Yoshie Furuhashi wrote (02/27/04 6:13 PM) > The Green Party needs to run a presidential candidate, especially in > war times, since it is the executive branch of the federal government > that determines foreign policy, making life-and-death decisions on > matters of war and peace. Running candidates in winnable local > elections alone doesn't allow the Green Party to publicize its > foreign policy. Besides, on issues of local governance, there are > much fewer differences between the Green and Democratic Parties than > at higher levels anyway. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----- Yoshie suggests that the differences between the Greens and Democrats are less pronounced at the local level, but wouldn't she agree that even at the national level, were the Green Party ever to become a serious contender for power, it would be under enormous pressure to moderate its rhetoric and program and adapt to the norms of the two-party system - or it wouldn't be allowed to govern?
This has certainly been the case in Germany, where the Green Party was born and attained its greatest success. As it grew, so did the pressures on it to conform, resulting in an inevitable internal split between the Fundis and the Realos. The latter were led by Joshka Fischer, who of course went on to become the country's Foreign Minister. You can see the same phenomenon at work in the earlier history of labour and social democratic parties, and subsequently of the European Communist parties in the postwar period. Their adaptation in all cases reflects the continuing success of capitalism in delivering a tolerable standard of living, and the domination of the parties championing the system with whom the (formerly) anticapitalist parties compete for power in the political arena. I think most of us understand this state of affairs will not change in the absence of a social crisis and mass upheaval, but this understanding seems to be obscured every four years by the exaggerated polemics on the left surrounding the differences between the parties and the personalities - in the current election, between the Republicans and Bush vs. the Democrats and Kerry or Kerry vs. the Green's Nader or Camejo. This seems inconsistent with an appreciation that Presidents Bush, Kerry, Kucinich, Nader, or Camejo would all have to govern within the framework of a "bipartisan consensus" in economic and foreign policy responsible ultimately to the markets. For example, I think it's equally likely that a second term Bush, the adventure in Iraq having gone awry, will govern like a Democratic multilateralist in foreign policy, and that a President Kerry, faced with a soaring deficit, will attack spending programs with a determination (though not an ideological zeal) which is indistinguishable from the Republicans. Notwithstanding the above, I wouldn't describe myself as a political cynic counselling others not to vote. I regularly vote for the social-democratic NDP in Canada. But I think it's worth pointing out, for the purposes of your debate, that I don't do so because I think the party, in the unlikely event it should take power at the national level, will govern much differently than the Liberals or Conservatives. The NDP 's history of governing at the provincial level in the West and in Ontario shows this to not be the case. What attracts me to the party is its social composition. It's where the trade union and social movement activists are to be found, and where consequently the greatest potential for mobilizing resistance to unpopular government policies exists. In my earlier days, I used to frontally attack the program and leadership of the party - both at its conventions and within the labour movement which supported the NDP - until I concluded that the activists and the constituencies they represent, so long as they retain confidence in their current leaders and party policies, understand such criticisms as an attack on themselves. Applying the same logic to the US, I can understand why Democratic union and social movement activists are so hostile to a Green party candidacy which, despite all the disclaimers and however softly it is posed, they presently see directed as themselves. I also think that deep spending cuts will be at the top of the agenda of an incoming administration, and that effective resistance to these will necessarily have to begin with the union and social movement activists who are in and around the Democratic party. In my view, they'll be much less inclined to accept these from a Democratic president who has raised their expectations and over whom they feel they have some control, than from a Republican administration, dependent on a different social base, which they could only hope to marginally influence through demonstrations, the organization of which will be hampered by the certain demoralization which will set in following a Bush victory. These two factors alone would lead me to favour the Democrats over the Greens if I lived in the States. I would only favour the Greens if I thought, as Yoshie does, that establishing a connection with the Democratic ranks were outweighed by the (limited) propaganda value of a Green candidacy, or if I thought Nader or Camejo could make a difference as individuals with respect to the current direction of US foreign and domestic policy.
