Whither the Green Party in 2004?

[Spoke]

The Green Party, as we all know from our history books, was a spoiler in the 2000 election, effectively denying Gore and the Democratic Party the presidency. The party line, of course, was that there is no substantive difference between Democrats and Republicans (a sentiment with which I disagree quite strongly-- but that’s not the point of this thread). I get the impression that many voters, thinking that their vote wouldn’t make a difference in the election, cast a Green party vote as a form of protest. Of course, it turns out that those votes <i>did</i> matter.

I am curious as to whether Dopers believe the Greens will field a Presidential candidate in 2004, and if so, who?

I notice that the Greens have announced that if Kucinich gets the Democratic nomination, they will endorse him and will not field a candidate of their own. The implied obverse is that if anyone else gets the Democratic nomination, the Greens will put up a candidate.

Since Kucinich has exactly zero chance in the Democratic nomination process, may we assume there will be a Green Party candidate in '04? Who will it be? Does the endorsement of Kucinich raise the possibility that he will make the switch and run as a Green?

Will the Green Party again be a spoiler for the Democrats?

And I’d like to hear from folks who voted for the Green Party last time around. Are you inclined to do so again? In a hypothetical Kucinich vs. Clarke vs. Bush race, who’s your man? What if Dean gets the Democratic nod? What if Nader is the Green candidate? Or Cynthia McKinney?

Thoughts?

[vanilla]

I apologize.
It was stupid.
No I will not vote Green again, no matter who runs.
What difference would it make who ran anyway?

vanilla, near Cleveland ;home of Kucinich

[Sam_Stone]

The political landscape has changed dramatically. Issues of war and security have pushed environmental issues off the radar screen.

If the Libertarians run a candidate (and I think they will, and it’ll probably be Nader again, or perhaps someone totally unexpected, like a celebrity candidate), they’ll get far fewer votes this time around than last. They’ll be down in the 1% range with the Libertarians.

[Sam_Stone]

Oops. I meant if the GREENS run a candidate…

[BrainGlutton]

Posted by Sam Stone:

The political landscape has changed dramatically. Issues of war and security have pushed environmental issues off the radar screen.

I think you might be surprised on that point. More importantly, the Green Party’s concerns are not limited to the environment. It also is very concerned with social justice. Just review the Ten Key Values, only ONE of which focuses on ecology. From http://www.gp.org/:

Ten Key Values of the Green Party

As ratified at the Green Party Convention in Denver, CO, June 2000.

1. GRASSROOTS DEMOCRACY
   Every human being deserves a say in the decisions that affect their lives and not be subject to the will of another. Therefore, we will work to increase public participation at every level of government and to ensure that our public representatives are fully accountable to the people who elect them. We will also work to create new types of political organizations which expand the process of participatory democracy by directly including citizens in the decision-making process.

2. SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY
   All persons should have the rights and opportunity to benefit equally from the resources afforded us by society and the environment. We must consciously confront in ourselves, our organizations, and society at large, barriers such as racism and class oppression, sexism and homophobia, ageism and disability, which act to deny fair treatment and equal justice under the law.

3. ECOLOGICAL WISDOM
   Human societies must operate with the understanding that we are part of nature, not separate from nature. We must maintain an ecological balance and live within the ecological and resource limits of our communities and our planet. We support a sustainable society which utilizes resources in such a way that future generations will benefit and not suffer from the practices of our generation. To this end we must practice agriculture which replenishes the soil; move to an energy efficient economy; and live in ways that respect the integrity of natural systems.

4. NON-VIOLENCE
   It is essential that we develop effective alternatives to society’s current patterns of violence. We will work to demilitarize, and eliminate weapons of mass destruction, without being naive about the intentions of other governments. We recognize the need for self-defense and the defense of others who are in helpless situations. We promote non-violent methods to oppose practices and policies with which we disagree, and will guide our actions toward lasting personal, community and global peace.

5. DECENTRALIZATION
   Centralization of wealth and power contributes to social and economic injustice, environmental destruction, and militarization. Therefore, we support a restructuring of social, political and economic institutions away from a system which is controlled by and mostly benefits the powerful few, to a democratic, less bureaucratic system. Decision-making should, as much as possible, remain at the individual and local level, while assuring that civil rights are protected for all citizens.

6. COMMUNITY-BASED ECONOMICS AND ECONOMIC JUSTICE
   We recognize it is essential to create a vibrant and sustainable economic system, one that can create jobs and provide a decent standard of living for all people while maintaining a healthy ecological balance. A successful economic system will offer meaningful work with dignity, while paying a “living wage” which reflects the real value of a person’s work. Local communities must look to economic development that assures protection of the environment and workers’ rights; broad citizen participation in planning; and enhancement of our “quality of life.” We support independently owned and operated companies which are socially responsible, as well as co-operatives and public enterprises that distribute resources and control to more people through democratic participation.

