Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Poll Analyses
Share on Facebook 8 Share on Twitter Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
OpEdNews Op Eds    H2'ed 1/24/20

An Open Letter to the Green Party About 2020 Election Strategy

By       (Page 1 of 2 pages) (View How Many People Read This)   3 comments
Author 1781
Message Press Release

From Noam Chomsky, Bill Fletcher, Barbara Ehrenreich, Kathy Kelly, Ron Daniels, Leslie Cagan, Norman Solomon, Cynthia Peters, and Michael Albert

Green Party logo
Green Party logo
(Image by Fuzzytek)
  Details   DMCA

As the 2020 presidential election approaches, the Green Party faces the challenge of settling on a platform, choosing a candidate for president, and deciding its campaign strategy. In that context, Howie Hawkins, a contender for Green Party presidential candidate, recently published a clear and cogent essay titled The Green Party Is Not the Democrats' Problem. It represents a precedent Green Party stance which may guide Green campaign policy. We agree with much, but find some ideas very troubling.

The stance offered in Hawkins' article says "the assertion that the Green Party spoiled the 2000 and 2016 elections is a shallow explanation for the Democrats' losses;" that in 2000, "the Supreme Court stopped the Florida recount;" that many factors "elected Trump in 2016...including black voter suppression, Comey publicly reopening the Clinton email case a week before the election, $6 billion of free publicity for Trump from the commercial media, and a Clinton campaign that failed to get enough of its Democratic base out;" that the Electoral College "gave the presidency to the loser of the popular vote;" that most Greens are "furious" at a Democratic party "that joins with Republicans to support domestic austerity and a bloated military budget and endless wars;" "that the Green Party's Green New Deal science-based timeline, would put the country on a World War II scale emergency footing to transform the economy to zero greenhouse gas emissions and 100% clean energy by 2030;" and that "the Green Party want(s) to eliminate poverty and radically reduce inequality" including a job guarantee, a guaranteed income above poverty, affordable housing, improved Medicare for all, lifelong public education from pre-K through college, and a secure retirement;" and finally that the Green Party strategy "is to build the party from the bottom up by electing thousands to municipal and county offices, state legislatures, and soon the House as we go into the 2020s."

We agree that many factors led to Democratic Party losses and that the Supreme Court was a big one as was the Electoral College, and we too are furious at Democrats joining Republicans in so many violations of justice and peace. Likewise, we admire the Greens' Green New Deal and economic justice commitments, and also support a grassroots, local office approach to winning electoral gains.

So with all that agreement, why are we sending a critical open letter?

The stance the article presents, which may guide the Green campaign for president, says, "To hold all other factors (contributing to recent Presidential victories) constant and focus on the Green Party as the deciding factor is a hypothetical that is a logical fallacy because it assumes away a factual reality: the Green Party is here to stay." However, our finding Green policy a factor in Republican victories in no way suggests that the Green Party should disappear. And our focus on factors within our reach to easily correct (for example, the Green Party role in contested states) is in fact sensible.

The stance also says "the Green Party is not why the Democrats lost to Bush and Trump," but even if true, that wouldn't demonstrate it won't be why this time. In any case, let's take Trump and Clinton, and see how Green Party policy mattered.

If Clinton got Jill Stein's Green votes in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan, Clinton would have won the election. Thus, the Green Party's decision to run in those states, saying even that there was little or no difference between Trump and Clinton, seems to us to be a factor worthy of being removed from contested state dynamics, just like the Electoral College is a factor worthy of being removed across all states.

We realize many and perhaps most Greens will respond that if those who voted for Stein in contested states in 2016 hadn't done so, they would have abstained. We don't know how anyone could know that, but for the sake of argument we will suppose it is correct.

Still, if these voters who preferred Stein did indeed erroneously believe that there was no difference between Trump and Clinton, surely to some degree that was a result of Stein refusing to acknowledge the special danger of Trump, and insisting that while it would be bad if Trump won it would also be bad if Clinton won, and refusing to state any preference.

