[Mb-civic] Greens challenge The Nation

[swiggard at comcast.net]

McLARTY  CHALLENGES NATION MAG TO SUPPORT THE PARTY OF PEACE:
THE GREEN PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES

The Nation
Tuesday, November 22, 2005
1,166 words

To the Editor,

In a recent editorial, The Nation declared that
it "will not support any candidate for national
office who does not make a speedy end to the war
in Iraq a major issue of his or her campaign.  We
urge all voters to join us in adopting this
position." ("Democrats and the War", November 9,
2005
<http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051128/editors>)
We congratulate The Nation for taking this stand.

But will The Nation redirect its support towards
candidates and parties that have consistently
opposed the war from the beginning and called for
withdrawal -- such as the Green Party?

While The Nation has maintained a grand tradition
of dissent, it has undermined its own principles
by its allegiance to Democrats who have abandoned
theirs.  It's no longer acceptable to endure the
accelerating retreat of Democrats from
progressive principles, or insist that, since we
live in a two-party system, we must continue to
support Democrats in order to keep Republicans
out of power, until a third party insurgence
grows strong enough to deserve attention.

Until it begins to promote such an insurgence,
The Nation is helping to maintain the political
status quo.   And what a dreary status quo it is:
Republicans drift towards ever greater extremism,
while the mainstream of the Democratic Party more
and more ignores its traditional principles and
goals -- Fascism Lite vs. GOP Lite.

In 2004, publications like The Nation called
their endorsement of John Kerry's deeply flawed
candidacy a necessity, warning that nothing was
scarier than another four years of Bush.
President Bush did not disappoint expectations.
But there is something indeed scarier: another
century of Bush vs. Kerry.

The Nation's editors will point to its consistent
coverage and promotion of liberal and progressive
Democrats.  Greens have been privileged to work
along side some principled Democrats like Reps.
John Conyers, Dennis Kucinich, Cynthia McKinney,
Jesse Jackson, Jr., and others on everything from
opposition to the Iraq War to promotion of
national health insurance to the crisis of the
right to vote in the wake of the 2000 and 2004
election irregularities.  (Let's not forget that
it was Greens and Libertarians, not Democrats,
who initiated the vote recounts in Ohio and New
Mexico after evidence emerged that Republican
officials obstructed votes cast by African
Americans and young people and manipulated
computer voting outcomes.)

Even progressive Democrats have remained loyal to
their corporate-funded corporate-friendly party.
Witness the role progressive Dems have played in
national elections during the past generation:
outstanding candidates like Rev. Jesse Jackson,
Jerry Brown, and Mr. Kucinich ultimately support
whichever pro-corporate pro-war candidate wins
their party's nomination, herding those who voted
for them back into the the fold of a party that
has rejected their ideals.

This pattern will repeat in 2008.  The Democratic
nominee will not be someone who challenged the
deceptions behind the decision to invade Iraq or
demanded quick withdrawal .  The nominee will not
be a critic of international trade authorities,
an advocate of single-payer national health
insurance or repeal of the Taft-Hartley Act, or
leader of a movement for energy conservation,
decreased oil drilling, and other urgently needed
measures to curb global warming.  He or she will
have the full blessing of the CEOs who sit in the
skyboxes at the Democratic convention every four
years.

As David Cobb, the Green Party's 2004
presidential nominee, said during his campaign,
"The Democratic Party's presidential primary is
where progressive politics goes to die."

If nominated in 2008, will Hillary Clinton -- who
helped her husband kill our most recent chance
for single-payer in 1992; who, under pressure
from credit card lobbies, voted for the
Bankruptcy Bill in March, 2001; who calls for
80,000 more U.S. troops in Iraq, who now
soft-pedals her earlier support for women's
reproductive rights -- get The Nation's approval?
 According to The Nation's editorial pledge, no.

But Democrats have also shown a talent for
historical revisionism.  Significant numbers of
Democrats in Congress swallowed the Bush
Administration's deceptions and brushed aside
contrary evidence, voting enthusiastically in
October 2002 to transfer their constitutionally
mandated war power to the White House, and
cheering the invasion that killed over 2,000
American servicemembers and tens of thousands of
Iraqi civilians.  Nearly all congressional Dems
voted for the USA Patriot Act.  Now they're
having second thoughts.  As the Iraq venture
turns more and more disastrous, we may see
eleventh hour conversions among warhawks like
Sen. Clinton as the 2008 race heats up. Will The
Nation reward such feeble demonstrations of
leadership with an endorsement?

As Sam Smith, editor of The Progressive Review,
has observed, progressives stuck in the
Democratic groove have become like abused spouses
unable to get up and leave.

The Nation's editors will note that they have
promoted the Working Families Party, which
emerged first in New York and is now branching
out in other states.  But the Working Families
Party, despite some excellent candidates of its
own, pursues a strategy that includes
cross-endorsement of Democrats in many races and
avoidance of challenges against Dems in statewide
and national elections.  In states like New York,
which allows fusion, cross-endorsement serves
immediate ballot-status goals.  But the Working
Families' lack of independence makes it an
ancillary party to the Democratic juggernaut (a
winning Democrat-Working Families candidate is
recognized publicly as a Democrat) and will
ultimately consign it to the same fate as the New
Party (now defunct) and the late Tony Mazzocchi's
Labor Party (moribund).

In the mid 1850s, right-thinking Americans faced
a national crisis for which the existing system
and prevailing political parties offered no
humane resolution, and the abolitionist
Republican Party was founded.  A new, independent
party, one that seeks to abolish corporate
domination, empire, and reckless ecological
policy, is no less a necessity at the beginning
of the 21st century.

The establishment of a permanent, independent,
noncorporate people's party with significant
numbers of registered voters and a presence in
Congress, state legislatures, and other offices
in the coming decades would be a tremendous
progressive victory.  There are lots of
obstacles, and it won't make Democrats happy.
But it is achievable.

If progressives, including The Nation, retreat
from a third party challenge, and if the
direction established under President Clinton
continues, we can look forward to decades of
dreary Dem vs. Repub races, narrow public debate
from which the ideals of The Nation and the
Greens are absent and the interests of working
people disregarded, and probable further drift to
the right within both establishment parties.  The
Democrat Party will not overcome its addiction to
corporate money.

The Nation's pledge is admirable, but it says
nothing about supporting antiwar candidates.  Is
this a loophole, in order not to offend
Democrats?  Or is the pledge a serious statement
that its support for Democrats can no longer be
guaranteed?  If the latter, we invite The Nation
to consider seriously the Green insurgency,
support our candidates, and join us in making the
Green Party the great political endeavor of the
21st century.

Scott McLarty
Media Coordinator
Green Party of the United States
www.gp.org



--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .