A letter I submitted to web site of David Cobb, the Green Party's presidential candidate.
As you know, there was a spirited debate at the Green Party convention and David Cobb was the winner. That's how democracy should work. But I was disappointed after the convention by some of the remarks of his running mate concerning Ralph Nader. She and several other Green leaders went out of their way to insult Nader or demean his contribution to building the GPUS. This disgusted me because Nader probably did more to bring in new members to the Green Parties in the US than any single individual in history. I, and many of my friends, became Greens as a result of his inspiration. I certainly understand and appreciate the desire of some party members to move beyond Nader; the party should reflect certain values and ideals and not be overly associated with one particular individual. But this could've been achieved with a little more grace than occured during the convention. Evolution is desirable; ingratitude is not.
But beyond this, I'm sorry to say I refuse to waste my vote on Cobb's candidacy, even though I'm a Green. His 'safe states' strategy is the reason for this. I believe it's an insult to voters. It's repugnant to both the Green movement and those who believe smaller parties should play a more prominent role in the political system.
Smaller party candidacies have two points, aside from hopefully winning. One is to offer voters a choice beyond the establishment parties which some believe are corrupted beyond redemption. The other is to "grow" the party, to get it more exposure.
This safe states "strategy" essentially says that some voters should have another choice, except for voters who live in so-called close states. This mentality only reinforces the two party system; it only reinforces the notion that a smaller party vote is a wasted vote. The strategy basically admits this. "Vote for us if it doesn't matter; but not if it does matter." Even if Cobb's on the ballot in close states, he may not campaign there. How does this offer voters another choice? How does this get the party more exposure? The fact of Cobb being a Green Party member (unlike Nader) does not impress me if he's going to voluntarily ignore Greens in certain states, to say nothing of other voters.
Cobb's "strategy" will only set back the Green movement and the fight to get more influence for smaller parties. Cobb is reacting to the template, when I want a candidate who will try to change the template. I will not waste my vote on a candidate who shows contempt for millions of Americans by saying that some voters deserve a choice but others don't.
1 comment:
From: Matt Funiciello - Nader Organizer - Glens Falls, NY
Brian,
Your sentiments about the "David Cobb Greens" and their post-convention behavior is dead on. Many in the Green Party seem to have bought right into the ABB hysteria in a huge way and have forgotten their American roots as the "house that Nader built". They have forgotten that the democrat they are seeking to help with their little "safe-state" strategy is a supporter of NAFTA, the Patriot Act, Afghanistan and our dirty little war in Iraq. Like most democrats, he talks a great game about education and health care and equality, but when it comes down to it, he's just about as effective as the Republicans are at getting us any of these things.
This split between Nader-supporters (otherwise known as Greens) and Cobb-supporters (otherwise known as Democrats) is going to waylay further significant Green party growth by at least a decade. The convention's well-organized coup (executed by dozens of absent California delegates voting by proxy) was both well-conceived and brilliant. Its unfortunate that it may well have sounded the death knell for this generation's one real shot at the birth of a powerful third-party. For all of us on the front lines of the progressive movement, the coup was a huge setback and a major disservice which plays right into the hands of the democrats and faux-progressives who staged it.
I am, like any good upstate New York Green should be, collecting signatures for Ralph Nader and hoping that my party regains its senses and remembers that we are NOT consensus-builders. We are ANTI-corporate control. We are ANTI-two party. We are ANTI-war. The democrats that Cobb is working with do not, in any way, follow our lead. We are merging with a much more powerful and corrupt base that shares none of our concern for humanity or the orb we call home. They SAY they do, but their actions show otherwise. Thats why we are NOT democrats. Working with them makes one NOT a Green.
Supporting Nader in 1996 and 2000 gave us all a backbone and a sense of certainty about our own moral and ideological compasses. Those who have chosen to ignore that and play politics will see Nader get the same national result (3%). They will also see Cobb net almost nothing and fail to achieve ballot status more often than Nader will. Not a very strategic or principled coup, after all.
I, like many other Greens, joined the Party primarily because of Ralph Nader. I may well leave it for the same reason!
Post a Comment