Should Greens Fold Into Democratic Party?

[littlejoe]

Should the Greens unite with democrats to help oust Bush in 2004, or should they remain a singular party?

[Semi_subversive]

1. I would hope that we can unite

for the greater good.

[CMT]

4. they will not fold into the Dem party

especially if they win the Mayorial election in San Francisco--a very high visibility win. But I doubt the Green party will poll as much as they did in 2000 for president because many on the left want Bush defeated more than ever and the Democratic party is still the best vehicle to accomplish that.

[jiacinto]

29. SF is a very liberal and radical city

Now, if they were going to win the mayorality of a more politically balanced city, then it would be news.

But SF--and other radical towns--has always been sympathetic to them. A victory in a stronghold should really not surprise anyone.

[Renew Deal]

2. I don't know if they should fold...

but they shouldn't run a candidate for prez if they can avoid it.

[GreenPartyVoter]

3. It'll never happen

The "not left enough" argument aside, too many of us are Greens because we don't believe in the two party system.

You'll definitely see a lot of Greens voting Dem this time around, though. And should we get IRV instituted, you can expect to see a coalition of Greens, Dems, Socialists, Labor party, etc forming on the Hill.

[LeahMira]

47. No. No. No. No. No.

First of all, the Greens can nominate someone who is not "officially" a member of the Green Party. They were talking about Cynthia McKinney at one point, and last I heard she is still "officially" a Democrat. So, theoretically, the Greens could also nominate the same individual that Democrats nominate (I would think) if that individual agreed. But correct me if I'm wrong about that.

Secondly, there's a lot of truth in what Ralph Nader was saying in 2000 about there not being much difference between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. Before anyone has a cow about the definite difference between Bush-lite and Gore as he might have been, think about the Democratic voting on the Iraq War Resolution, the Patriot Act, or the recent Medicare bill. Can you say "roll over?" Depending on the individual candidate, I'd say that there is at least as much corporate influence and special interest influence at work in the Democratic Party as in the Republican Party. And, if it should happen that the Senate were divided 49R-47D (for example) and the remaining 4 votes were Green, don't you think those Greens would vote more Democratic than Republican?

The "not left enough" argument aside, too many of us are Greens because we don't believe in the two party system.

Bingo! GreenPartyVoter. I'll use my vote to get Bush out if necessary this time around. But if my state is already solidly in the Democratic camp by the time I get out to the polls, I'll vote Green because although I don't want to see the kinds of messes that a really multi-party system has brought to Israel, for instance, I do want to see choices that are real. I don't think that's going to be a problem this time around, but I do think it was the perception last time around (note, I said perception), and I'm tired of Tweedledum and Tweedledee.

[Iverson]

5. probably stay distinct

A significant percentage of Greens are former longtime Dems like myself who are very frustrated with the rightward migration of the Dems and who find our erstwhile party advocating policies exactly opposite our progressive agenda. One goes where one has a voice, rather than following to where one does not.

I wouldn't mind returning to the Democrats so long as there was just cause. Simply being not-Bush, while enough for many, does not satisfy me on a policy level. The Greens' platform does.

Most of us should want to affiliate with a political party that expresses something akin to our values. Folding the Greens into the Democratic party without some major quid pro quo would erase that.

[freepotter]

6. They should join us

It seems that their issues are too narrow to attract enough voters to elect a president, and Dems. have never been anti-environment like the repubs. certainly are.

[GreenArrow]

34. actually, their issues are probably too broad

to attract voters. People like easy solutions that don't involve sacrifice, even when the result of those sacrifices may be something better and more equitable than what they already have.

[YNGW]

7. Greens

My experience with Greens is that they view Democratics and Republicans as the same party, so I would say 'No' they won't be willing to do that. They primarily base this on their belief that both parties are servents of the corporations, and many I have spoken to regard both parties as being "fascist". I don't want to paint with a large brush any particular Green, but that has been my overall impression.