7. FEMINISM AND GENDER EQUITY
   We have inherited a social system based on male domination of politics and economics. We call for the replacement of the cultural ethics of domination and control with more cooperative ways of interacting that respect differences of opinion and gender. Human values such as equity between the sexes, interpersonal responsibility, and honesty must be developed with moral conscience. We should remember that the process that determines our decisions and actions is just as important as achieving the outcome we want.

8. RESPECT FOR DIVERSITY
   We believe it is important to value cultural, ethnic, racial, sexual, religious and spiritual diversity, and to promote the development of respectful relationships across these lines. We believe that the many diverse elements of society should be reflected in our organizations and decision-making bodies, and we support the leadership of people who have been traditionally closed out of leadership roles. We acknowledge and encourage respect for other life forms than our own and the preservation of biodiversity.

9. PERSONAL AND GLOBAL RESPONSIBILITY
   We encourage individuals to act to improve their personal well-being and, at the same time, to enhance ecological balance and social harmony. We seek to join with people and organizations around the world to foster peace, economic justice, and the health of the planet.

10. FUTURE FOCUS AND SUSTAINABILITY
    Our actions and policies should be motivated by long-term goals. We seek to protect valuable natural resources, safely disposing of or “unmaking” all waste we create, while developing a sustainable economics that does not depend on continual expansion for survival. We must counterbalance the drive for short-term profits by assuring that economic development, new technologies, and fiscal policies are responsible to future generations who will inherit the results of our actions.

For more specific statements on policy, see the Green Party Platform 2000 at [ur]http://www.gp.org/platform/2000/index.html.

As for what the Greens will do in 2004 . . . right now, I’m campaigning for Dennis Kucinich. No, I do not expect him to get the nomination. I think Howard Dean will get it. But if Kucinich stays in the race and presents a credible showing through the primary season, it is just possible that Dean will offer him the running-mate slot. A Dean-Kucinich ticket could win, picking up the leftist and centrist votes both. And I hope that in such a situation, the Greens would endorse a Dean-Kucinich ticket.

Anyone interested in the Kucinich campaign should check out http://www.kucinich.us/.

[Netbrian]

I rather doubt it. This time around, among leftists (especially hard leftists of the sort that’d join the Green party), there is much, much stronger anti-Bush undercurrent, enough to drive more people to vote for whomever the other guy is. There’s likely going to be much less antipathy about this election and the democratic candidate this time around, which would spell doom to a viable Green party candidate.

And I hope to god Kucinich doesn’t get the nomination, or even a running mate position. I don’t want to seriously have to consider voting for a third party or Republican.

[Mercutio]

I think the Dems are feeling the heat from the last election. They didn’t appeal to the far left enough to get them enough votes to win the presidential election. So, what now? The Democarts are taking some liberal stances that I thought would’ve been 20 years away. Case in point: Many democratic hopefuls are stating that their platform includes universal healthcare, something none of them would’ve touched with a 50 foot pole in 2000.

What’s next if they Dems lose again in 2004? Democrats supporting gay marriage?

[BrainGlutton]

Posted by Netbrian:

And I hope to god Kucinich doesn’t get the nomination, or even a running mate position. I don’t want to seriously have to consider voting for a third party or Republican.

Please explain why you wouldn’t vote for Kucinich.

[Netbrian]

I’m a strong proponent of neoliberal globalization.

He wants to dissolve NAFTA and the WTO.

That’s enough at this point. There’s more, but it gets us started. If you want to debate his position on trade, please use a different thread.

(BTW, free trade is one of the reasons I’m a Kerry supporter right now. I more or less liked President Clinton’s economic policies, and Kerry seems as though he’ll continue them.)

[Governor_Quinn]

Kucinich has already been endorsed by the Natural Law party, if I recall correctly.

Has anyone condiered Hightower? Wasn’t he elected to statewide office twice?

[BrainGlutton]

Posted by Governor Quinn:

Has anyone condiered Hightower? Wasn’t he elected to statewide office twice?

Jim Hightower was twice elected Texas Commissioner of Agriculture – a position which, under Texas’ peculiar constitution, actually wields more power than that governor’s office. But he has built up a national reputation as a commentator/gadfly, and I do not think he is interested in running for public office in the near future. There is a “Draft Hightower” movement, however, with a website at http://www.drafthightower.com/. Hightower’s own site is at http://jimhightower.com/.

Posted by Netbrian:

I’m a strong proponent of neoliberal globalization.

He wants to dissolve NAFTA and the WTO.

That’s enough at this point. There’s more, but it gets us started. If you want to debate his position on trade, please use a different thread.

Yes, let’s! Look for a new thread: “Should the U.S. pull out of NAFTA and WTO?”

[Marley23]

The Green Party, as we all know from our history books, was a spoiler in the 2000 election, effectively denying Gore and the Democratic Party the presidency.

Not just because I voted Green, but I dispute this rather oversimplified historical analysis. Anyway:

I get the impression that many voters, thinking that their vote wouldn’t make a difference in the election, cast a Green party vote as a form of protest. Of course, it turns out that those votes did matter.

