruiting Greens.

I urged Dennis Kucinich at the time we met to show
respect for the Green Party by not calling on its
members to abandon the Green Party and join the
Democrats. I had gone to a Kucinich house party to
check them out and saw a video where Kucinich states
he will bring the Greens back into the Democratic
Party. I asked him to take that out of his video and
to publicly state that he respects the decision of
those who have joined the Green Party. Kucinich turned
to me and said, "Yes you are right that was a
mistake." He then turned to Gary Jelinek who was
driving the car we were riding in together and said
"remind me Gary we need to change that video, Peter's
right."

Many months later I spoke to Gary who remembered that
conversation clearly. He pointed out to me that the
Kucinich campaign had a meeting on that issue but
Kucinich insisted on keeping the video unchanged. In
New Mexico well after my meeting with Kucinich he held
a press conference with the 2002 Green Party candidate
for Governor, David Bacon, deregistering from the
Green Party into the Democratic Party. The Kucinich
campaign worked hard to deregister Greens all over
America but especially in California. In spite of
their efforts our registration did not decline in
California and I have been quite happy to see the rise
in New York State. I am sure the success in New York
is probably at least partially the result of the great
work the New Paltz Greens have done around the issue
of gay marriage.

We should continue to work with Kucinich on the many
issues we agree with him on. We should be respectful
to him and his supporters, but always understand that
he harbors illusions in the Democratic Party and wants
the Greens to abandon their party. He is willing to
support any one with any policy the Democrats may
present as a candidate.


CALIFORNIA AND NEW YORK

In California our May plenary will consider a proposal
to establish internal democracy nationally based on
one Green one vote. The argument the Cobb supporters
are raising to confuse the issue is how difficult it
is to find a formula that will work for every state.
This issue has been discussed at length by the Greens
for Democracy and Independence. In California we have
come up with a simple approach. We are simply saying
let each state tell us how many members they have. In
general it would be very difficult to exaggerate too
much since in most states we have discovered many
members know pretty closely what their membership is.
In some states they even post it on their web sites.

The truth is that the abuse we now live under is so
extreme that is difficult to believe people who
consider themselves Greens can try to justify it. For
instance in Iowa a membership of 83 has the same
representation in our leadership and to determine our
national ticket as 35,000 Greens in California
(assuming only 155,000 Greens in California). So maybe
the figure of 83 is not accurate and instead it is 100
or 200 or 300 or 1,000 the point remains the same.
What it is not is 35,000 or anything near it.

Ohio, a State with something over 1,200 members, has
five delegates or the equivalent of the representation
of almost 60,000 members in California. Texas probably
has only a tenth of the membership of New York but it
has more representatives on our national CC than New
York and therefore more delegates to pick our
presidential ticket. And so it goes until you end up
with a tiny group of Greens having majority control of
the party and by gosh they happen to be Lesser Evil
supporters!

Looking at the ratio of the two examples above of Iowa
and Ohio you could end up with a majority of our
leadership body with the support of only 20,000 Greens
that is about 4 to 5% of our membership!! To try and
defend the present representative system is to allow
the Green Party to be controlled by any group having
sufficient money to organize and manipulate in states
with a tiny Green Party. That has occurred in other
third parties in our history in the past as Mark Lause
has pointed out. Inevitably it is whoever has the most
money that can take advantage of such an undemocratic
set up. One Green one vote is the safest defense of
the rights of the membership since that makes it far
harder for anyone with whatever agenda to take control
of the Green Party.

It just happens that California and New York combined
have about half the membership in the Green Party and
both states have democratic internal structures that
have elected representatives that favor internal
democracy and political independence from the
Democrats.

(I have noticed that wherever the majority of the
leadership in a State is pro-GDI care is taken to
welcome the Lesser Evil current into leadership
positions and include them at all levels. In
California's national delegation as well as our state
leadership, the pro-Cobb current is well represented.
However, more and more reports are coming from Greens
complaining that once the Lesser Evil current gets
control of a state they act quite differently. While
Utah was an open split what is happening in states
where the Lesser Evil current controls is a bleeding
split where pro-Nader Greens are made to feel unwanted
and begin to drift away from the Green Party.)

If the membership in all states could openly vote on
the issue of democracy there is no question the
majority would vote for democracy even in states like
Maine or Ohio controlled by the Lesser Evil current,
just as these states voted against Cobb. They will
probably never be given a chance to do so.

If we enter our next national meeting with backing
from both California and New York along with possibly
a series of other states in support of a resolution
for democracy it will be transparent to any honest
person that it represents the majority of Greens.


BE PREPARED FOR THE WORST, HOPE FOR THE BEST

It is quite possible especially in states like
Washington, Maine, Iowa, Wisconsin and so on where the
Lesser Evil current controls the local state apparatus
that the delegates will come opposed to our proposal.
If the minority that is presently controlling the
national CC rejects internal democracy, this will be
unacceptable. One Green one vote is not negotiable.
Having internal democracy is not something you
negotiate; it is a basic value on which the party is
founded.

I sense we are gaining ground. As more Greens hear of
the debate they naturally gravitate towards one Green
one vote and they favor independence as long as it
does not cut across local autonomy. Most Greens do not
want a top down party. They want the freedom to act
based on their views. Exactly what the GDI current is
proposing in California.

However should our proposal be "formally" defeated
like Cobb was "nominated," we should not split from
the Green Party. A split is exactly what the Democrats
want. It would weaken the Green party terribly. It
would stifle the discussion and debate on these
issues. We should, however, organize our current for a
long term struggle in support of democracy and
independence.


KEEP THE DOOR OPEN

We should keep the door open and hope the Lesser Evil
current comes to their senses, stops its abuse of our
membership and accepts reaching a consensus for a one
Green one vote democratic structure.

There are many steps the Lesser Evil current could
take to lower the tension in the party. For instance,
when John Rensenbrink writes that the Greens in Maine
suddenly changed their position when they arrived in
Milwaukee, he could assure us he is right just by
listing the names of the nineteen Maine delegates in
Milwaukee and show how each voted in their state
caucuses. If the list showed that it reflected how the
Greens voted in Maine, only 26% voted for Cobb while
many of the delegates, that is 74%, voted for other
candidates, and then we could believe him. But if
instead the membership voted one way and a delegation
opposed to the membership went to the convention, then
we could call that packing.

The most important effort the Lesser Evil current
could make to help unify and build the Green Party is
to accept that every Green has an equal say in the
Party and support a one Green one vote policy. It
would also be helpful if they would declare they
support the right of Greens who disagree with them to
be in the Green Party. The more they clarify their
politics, the easier it is to work together. In that
sense Jack Uhrich should be congratulated for openly
stating what many of them are all thinking.

To end I think it may be important for the GDI current
to hold a national gathering to discuss how best to
carry forward our effort to democratize and defend the
independence of the Green Party. It has been an
enormous personal pleasure for me to see so many
Greens working together building the GDI current.

Post Script: A bi product of the GDI discussion for me
was the discovery of Mark Lause's book on the 1880
Greenback Labor Party presidential campaign. His book
is a story that so closely parallels 2004 where a
presidential candidate General Weaver fights for the
people against the two parties while every effort is
made especially by the Democrats to block him, steal
his votes and accuse him (not true) of taking money
from the Republicans. The book is called "The Civil
War's Last Campaign." Read it and you will understand
in a new way why the GDI current is crucial for the
survival and growth of the Greens.
Peter Camejo ran for governor of California on the
Green Party ticket and was Ralph Nader's running mate.

_________________________________________________________________
http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_mini_2G_0507