Response to L.A. Times Article on Green Party
[Write them at letters@latimes.com and tell them what you think. Original article available for a short period at http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-war-
green1apr01,1,4717376.story?coll=la%2Dheadlines%2Dcalifornia. -Thomas]
Editors,
As a member of the Green Party since 1990, the unthinking perpetuation of simplistic stereotypes and factual inaccuracies in Michael Finnegan’s article (”Dissenting Greens See Chance to Grow”) irritated me immensely. First of all, the Green Party has not “struggled for years” to grow beyond a “tiny core of staunch leftists”. The fact is, that in every election since 1998, our numbers at the top of the ballot have grown, significantly, and in core areas where we are strong (such as in Santa Cruz County, where I live), we have gotten ever stronger… it may have been a lot of hard work to get to where we are today as a party, but growth has hardly been a “struggle” (although managing it has). This characterization of our party, which has never been explicitly socialist or Marxist, and in fact encompasses a whole range of opinions on that matter (for instance, in Germany, it is the Green Party that is pressing their explicitly socialist partners in the governing coalition for more free market solutions to the unemployment problem there) is slanderous and wildly inaccurate. It is a ludicrous attempt to marginalize the Green Party by putting it into the same category as the many narrowly sectarian leftist parties littering the pages of American history that never managed any electoral success or broad base of membership. The policies advocated by the Green Party are well within the scope of what used to be the “liberal/progressive” wing of the Democratic Party, and our growing strength (150,000+ registered voters and approximately 400,000 votes for Camejo and Wells) is a reflection of how dissatisfied many mainstream liberal Democrats are with their party.
If the Green Party has “yet to shed its image as a spoiler”, then why did our candidates (as acknowledged in this article), including the two specifically cited, earn record percentages across the board, up and down the entire statewide ticket? The “spoiler” issue is the Democrat’s problem, not ours - our voters have said, loud and clear, that they are tired of voting for the lesser of two evils, and are willing to accept the occassional consequences of doing so (electing Republicans), in order for change to happen. The Democrats have it within their power to pass Instant Run Off Voting (as San Francisco citizens did last year) and eliminate the “spoiler” issue entirely. The fact that they haven’t demostrates that their complaints about “spoiling” are just an excuse to scare voters away from the Green Party. Has your writer noticed that the President of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and two members of the SF Board of Education are Greens? The fact is, the Green Party is best known for its strong positions on protecting the environment, advocating for social justice, and opposing the war (values and positions these folk stand for). Why else would nearly 6% of the voters (and a far greater percentage of “liberals”) statewide cast a vote for Laura Wells, when in all likelihood they never saw a single item of media coverage or campaign literature? Green votes are cast for Green candidates because of the values espoused by the Green Party - that is what we are “best known” for!
Finally, the statement that the “party’s agenda” includes “legalization of marajuana” is completely false. Individuals, and perhaps local groups, might have taken this position, but the only official statement on this subject in the Green Party platform (available at http://www.cagreens.org/platform/) calls for supporting the implementation of Proposition 215 (the medical marajuana initiative) - which, of course, was passed by a majority of the voters in California. This hardly qualifies as “unpopular”. A statement of this sort just plain irresponsible and lazy journalism, compounded by weak fact checking in your editorial department! Please issue a correction.
In summary, much as Art Torres might wish it otherwise, the Green Party is a “threat”, because it is not just “some Democrats” have almost become Republicans, but because the Democratic Party as a whole has been unwilling to stand up and fight for what it claims to stand for, to persuade the public to move in their direction, rather move to where the public is - and the Green Party has. This is starkly demonstrated by the contrast between the Green Party’s uncondtional opposition to the illegal and unjustified war in Iraq, and the weak-kneed and highly qualified stance of even the most liberal Bay Area Democrats, as exemplified by the unanimous vote (Barbara Boxer included) in the Senate to “commend… the leadership of the president… in the conflict in Iraq” and declare that “the military action now underway against Iraq is lawful and fully authorized by the Congress” and the nearly unanimous vote in the House to express “the unequivocal support and appreciation of the nation” for the presidents “firm leadership” and declared Iraq in “material breach” of U.N. resolutions (when no such finding had been made). The strongest opposition to this balderdash that most Bay Area Democrats were able to muster was an absention - a choice not given the Iraqi people or our military.
The Green Party is willing to fight for its core principles. The Democratic Party (with a few exceptions) is not. This is what each party is “best known for” among Bay Area liberal voters, and the results of the last election demonstrate it.
Regards,
Thomas Leavitt
