But Not Too Partisan Critique of the Greens
August 18, 2001
Let's put the Nader issue aside (for now), and look into
the future of the Green Party as a whole.
I've been to the websites of Green Party candidates, many
of whom ran for national and local races. I've found myself
agreeing with many of their viewpoints. However, I don't see
very many differences that the Green Party has with Democratic
Party other than a few stands, like Kyoto or Capital Punishment.
Personally, it's much easier to tell the difference between
Democrats and Republicans than between Democrats and Greens.
If I was a Green Party cadie running for office, I wouldn't
berate similiar candidates in order to gain support. I would
publicize my issues, clearly explain how they would benefit
the public, and, in a nonpartisan way, distinguish how different
they would be from my Democratic frontrunner. I've noticed
some Green Party candidates doing such. Some have simply felt
that they're so idealogically similiar to their Democratic
rival, that they taunt them with PAC contributions or personal
investments just to make a discernable difference.
Let me tell you something, PAC contributers are absolutely
irrelevant. Most supporting causes the Green Party endowes
(Labor Unions, Abortion Rights, etc.) give majority of endorsement
to Democratic candidates. Yes, some PAC contributers include
big businesses, but the near entirely of that money goes to
Republican candidates. Democrat candidates receive 20% or
less of it. Likewise, 20% or less in populist organizations
contribute to the GOP. The reason? Impartialty. Hence, the
argument that Democrats are nothing more than big business
pigs is a lie. A flat, bald face lie.
I just dismantled the most common campaign technique for
the Greens. So, what next?
I think they should, again, consider what they're running
for. And why they're running. If they're just running for
a message, what is that message? If they're running to "bring
power back to the people", what do they mean, and how will
they do that? Lastly, if they do have a hell on highwater
chance of winning, what do the demographics show that would
cause a belief? Not very much. I will concede and say that
there are Greens sitting in state or local government positions
right now, but many of those positions are not hard to come
by or were uncontested.
As haunting as this information will be, Greens got the same
single digit percentage they received in some elections where
no Democrat campaigned for the seat, and a Republican won.
There was either a low turn-out of Democratic voters, or the
majority of voters - both Democratic and Republican - agreed
more with the Republican winner than the losing Green.
However you want to say it, the Green Party does not have
a mandate to run or criticize candidates who have more support.
I beg myself to guess the main supporters of Ralph Nader
and Green Party candidates, and it appears most of them are
youngsters - some as young as 14, others as old as 28 - who
have little understanding of politics, other than a viewpoint
that because Democrats and Republicans are a majority they're
like their parents, or an authority figure. The anger and
bewilderment of this age group proves to be a political goldmine
for the Greens, who are currently fishing for as much support
possible and at any means neccesary.
Is it about exploiting others for support, or about the issues?
That's what they should ask themselves. What is the motivation?
What is the accomplishment? What are the "so maverick" endevours
that should entice anyone to trade their vote for another?
Alas, should we never know, the Greens will be no more than
just your ordinary third party and a potential political spoiler.