[Cleita]

10. Divide and conquer or so Julius Caesar claimed how he

attained his victories over the Gauls. It's to the Republican's benefit to divide the left so they tell the Greens and Libertarians that there is no difference in the two main parties. They know Green votes will siphon off liberal votes. Also, multiple party systems invite gridlock. This is what suffocated the Weimar Republic in Germany after WWI.

The government couldn't get any legislation passed because of the infighting causing economic and political distress. Hitler waltzed right in unelected but popular because he was able to exploit these divisions and get a coalition of different interests together as a bloc, eventually wiping out the Republic.

[Terwilliger]

12. Can you provide a cite where a Republican says there's no difference?

I didn't think so.

Would you please post the stuff realchange.org has for Gore, Clinton, Kerry, Edwards, Dean, and Clark? Thanks.

[Cleita]

22. I'll do better than that, I'll post the URL.

There's a lot of information about all the candidates on it.

http://www.realchange.org.

You know I can't mention the Republican who said this. Rules.

[Terwilliger]

24. what are you talking about?

first you don't acknowledge what realchange says about Democrats...secondly, who can't you mention? What rules? Give me the name of ANY Republican that said there are no differences between Dems and Reps.

[Cleita]

28. Nice try Terwilliger, but you well know.

Don't bait, to get me banned. Isn't that what you are trying for?

[Terwilliger]

33. You're evading my questions

There is no rule applying here. You said the Republicans want people to believe there are no differences. WHAT REPUBLICANS? How is that against any rule?

I'm waiting for the realchange data on Howard Dean, Wesley Clark, and John Kerry.

[mdguss]

36. You Know Who He Is Talking About:

A certain prominent person who may run as a Green in 2004. It has been decreed that we can only talk about person in a thread that I can't find at the moment.

In my opinion, you lost the argument, so now you're trying to get us to break the rules. I won't mention that person.

[Terwilliger]

39. Oh? And when did he become a Republican?

Get a clue.

What rules are you talking about? If you're talking about the thread Skinner started yesterday, the RULE is that no one can start a new thread about him, NOT that you can't mention his name somewhere else.

So, if I can evaluate your reading comprehension as an indicator of the strength of your arguments...you'll lose every time.

[Cleita]

42. Since we already know who is being talked about,

asking for a name by now is silly. When you get a grip on reality say something, other than that you are coming accross as a stalker.

[Terwilliger]

44. Come on, Cleita...aren't you older?

Shouldn't I expect a more mature discussion from you?

YOU claim that Nader is a Republican but you have no way to back that up.

YOU claim that I should take realchange.org as Example #1 of why Nader is a liar and a fraud, yet YOU aren't willing to put up the lists they have about the Democrats

YOU are the one who thinks the rules are that you can't mention Nader's name

I think your posts show how truly shallow your position on the matter is.

[Cleita]

54. Sticks and stones.

Your argument has stopped making what little sense it did. Your man said if he weren't running in 2000 that he would vote for Bush. The article was posted here on DU this past week. Sorry, I don't have the URL because this person isn't a priority for me to bookmark. It's been verified that he was once registered as a Republican. Sorry again no URL, but I am sure some other DU'ers have them. You can't deny that he said Republicans and Democrats are the same so vote for him instead. So I'm not going to reply to you anymore because you can't look at the truth and no one can force you to.

[Terwilliger]

58. All-righty...let's go through this

Cleita (880 posts) Thu Dec-04-03 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #7

10. Divide and conquer or so Julius Caesar claimed how he


attained his victories over the Gauls. It's to the Republican's benefit to divide the left so they tell the Greens and Libertarians that there is no difference in the two main parties. They know Green votes will siphon off liberal votes. Also, multiple party systems invite gridlock. This is what suffocated the Weimar Republic in Germany after WWI.


Terwilliger (1000+ posts) Thu Dec-04-03 11:34 AM
Response to Reply #10

12. Can you provide a cite where a Republican says there's no difference?

Would you please post the stuff realchange.org has for Gore, Clinton, Kerry, Edwards, Dean, and Clark? Thanks.



