A Green Party "safe states" strategy.

• Author: Glick, Ted
• Position: Politics and Election

Within and outside of the Green Party there is much discussion about whether or not the Greens should run a presidential candidate in 2004. Some of the external opposition to it is from some of the same people who were opposed to the Nader/LaDuke campaigns in 1996 and in 2000. Other opposition, or serious questioning, comes both from within the Greens and from progressives who have supported, or who continue to support, Green candidates in the past and present.

It's no mystery as to why this is the case: the militaristic and repressive response of the Bush Administration following the 9-11-01 attacks. The dangerous reality is what can only be described as 21st century corporate warmongers and fascists in positions of power within the White House, Pentagon, Justice Department and elsewhere within the Bush regime. The 9-11 attacks are being used by them to attempt to significantly strengthen and expand an already oppressive and repressive, corporatized political and economic system.

What they have done and what they intend to do are qualitatively and quantitativelv beyond anything we have experienced in this country for many decades. In this context, it has to be admitted that, on the surface, the "anybody but Bush" argument has validity. I think, however, it would be a huge mistake for the Green Party not to move forward with its plans to nominate a candidate, for a number of reasons.

The fact is that the Green Party is the leading national "third party" formation. It has earned this through its work over many years throughout the country. For those of us who understand clearly that the Democratic Party is part of the problem and in no way part of the solution, there is a serious risk that a decision by the national Greens to not run a Presidential candidate could jeopardize its prospects for the future.[1]

Although the analogy is not exact, there is a potential parallel with the decision of the Populist Party in 1896--a "third party" that was much stronger than the Greens--to support the Democratic Party candidate, William Jennings Bryan. That decision led to internal divisions and demoralization within Populist Party ranks that led to its virtual disappearance by the turn of the century.

The need for a progressive alternative to the Democrats and Republicans is too great for such a risk to be taken, especially because of the dangerousness of the Bush regime. What if the Greens decided to make no effort to field a presidential candidate and...