An Independent Green Party Can Be the Majority
Political Party in the United States in 20 Years
by Jerry Kann
www.dissidentvoice.org
April 27, 2005



 

Where do I want the Green Party to be in 20 years?

In 2025, I want the Green Party to be the majority political party in the United States. I want most of the members of Congress, most governors, and most members of state legislatures, to be Greens.

This is a very ambitious goal, but by no means an unrealistic one. History has many examples of small, upstart parties rising to majority status, notably the Republican Party under Lincoln and the British Labour Party in the first half of the last century. The next third party success story could be the Green Party.

But people aren’t stupid. If they see the Greens collaborating with, say, the Democratic Party in presidential elections, people will begin to ask what makes us Greens different. If they see us retreating from the battleground states for fear of “taking away” votes from the Democrats -- as indeed the official Green Party campaign did in 2004 -- they will ask the perfectly reasonable question: Why should I bother supporting Greens if it’s just a roundabout way of supporting Democrats?

Peter Camejo and others have established Greens for Democracy and Independence (GDI). The group will advocate for a one person/one vote system within the Green Party for selecting leadership bodies and our presidential ticket, and for complete independence from the two major political parties.

In contrast to the GDI group of “Nader Greens” are those Greens who supported David Cobb for president. It’s very instructive in this context to examine Cobb’s statements going back to the start of his campaign in late 2003.

Cobb’s statement on “Proposed Overall Strategy” (which he published online in late 2003) centered on the idea that George W. Bush needed to be seen as a menace of historic proportions. Cobb therefore suggested that the Green Party, in effect, had to give the Democrats enough indirect support to help them beat Bush. To make this go down a little easier, Cobb tried to suggest that the Democrats aren’t so bad after all: “It is unacceptable to claim there is no difference between the Democratic and Republican parties.” He even went so far as to imply that it was in the Green Party’s best interests to give the Democrats another chance: “If we want our party to grow, we must demonstrate to the American people…that we hear their concerns of the danger Bush poses.” But he obviously wanted the Greens to do more than simply “hear their concerns.” Cobb wanted us to “demonstrate” it by surrendering the one thing that ensures the Green Party’s relevance in American politics -- our independence.

When Cobb addressed a gathering of Greens and Democrats in New York City in early January, he referred to his “inside/outside” strategy for working with the Democrats. He spoke glowingly about his recent meeting with Progressive Democrats of America (PDA). A visit to the PDA website (pdamerica.org) shows pretty plainly what they think of the Greens. Their manifesto states: “the answer is NOT a progressive third party…”

Who else could PDA have been referring to here but the Green Party? And they apparently feel that we Greens are “not part of the solution” but instead part of the problem. I don’t challenge their right to make that judgment about the Green Party. I believe they’re wrong, but it’s their business if they want to take that position. What I do find very peculiar indeed is that our 2004 candidate for president is meeting with such people. Why should we Greens be interested in “working with” people who obviously would like to see us disappear?

California Green Matt Gonzales almost won the election for mayor of San Francisco not by playing “inside/outside” with the Democrats, but by running forcefully against both major parties. The fact that Gonzales came so close to winning gives me confidence about our future, and it tells me the smart thing for us Greens to do is to stand on our own two feet and let the Democrats take care of themselves.

Generally speaking, the Greens need to have a lot more discussion about long-term strategy and goals. I think such discussion will force us to confront the basic question of where we want to go and what we want to become in the future -- and not just next year or the year after, but 10 or 20 years down the road. Had there been more open, honest talk on this theme during the last two or three years, Cobb and his supporters would never have been able to win the 2004 nomination. Such proposals about “working with” the Democrats -- the very people, one might say, who drove us into the Green Party in the first place -- would have roused the majority of Greens to make certain their 2004 nominee was someone who would forthrightly challenge the two-party system, not make a pathetic attempt to prop it up.

Can the “inside/outside” Greens and the “independence” Greens co-exist? Yes, for a time. A year or two, perhaps. But not longer than that. The merciless regularity of the election cycle will eventually force us Greens to take one of two roads—the one less traveled by, or the path of least resistance. The latter leads right back to serfdom within the Democratic Party, and probably in short order. The harder road promises a long march with no end of difficulties. But it leads to freedom and self-respect. How can we possibly fail to choose the right road?

Jerry Kann is a Green Party member in New York City. He can be reached at: jerrykayy@yahoo.com.

HOME