Fighting RepubliCo Without Selling Out
There can be no question that liberals and progressives are facing a crisis. The debate has already begun about what the Greens should do in 2004, and what responsibility the Democrats have to face the Green Party "situation." About the only certain point of agreement is that another four years of the Bush Administration would be disastrous for everyone except corporate executives with connections to the White House. From there, opinions diverge dramatically.
For many leaders of the Green Party, it seems that nothing has changed. "Republicrats" still run the country, indistinguishable except for the special interests that own them. America is caught in a downward spiral of greed, class warfare, and environmental oblivion, and only a true third option can possibly make a difference in the coming battle. While Greens could be accused of hubris in this matter, there is no questioning the party's dedication or ethics. The Green Party is an entirely grassroots organization, not beholden to anyone except its constituents and determined to promote its ideal of social justice. This has made it arguably the largest political third party in America today.
Meanwhile, the Democrats are trying to figure out who they are and what they stand for. This would be forgivable if they had chosen a better time for it. Unfortunately, while America's oldest political party goes through its collective mid-life crisis, the right-wing interests that run the G.O.P. -- an unholy alliance of self-deceptive Big Money and apocalyptic fundamentalism -- are pummeling them in mass media and public opinion. Portrayed by turns as weak-willed, morally bankrupt, or outright treasonous, Democrats are left seeming shell-shocked. While they have sometimes shown some courage in resisting elements of the Bush Administration's radical agenda, more often they roll over for the neoconservatives who have hijacked the party of Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt.
Fortunately, there have been signs of a Democratic renaissance. Realizing that being RepubliCo Lite has not helped them win votes, the Democratic leadership has been increasingly more willing to speak out against the administration's ever more strident rhetoric. More importantly, Democrats are showing the backbone to resist in more tangible ways, from working against Ashcroft's Constitution-busting Patriot II to the surprisingly long-lived Estrada filibuster.
What is frighteningly absent from both sides is the realization that each needs the other.
Green Party idealism is a powerful force, but it is virtually impossible that a Green candidate will be elected President in 2004. Even the vast majority of Greens realize this. What some Greens refuse to admit is that any of the current Democratic candidates would be a vast improvement over the Bush Administration on every topic of meaning to liberals, progressives, moderates, and probably most conservatives as well. Even Joseph "Department of Homeland Security" Lieberman, who seems to have joined the Democratic party by mistake, would make a better president than our current appointee. Only those who would benefit from mass corporate welfare and those who want to see fundamentalist morality legislated over the corpse of the Constitution will prosper in a second term of a second Bush.
Many Democrats, for their part, seem to believe that the growing fear of George W. Bush -- or more accurately, the handlers who control him -- will be enough to convince the left to vote for their candidate, whoever it may be. Instead of making a genuine effort to reach out to their traditional base, the message that liberals and progressives are getting seems to be take it or leave it. In spite of the terrible danger that opposition might be effectively impossible by 2008, given that choice, many on the left will choose to "leave it" rather than compromise their ideals.
When the choice is between the lesser of two evils, voting to make a statement is a viable and understandable third option. Our choice, however, is between an evil and -- at worst -- the merely distasteful. There must be a way to work together to stop the nightmare of an American Empire without "compromising" anyone's beliefs.
Perhaps the greatest problem facing American third parties of all sorts is that our country uses winner-take-all elections almost exclusively. There is no proportional representation, no parliamentary system, and no tradition of coalition government to build alliances on. Circumventing this problem is easier than it looks, however. All it takes is the willingness of each side to realize the importance of the other.
Greens are simply not in position to win a major election in America at this time. On the other hand, they might well have the numbers to affect the outcome of several elections nationwide, including the presidency. If the Democrats do not recognize this, they could end up being further marginalized by the increasingly homogenous Republican juggernaut. Instead of undercutting one another, however, the two parties could form the American equivalent of a coalition government -- a true "coalition of the willing," if you will. The Greens could endorse a candidate or group of candidates among the current Democratic crop. Theoretically, they could even merge primaries with the Democrats, gaining even more influence over the choice of the Democratic nominee. Win or lose, the Green Party backs the Democratic candidate in the general election, adding its powerful grassroots organization to the nominee's campaign effort.
In exchange for this consideration, the Democrats could back Greens in several elections nationwide, particularly in areas where Democrats are either weak or already exceptionally strong, or are having trouble finding a candidate. Alaska, where the Green candidate sometimes has a better showing than the Democrat, would be an ideal area to make this attempt. This backing would have to be strictly a no-strings-attached deal for the individual candidates backed by the Democratic party. This Democrat-Green alliance would provide many of the benefits of a European-style coalition. Greens would be able to seriously influence the direction of the most important political campaign of 2004, while receiving the benefits of having a major party backing some of its candidates. At the same time, Democrats would have a much better chance to win back the White House and at least one House of Congress, while reclaiming some of their standing with liberals and progressives.
Surely, there are other plans of equal or superior merit that could be implemented to find a balance between hopeful idealism and thoughtful realism. All that matters is that the two parties realize that they must hang together or hang separately. For those who would decry the compromise of working with "them," it bears noting that all democracy is ultimately founded on reconciliation between people with greatly varying points of view. After all, as the Bush team has proven all too well, ideological purity is no virtue. If ever there was a time to understand the importance of compromise in democracy, that time is now.
(/) Roland
Allergic to nooses
No comments:
Post a Comment