Cleita (880 posts) Thu Dec-04-03 12:30 PM
Response to Reply #12

22. I'll do better than that, I'll post the URL. do better than what? I asked you to provide a cite where a Republican says there's no difference between the two parties. Ralph Nader is not a Republican, and has never been a Republican, so I was figuring that your belief that Repukes were behind that idea you could give me an example of where an actal Repuke said it


There's a lot of information about all the candidates on it.

http://www.realchange.org.

You know I can't mention the Republican who said this. Rules.

What's funny is that you got this completely wrong or intentionally wrong because it served your purposes not to have to be called on the Republican thing



Terwilliger (1000+ posts) Thu Dec-04-03 12:33 PM
Response to Reply #22

24. what are you talking about?


first you don't acknowledge what realchange says about Democrats...secondly, who can't you mention? What rules? Give me the name of ANY Republican that said there are no differences between Dems and Reps.


Cleita (880 posts) Thu Dec-04-03 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #24

28. Nice try Terwilliger, but you well know.


Don't bait, to get me banned. Isn't that what you are trying for?

Now, is the fault in me for your incorrect assumptions, or in you for your incorrect assumptions? Once again, the thread started by Skinner was so that no one could start a new thread with Nader in the title....NOT because you could no longer say the word. I still find it funny that no Nader or Green supporter started a thread yesterday with Nader or Green in the title. Telling.


Terwilliger (1000+ posts) Thu Dec-04-03 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #28

33. You're evading my questions

Edited on Thu Dec-04-03 12:42 PM by Terwilliger
There is no rule applying here. You said the Republicans want people to believe there are no differences. WHAT REPUBLICANS? How is that against any rule?

I'm waiting for the realchange data on Howard Dean, Wesley Clark, and John Kerry.


Cleita (880 posts) Thu Dec-04-03 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #39

42. Since we already know who is being talked about,


asking for a name by now is silly. When you get a grip on reality say something, other than that you are coming accross as a stalker.

Stalker, eh? A little ad hom name calling, or were you really worried?



Terwilliger (1000+ posts) Thu Dec-04-03 12:55 PM
Response to Reply #42

44. Come on, Cleita...aren't you older?


Shouldn't I expect a more mature discussion from you?

YOU claim that Nader is a Republican but you have no way to back that up.

You still don't.

YOU claim that I should take realchange.org as Example #1 of why Nader is a liar and a fraud, yet YOU aren't willing to put up the lists they have about the Democrats

You still haven't.

YOU are the one who thinks the rules are that you can't mention Nader's name

I think your posts show how truly shallow your position on the matter is.


Cleita (880 posts) Thu Dec-04-03 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #44

54. Sticks and stones.


Your argument has stopped making what little sense it did. Your man said if he weren't running in 2000 that he would vote for Bush. The article was posted here on DU this past week. Sorry, I don't have the URL because this person isn't a priority for me to bookmark. It's been verified that he was once registered as a Republican. Sorry again no URL, but I am sure some other DU'ers have them. You can't deny that he said Republicans and Democrats are the same so vote for him instead. So I'm not going to reply to you anymore because you can't look at the truth and no one can force you to.


Now you're introducing new information proceeding further away from the original questions. You should see all the Democrats that voted for George Bush in 2000.

I do not deny that he said things were largely the same between the two parties on the national level, which was backed up by Noam Chomsky. I also do not deny the reality of Nader and the Green's positions in the Republicrat duopoly and why they're not counting towards the positive column. I also know how intransigent Democrats are and how you seem to be kicking and screaming to little effect.

Still...truth...that's funny.

[littlejoe]

35. It has never been said

by any Republicans that I know of, that there aren't any differences between the two parties. But, as a lifelong democrat, it makes me ill to see my party get steamrolled by this administration. In some cases willingly, until, to me, our democratic leadership looks an awful lot llike republicans. We need to move more to the left, and have some backbone to distinguish ourselves.

[Terwilliger]

41. I agree with that, little_joe

But I think the party is more responsible for its own compromises than Nader or the Green party.