Similarly, if these Stein voters did indeed erroneously believe that no harm could come from casting a vote for Stein in a close state in a close election, that also to some degree was surely a result of Green campaigning insisting that Green voters bore no responsibility for the 2000 election result.

And finally, if these voters did indeed erroneously believe that it was immoral to contaminate themselves by voting for Clinton or for a Democrat, surely in part that too was encouraged by Green campaigning that treated voting as a feel-good activity ("vote your hopes, not your fears") as if fear of climate disaster, for example, shouldn't be a motivator for political action.

The stance says, "The Green Party is not going back to the 'safe states strategy' that a faction of it attempted in 2004." This means they will not forgo running in contested states where Green votes could swing the outcome as happened in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan in 2016, and they will not run in only 40 safe states where the outcome will be a foregone conclusion.

But why reject a safe states strategy?

Like Stein in 2016, some might claim doing so can't help Trump win again or, in any case, that Trump's re-election would not matter all that much. "He isn't that much worse."

Next Page  1  |  2

 

Funny 1  
Rate It | View Ratings

Press Release Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Writers Guidelines
Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

STAY IN THE KNOW
If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEdNews Newsletter
Name
Email
   (Opens new browser window)
 

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Idle No More-- The Indigenous People's Revolution Begins

"March Against Monsanto" Planned for Over 30 Countries

Bernie Sanders Blocks Bernanke Confirmation... With Bi-Partisan Support

Bush and Associates Found Guilty of Torture

Statement of 911 Widows In Response to 12/25 Terror Attempt

Family Farmers Amplify Legal Complaint Against Monsanto's GMOs

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

2 people are discussing this page, with 3 comments


Lois Gagnon

Become a Fan
Author 61784
(Member since Mar 21, 2011), 42 fans, 1 articles, 15 quicklinks, 5504 comments (How many times has this commenter been recommended?)
Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

  New Content

I will not vote for any imperialist candidates. That includes Warren and Sanders. Yes, you read that right. We will not save the planet until the military budget is slashed at least in half. Howie is proposing 75%. To believe otherwise is to believe in magic. None of the Democrats including Bernie will do this. So keep drinking the duopoly Kool-Aide.

Submitted on Friday, Jan 24, 2020 at 4:35:11 PM

  Recommend  (2+)
Help
Indent

Kirk Hauptman

Become a Fan
Author 510629
(Member since Feb 5, 2018), 6 comments (How many times has this commenter been recommended?)
Not paid member and Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Reply to Lois Gagnon:   New Content

People simply cannot confront the reality of how far into darkness the US has drifted. I will not vote for anyone who has supported the manufacture and use of depleted uranium munitions, double tap drone strikes on civilians, training of terrorist death squads at the School of the Americas in Ft Benning, upwards of 750 military bases around the world, torture of prisoners, etc. The US military is the largest enforcement branch of the largest criminal gang in the world. We are in the "corpse and maggots" stage of politics, some people vote for the corpse, some people vote for the maggots. If you vote for any of these people- you absolutely guarantee that nothing will change.

The US needs a profound reset. If if ifsomething better is actually possible, it will be nearly unrecognizable to most people today. Some of its most significant characteristic will be compassion and humility. I'm actually optimistic.

Submitted on Saturday, Jan 25, 2020 at 4:21:00 PM

  Recommend  (1+)
Help
IndentIndent

Lois Gagnon

Become a Fan
Author 61784
(Member since Mar 21, 2011), 42 fans, 1 articles, 15 quicklinks, 5504 comments (How many times has this commenter been recommended?)
Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Reply to Kirk Hauptman:   New Content

Well said Kirk. Couldn't agree more. To see someone of the stature of Chomsky fall into the lesser of two evils trap is even more surreal than watching people I thought knew better falling for Russia-gate and blindly believing the CIA.

Submitted on Sunday, Jan 26, 2020 at 7:27:41 PM

  Recommend  (0+)
Help