« Previous Post | Main | Next Post »

Greens in '04: Get In or Stay Out?

The American Greens--to the extent they even exist as a national organization--are up in arms over whether to run a candidate in the 2004 presidential race. A great many Greens, understandably, are putting "Beat Bush" first on their agenda and wondering whether the party should opt out this time. But there are those who oppose sitting out 2004, on the grounds that abdicating now would mean abandoning the party's recent gains in major party standings from state to state. In any case, the names bandied about so far as Green candidates include the perennial Nader, deposed Georgia Rep. Cynthia McKinney, and a couple of party unknowns, David Cobb and Paul Glover.

As a two-time Nader supporter and a consistent champion of any political gesture that serves to discredit or to embarrass the Republicrat duopoly, I am--so far--agnostic on this one. Two reasons: There's a better-than-usual case to be made that the venal, threadbare "lesser evil" argument that Democratic apologists trot out every four years actually contains some merit when the greater evil is George W. Bush and the boys.

I despise nearly all the clowns in the Democratic field this time--but I think I would vote for any of them (except Joe Lieberman, who's not going to get the nomination in any event) in lieu of Bush. This is not because I have any illusion that Democratic President Fill-in-the-Blank will undo what Bush has wrought; it's because the Bushmen are the most radical claque to rule the US in this century, and for once it's probably right to say that virtually anyone else would do less damage going forward.

My second reservation about the Greens in '04 is that they are just so fucking dumb when it comes to concerted national action. They don't know how to do a national campaign, in part because many of them are opposed in principle to the idea of a prominent or powerful national Green party hierarchy. Say what you will of Nader's past campaigns; I like Ralph. But one thing you cannot say is that he was running to win in either 1996 or 2000. He was running to make a point, and a worthy one as far as it went, about the rigged game that is American politics. This gave his candidacy a stuffy, didactic air. Nader's profile is more that of the traveling lecturer than the political evangelist; he articulates important truths but he's no fire-starter.

Personally, I still believe that a serious third-party effort by the Greens could help to beat Bush. The great Studs Terkel has argued that Henry Wallace in 1948 performed exactly that service for Harry Truman and the Democrats in 1948. By dragging the centrist Truman toward more populist/liberal campaign themes, and energizing an untapped segment of the public--or so Terkel reasoned, plausibly--Wallace and his third-party candidacy actually helped propel Truman to a win.

Could 2004 be analogous to 1948? I doubt it. I don't think yet another run by Nader or any of the other likely suspects would bring new voters into the mix in any great numbers--Cynthia McKinney may be the sole exception, but she stands to alienate a great many as well--and I also do not think the modern Democratic party can be induced to move left except as a matter of the occasional rhetorical gesture. If beating Bush is really the paramount issue this time, it's hard to see how a Green party that has neither a national organization nor a charismatic leader is going to help matters. 

*

This is all a first-blush reaction. Meantime tell me your thoughts on the matter. Greens in or out in '04? Email me at sperry@citypages.com, and thanks. 

*

Related press clips 

 MSNBC: Greens may back Dems in '04.

washpost: Greens weigh their options.

Studs Terkel: Truman, Wallace, and the lesson of '48

Posted by Steve Perry at May 29, 2003 11:38 AM

« Bob Hope: He's Not Getting Older, He's Getting Drier | Main | Truman, Wallace and '48 »