[GreenPartyVoter]

15. You can get gridlock

no matter how many parties are around in a gov't. Certainly having only two parties is no guard against it.

Besides which, there are times when gridlock is a good thing. Wish it had happened when they rammed the Patriot Act through.

[Cleita]

25. True, however, in the case of

real multi-party governments where the gridlock is counter-productive, one needs to make coalitions with other parties to break it, so why is this any different than folding in like-minded parties under one tent, which is what we are talking about? I would like to see a woman's caucus under the Democratic tent as well. To form a Woman's party alone wouldn't be very helpful to our cause if we did it alone.

[GreenPartyVoter]

50. The trouble

with the two party system is that it weeds out too many candidates too soon.

With IRV and multiple parties the entire electorate has more options to choose from. That nullifies the issues of choosing between tweedle dum and tweedle dee only. And the coalitions can and will be formed. We have a progressive caucus in the House. I think it's no great stretch of imagination to envision Greens, Socialists, and Labor members joing the Dems and Indies there now.

Btw, Israel is a great example of what can go wrong with multi-party systems, but their system is not the only one out there. Many others do it far better. (and better than what we have here.)

[Cleita]

55. I will agree with you to this point. We would have to

change the way we do elections and institute run off voting or something like it where a voter can select three or four candidates that get eliminated leaving the one with the most votes standing. This would make it necessary to eliminate the electoral college system, which I consider undemocratic anyway. It would be no loss to me, but I am sure others would disagree.

[GreenPartyVoter]

56. I'm still not

sure how I feel about the EC. I have heard so many good points made from both sides that I'm just not ready to come to a decision on it.

All my other reform ideas (I mean I support them, not that I invented them) are on my website already. :^)

[Scott Lee]

8. HAHA!! After the way they've been treated by Democrats?

I suppose there are a few of them that are "hit me again Ike, and this time put some stank on it!" folks who are gluttons for punishment.

[RichM]

9. No, of course not. The 2 party-system is an unmitigated evil, & the Dems'

only real positive is being the "lesser" of two evils. Settling for a continuation of this atrocious system is a death wish.

[littlejoe]

11. Although I am an Idealist,

I am also a pragmatist. I feel that two purposes would be served by folding the greens into the democratic tent. It would move the party left of center where it belongs, to give true distinction between dems and repugs, and it would also give a brighter spotlight to many of the green causes, which they could never have by being a lone voice howling in the wind.

[YNGW]

13. Something To Consider

I would be interested in knowing how many Democrats who view the Party as being a little to left for their liking but still more appealing than the Repubs would jump ship if the Party drifted even further to the left. In other words, would we lose as many as we would gain? Which way would it skew? I don't know that I've ever seen a poll asking that question. Maybe someone else has.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. No! We need a truly progressive party.

And, it will give me someone to vote for if the Democrats insist on running a pro-war candidate.

[election_2004]

16. Not fold but unite

The Greens should remain a separate political party, but they should also be willing to at least consider supporting the Democratic nominee in 2004 if that person's credentials are better than Clinton's and Gore's were.

[Snivi Yllom]

17. definitely

the more help the better

[leftyandproud]

18. It's up to the DEMS

to co-opt the green agenda...Do this, and the votes will come.

[Forkboy]

19. I think it's a moot question

I really dont think it's going to happen.Nor do I believe it should.This country need more political parties,not less.

[jpgray]

20. The Greens should do what their members want

They will find their own way to deal with Bush I am sure. If the Greens here don't convince you that they want him out, nobody will. There wasn't a soul who thought Bush would be this bad, and I can't imagine anyone believing the eventual Dem nominee would be indistinguishable from a LAME DUCK Bush presidency--can you imagine?

[Killarney]

21. Yes

For the 2004 election, I think the differences should be put aside for the greater good and all Greens should vote Democratic this once.

