The Green Party, Election 2004 and the Struggle for Peace and Justice

Note: This is a shorter, article-length version of my Green 2004 strategy paper

The Green Party, Election 2004 and the Struggle for Peace and Justice
By Matt Hancock

The most important debate at the Green Party’s upcoming Presidential Nominating Convention will not be over who to nominate or endorse as the Party’s presidential candidate, but over what kind of strategy Greens will pursue in the 2004 elections.

Right now the main, immediate threat to peace and democracy is George Bush and his neocon cabal. They are the principle architects of the war on Iraq and the assault on civil liberties at home. If not defeated, the Bush neocons will further erode civil liberties and move to control the rest of the world. For these reasons, a Bush defeat in 2004 is a strategic objective for Greens.

Because of the enormous structural barriers to challenges by insurgent parties and the unbelievable amount of money needed to beat Bush-he’s raised more than $200 million to date-the candidate that beats him must have the support of a part of the US ruling class.

Bush has the backing of the reactionary Hegemonist ruling class faction. On the other side are the more multilateral-oriented Globalists-typified by investors like multi-billionaire George Soros-who are deeply disturbed by Bush’s neoconservative war policy. This is the faction that has the financial resources needed to beat Bush. This is the faction backing Kerry.

So where does this leave the Green Party? A Bush win is a defeat for Greens. He is the main threat to world peace and democratic rights at home. But co-optation by the Democrats is also a threat. Historically the Democrats have provided a safety valve for US elites, protecting the ruling class from popular movements by swallowing them up and letting them blow-off steam inside the Party.

It would be a mistake, then, for the Greens to endorse Kerry; if he wins in November, we still get imperialism. Key is adopting a strategy that makes “regime change at home” the primary objective, while building a progressive force capable of holding whoever wins accountable.

A good model for Greens to follow would be the anti-Bush, Peace and Justice Voters strategy promoted by the independent Chicagoans Against War in Iraq.

Peace and Justice Voters aim at building a broad-based, independent, progressive force beholden to no one but itself. The main thrust of Peace and Justice Voters is “regime change at home.” At the same time they know they’re part of a long-term struggle for peace and justice, and will have to hold Kerry accountable as well. The point is that beating Bush will make both easier.

How can this strategy be adapted by the Green Party? First, the Green Party and its candidate must make Bush’s hegemonism, and not the two party duopoly, the main target of their attacks. The choice in 2004 is not between “rule of the people” and “rule of the corporations,” but between two factions of the ruling class. This is the harsh reality.

The Green candidate should also try to “steal” votes from Bush, rather than convincing likely Democratic voters to go Green. The conservative Reform Party’s endorsement of Nader confirms that this is possible.

Most important, though, is expanding the electorate in a progressive way. Democrats and Republicans struggle to appeal to the ever shrinking group of “likely voters.” Greens, instead, must bring new, underrepresented people like students, people of color and poor people to the polls. This is where the margin for Bush’s defeat will come from. This is where a politics of transformation begins.

With no clear winner yet among delegates-Texas-native David Cobb has the single largest bloc of votes, but the Camejo, Nader, none-of-the-above and uncommitted delegates greatly outnumber him-the upcoming Green Party convention will be a difficult and contentious project. That’s democracy.

If, during the convention, the Greens choose a strategy similar to Peace and Justice Voters, they will be able to deal with the most immediate threat to peace and democracy without making-believe that Kerry represents a progressive alternative. Greens will have increased the anti-Bush turnout, perhaps even providing the margin for his defeat. But most important, the Green Party and society’s progressive forces will be in a better position to hold whoever wins accountable, and to build an alternative to two-party rule.