Conflict in the Green Party: a response.

• Author: Kamleiter, Mark S.
• Position: Thinking Politically - Essay

After reading "Conflict in the Green Party," a Green Horizon article by Ted Glick and Steve Weltzer, it seems that a response might advance the dialogue. I share the writers' desire to move beyond the emotions of the 2004 election and to make growing the Green Party our first priority. We will not get there, however, by minimizing or glossing over the issues. I feel that their article fails to present the rigorous, balanced analysis necessary to comprehend the genesis and nature of Green Party tensions. A truly frank analysis may not bring ideological unity, but it may bring into sharper focus the significant ideological and political differences within the party. Green Party members must then determine whether or not these differences can be brought into healthy and productive political tension.

Glick and Weltzer have reduced these diametrically opposed positions to a dispute between Greens who understand and practice "realpolitic" and those who are fundamentalists. So much for a balanced, analytical study. Can anyone miss the insulting nature of this characterization?

Those who support "realpolitic," by implication, are politically mature and wisely comprehend the reality of the political world. They understand the subtle "nuances" of running a "strategic" campaign and trailing along in the draft of the Progressive Democrats of America (PDA). Those who argue that the present political system is absolutely bankrupt and cannot be accommodated are fundamentalists. These "fundis" are reactionaries. They do not understand the realities of the political world, the "realpolitic." They blindly hang onto their "values" and will not compromise even if it means that they will become isolated.

What if the "fundis" are actually very politically savvy? What if they have great clarity about the American bipolar corporate political system? What if they already have years of futile experience trying to work with and accommodate liberal Democrats? What if they are not "fundis," in the pejorative sense, but are, in fact, intelligent, rationale, political individuals, who make political decisions based upon experience, maturity, and a clear sense of what must happen to effectively change American politics? What if they are absolutely and logically convinced that the Democratic Party and its perpetually recycling liberal/progressive wing must be challenged by a steadfast, firmly independent, value-based third party?

What if the "realos" are, in reality, not...