[mdguss]

23. I'm Taking Notes:

I would not be happy if the Democratic Party cow-towed to the Green idealists and adopted some of their policy positions in its platform. I'd probably remain a Democrat, but I'd be an unhappy one. It'd take a lot for me to switch to the other side. (Short of advocation the destruction of the military--which the Green Party does--I'd stay a Democrat).

This said, I'm taking notes on the Democratic presidential candidates. I'm going to have a very hard time supporting anyone who wants to lead our party, but doesn't endorse our candidate for Mayor in S.F. If these guys don't endorse Newsom and end up losing because of a Green, I really won't feel bad for them. Supporting a party requires being loyal to it--even when we don't like its nominees.

I don't find the Greens to matter. I don't care if they vote for us or not. People who aren't even members of the Democratic Party are trying to extort the party into nominating someone they approve of. I'll vote for who I approve of. I don't care what Greens think.If they want to vote for that person, fine. If not, that's their problem. I can say, "Don't blame me, I voted Democrat."

[Terwilliger]

26. you support a party?

That's not how it works for me. Still, you want people to serve the Democratic party loyally even as it makes strides to "center" itself and make itself indistinguishable from the the Repuke moderates...how is that being loyal to a separate party?

[Iverson]

40. another false assertion

Greens do not advocate destruction of the military.

Good grief!

[Terwilliger]

49. I was going to say something about that...

but, I was like :shrug: :wtf: It was so far out of right-field I didn't know where to begin

[GreenPartyVoter]

52. We advocate

having a well-paid defense (no soldier ought to be on food stamps) without stupid Star Wars programs. We advocate getting rid of nukes, depleted uranium weapons, cluster bombs, land mines, and bio and chem weapons.

[jiacinto]

27. What I honestly think

And I am sure that the usaul suspects will respond with their hatred, anger spewing vitriol against.

1) They should become a PAC and donate money to candidates who support their agenda.

2) They should run for very local offices and then work their way up the way the Christian Coalition did.

3) In doing #1 and #2 they will create the groundwork needed to get their ideas and policies enacted.

However, running as a separate party that has no realistic to chance to win outside of liberal bastions like San Franciso, Berkeley, Boulder, Madison, Ann Arbor, Ithaca, Cambridge, and Manhattan is not going to bring them progress.

It just isn't. You can't browbeat the other 97.26% who is not as radical as the Greens into voting for their agenda overnight. It's just not going to happen. And given how elections are a winner take all system, not based on proportional representation, the Greens face institutional obstacles that will prevent them from growing. Coupled with the Green attitudes I've seen here I can say that they will never be more than just a regional party.

[Terwilliger]

30. Now you're putting everyone who didn't vote for Nader in the same camp?

No wonder Nader was right.

[Cleita]

31. Thanks Carlos.

For once I agree with you 100% It's the reality of the situation not an empty dream that has to be addressed.

[Iverson]

38. browbeating?

Truth had ought to be good enough if your case has merits. Around here, the browbeating goes overwhelmingly against Greens. You may have seen some.

[Terwilliger]

46. No, it's not browbeating

The Greens are petulant children if they don't say "Yes, missa Democrat, you right...100% pussent!"

[jiacinto]

51. Oh please

I always hear about the "persecuted Greens". Spare me. The moderators and admins have gone out of their way to allow you all to post here and attack Democrats. What more do you want?

[Iverson]

61. What more do I want? A little honesty.

For starters, I didn't say anything about persecution. That simplistic overstatement was your dodge. I called you on your use of terminology. Quit running away from it and substituting fantasy ("persecution") in its place.

You mentioned "browbeating." You brought it up, not me. Now that we're on your topic, face up to it. Each of us has to be responsible for our writing. I am responsible for mine. The worst that I do is let my irritation show and become insulting, but generally I can keep to a topic. You, sir, are on record and have fame on the site exactly for the browbeating that you pretend to decry. You accept praise for browbeating Greens when it comes your way, so you may as well face up to reality when it includes an inconvenient element of accurate identification.

