home about/values news calendar issues elections

March 23, 2003

OAKLAND, CA -- About sixty Greens (and non-Greens) met recently on a rainy evening to wonder out loud whether the Green Party should run a candidate for president in 2004. What follows are snippets of thoughts that zoomed around the room: Green Party of Alameda County Treasurer Bob Marsh said, "You can't win unless you run a candidate." Lately, he said, there is a "throw out the bums" movement that may be growing as the Bush administration grows more draconian. Nationally, voters may just be ready for the Green Party. (Miracles do happen.) And if this develops, Greens have to be ready with a presidential candidate.

The Democrats are not representing us. Gore won in Florida, according to the latest tabulation. But Gore and the Democrats didn't fight Bush when he took over in a coup. By the way, why did Gore bow out of the 2004 race? It is possible that Gore lost his funding from corporations when he took a more liberal stand on the Iraq threat. In this age of the internet and new technologies like mass conferencing, Mr. Marsh said, opinions can shift and things can develop fast; this movement to throw out Bush could grow into a huge wave. People think of the Greens as a weak third party, but in reality it is a worldwide party and the largest in the world! AC Transit Board member and Oakland Green Rebecca Kaplan said we should not run a candidate if there is even the smallest risk of Bush being reelected. She said not to divert energy to the national election; focus instead on the local, state, and congressional races. If we do run a candidate, let it not be Nader, she said, because we should avoid turning him into a Green icon. We should support Vermont's Governor Dean; he is different from the other Democratic hopefuls--like Gebhardt, Lieberman, Kerry, and Edwards--who could be pro war. Bush and Gore were not the same--Gore was better; but that's not the point. They were both unacceptable to Green voters, she said. Why should Greens settle for such an unacceptable choice? In fact, that's why we need Instant Runoff Voting--so we don't have to vote for the lesser of two evils. Other interesting contributions to the dialogue: We should run a candidate so as to oppose the move of the Democratic Party to the right. We got where we are by speaking out against this move to the right. If the Democratic Party fears that the Green Party will spoil the election, then the Green Party could negotiate for other political advantages. Negotiation is possible in some states and legal. We could influence the Democrat's nominating process. We could bargain state by state with Democrats for the more than fifty percent who didn't vote; this is a vehicle for involving them. Candidates can address important issues not ordinarily addressed. But if we have no candidate we can't negotiate. Negotiating in Germany caused serious problems for the Green Party. Ten million people didn't vote in the last national election; the slogan of the Green Party should be, "Free the ten million." Grassroots Democrats and Greens could work as a coalition. To get the millions of dollars of federal election funds, we need to get 5% of the vote, and we have to build from bottom up. We won't get 5% unless we do groundwork. This may take more than one or two years. We should wait and have our Presidential Candidates Convention after the other parties do, so we can better decide whether to run a candidate. The Democrats do not stand for our values. There is a racist, imperialist war coming, and environmental devastation, but the Democrats don't stand against this. We should primarily support the Bill of Rights. What would we have done if we knew then what we know now about this administration? We need a strong, clear platform for 2004. It is important that we see ourselves as a Green movement. We should introduce additional issues. We can provide something that people can do if they don't like Democrats. We can run as if we believe we can win. We have to want to be in power to influence the bigger picture. We are a small group and we can speak up. We need more than a two-party system. There may never be a right time. Focusing on the presidential campaign is dangerous. What is the bigger picture? Let's build the party from the ground up. Facilitating this lively conversation were Kenoli Oleari and Sharda Miller, who used "dynamic facilitation" to engage the room in a dialogue rather than a heated debate. San Francisco campaign manager Ross Mukalini was on hand to say a few words about what the National Committee is doing and to let them get a glimpse of local Green Party thinking. Greg Jan and Rebecca Kaplan were presenters who got people thinking. This was the second Green Sunday event. It took place on January 12, 2003 from 5-6:30 and was deemed a great success; from now on there will be a Green Sunday, including refreshments, on the second Sunday each month! Thanks to the Neibyl-Proctor Library, 6501 Telegraph Ave., Oakland, for providing the venue.

Close Window

home about/values news calendar issues elections