This is one of the reasons you’re wrong. The people who voted Green mostly did so because of their disaffection with (in most cases) the Democratic Party. I think most of them agreed that the gap between the parties was too small - a comment I still agree with, though I think history has shown there was more difference than Nader insisted - or else just thought the party didn’t represent them. And that’s not taking into account that roughly half the people who voted Green in 2000, like myself, initially weren’t going to vote in the first place.

Back to the topic- it’s almost doubtless going to be Nader in 2004. Kucinich would be fine as a Green candidate (they’ll need another one, since Ralph is getting up there), and I wonder why he doesn’t try. I suppose the real reason is that he’s trying to influence the Democratic platform in '04, which is a normal part of the process. The Democrats had better pay a little more attention to the liberals this time, really. Kucinich can’t win, but I’m more concerned he could influence things in such a way that a centrist would oppose Bush in '04, leading perhaps to a depressing repeat of 2000.

[vanilla]

I’m putting up a sign in my yard saying
VOTE DEMOCRAT!
PLEASE!!!

[viking]

well, on the north side of the border we don’t have Bush to vote against. Either way, though, I’ll keep voting green. One of the things on their platform here is to reform elections so we don’t have this stupid first-past-the-post system which works against small parties and forces us to play the stupid lesser-of-two-evils game in the first place. But that’s probably a different rant, so I won’t hijack this thread with it.

[cmason32]

Nader’s big lie during the 2000 campaign was that there was no difference between the two parties. He sacrificed the practical implications of Gore presidency to stroke his own ego. Consider now that Bush has a terrible environmental record, has gotten us into a unjustified war, served as a cash-and-carry government for whatever corporate donor that comes calling, is deregulating the media, and is installing far right-wing federal judges, et al.

While I applaud the Greens for their ideological stances, sometimes the enemy of my enemy is a better choice than suffering through the irreparable harm caused by a Bush presidency.

[monty2_2001]

I hope to hell the Greens run and suck off at least 5% of the democrat vote.

[Mr.Babbington]

*Originally posted by cmason32 *
**Nader’s big lie during the 2000 campaign was that there was no difference between the two parties. He sacrificed the practical implications of Gore presidency to stroke his own ego. Consider now that Bush has a terrible environmental record, has gotten us into a unjustified war, served as a cash-and-carry government for whatever corporate donor that comes calling, is deregulating the media, and is installing far right-wing federal judges, et al.
**

Judging from the way that George II campaigned, with his claims of “I am a uniter, not a divider,” and “compassionate conservatism,” a potential Green party voter might (just might) have been inclined to think that there was no appreciable difference in the two major party candidates. September 11 wasn’t even being thought about (by the average voter), and Gore had all the personality of a dead fish. There was no way to see that the Bush regime would turn into the Arch Conservative juggernaut it has become, especially with how close the election was. So IMO, it was not Nader who lied, but rather it was Bush who misled the American People as to what he was.

[cmason32]

*Originally posted by Mr. Babbington *
**Judging from the way that George II campaigned, with his claims of “I am a uniter, not a divider,” and “compassionate conservatism,” a potential Green party voter might (just might) have been inclined to think that there was no appreciable difference in the two major party candidates. September 11 wasn’t even being thought about (by the average voter), and Gore had all the personality of a dead fish. There was no way to see that the Bush regime would turn into the Arch Conservative juggernaut it has become, especially with how close the election was. So IMO, it was not Nader who lied, but rather it was Bush who misled the American People as to what he was. **

What else is Bush going to say? That he will use dirty politics to push an extreme right-wing agenda? Are Greens really going to say “Aw, gee, I never would have figured that a politician might lie to win an election”?

Notwithstanding 9/11, the differences between Gore and Bush were (and are still) clearly defined. They had huge ideological differences on the environment, social security, corporate responsibility, judicial nominations, etc.

Yeah, Bush lied. But Nader played the “both parties are the same” line over and over again, when it clearly is not true.

[Mr.Babbington]

Like Marley23, I voted for Nader because I didn’t think that the Democratic Party deserved my vote in 2000. I really don’t think they do now, though the war in Iraq seems to be making the Party a little more focused. In 2000, we had a booming economy until Bush said in a campaign speech, “Look people, there’s a recession.” Suddenly, there was one.
I guess my point is that in 2000, I had the luxury of throwing my vote away in order to send a message to the Democrats that I would not be browbeaten into voting for a horrible candidate only to get a seat or two on the Supreme Court.
Also, I don’t live in Florida, I live in Minnesota. Gore carried Minnesota. My vote for Nader was moot. Had I lived in Florida, I might have something to be guilty about. But I don’t, so I don’t.

[Brutus]

*Originally posted by Mr. Babbington *
…In 2000, we had a booming economy until Bush said in a campaign speech, “Look people, there’s a recession.” Suddenly, there was one.

With educated voters like you out there, I am shocked that our grand republic faces as many political problems as it does.