My posting here as a progressive is not paid for by suffering your browbeating, insults, and intellectual dishonesty. I count as intellectual dishonesty those arguments that use deliberately false constructions when the arguer knows better. I assume that those posters here who have had the benefit of higher education do know better. You are among them. You do know better.

Further, I do not just attack Democrats. This is another deliberate falsehood by you toward me.

Honesty, sir, would have you confront your apologia for the unceasing drift rightward. Honestly, sir, would have you abandon sweeping generalization as the default mode of political discourse. Honesty, sir, would have you confront the actual arguments that people make, and not what your imagination wishes the other said.

These are minmums, and you should burn with shame that such basic reminders need come your way.

Have I made myself clear?

[Emboldened Chimp]

32. They should just fold. Period.

They've got a losing hand and should stop bluffing.

[KG]

37. greens are doing the dems. a big favor.

the greens are capitalists. and like good capitialists, they are providing the dems competition in the marketplace of ideas.

let's see if the corporatists in the 'new dems' respond in a market kind of way by getting off their asses, coming down from their penthouse suites and getting out of their limos, rolling up thier sleeves and going to work for the votes they use to just take for granted.

[Terwilliger]

43. and like good little capitalists, the Dems want to close the market

and put regulations on dissent

[jpgray]

45. If the Greens never win elections, they are not the competition

The competition is the Republicans, since the prize is to be elected. Democrats and Greens apparently aren't competing for the same BASE either, since almost all Greens will vote Green and almost all Democrats will vote Democratic. So for Democrats to do what Greens say makes no sense to them, and for Greens to do what Democrats say makes no sense to them.

The two parties should stop pretending they want to help one another--they don't. The Greens want to replace the Dems, and the Dems don't want to be replaced. Obviously the party that is being most successful at this wasteful and idiotic game is the Democratic party: the Greens are too inefficient to make any impact--they cannot win a single significant office.

The loser here is progressive ideals, with proponents in both parties who refuse to speak for each other or encourage voting for each other. Greens who planned to run a candidate against Wellstone, etc. cement the idea that it isn't about ideology, it's simply about power. There is no right or wrong, just two greedy rats trying to snap a bigger piece of the pie.

The horse you're on is apparently so high you can't even see the world around you--get off it. The Greens aren't a "new special thing", they're a party that lives to lose, and does remarkably well in it. And of course the Democrats are much like what you describe, with some notable (and ignored) exceptions like Kucinich.

[Terwilliger]

48. where do you get this?

since almost all Greens will vote Green and almost all Democrats will vote Democratic

any source to back any of that up? Now, it's pretty safe to say that most Greens vote Green, most Dems vote Dem, etc. but this statement above leads to further conclusions, so I'd love to see the basis for the claim.

Many Greens vote Dem....Greens voted for Gore BIG-TIME in 2000, which is why they didn't get their 5%.

Greens are a party that lives to lose

Now throwing ad hominem on top. What a wonderful partisan you are.

[jpgray]

53. Hardly ad hominem--Nader expects to win in his presidential bids?

No. What he does do is acquire more wealth and fame--the goals of a politician realized without the accountability of holding an office. Do Greens run to *win* state Gubernatorial bids? No. Do Greens run to *win* Senate races? No.

Will the Green party endorse a Democratic candidate when they have their own? No. Will the Democratic Party endorse a Green candidate when they have their own? No.

They are two rats fighting over a pie. You like the look of one rat more than the other, apparently. Again, if it is about the ideals, why should the Greens fight Wellstone, or other very liberal congresspeople? What is it about if not ideals? Power--money and fame and just basic ambition take over every political party. We know Dems are largely corporate stooges--that's old news. What are the Greens, then? If Kucinich isn't worthy of support, is it only because he has a D next to his name? Why not run Nader as a Senator or for Congress, races which in the right district or state he could win? Because it isn't about winning. That's hardly an ad hominem attack, it's just the reality of the Green Party.

[Terwilliger]

59. You do know why Nader wasn't required to reveal financial holdings, right?

Everything you just said is fine if you frame it on the existing Democrat and Republican parties. This is how you interact with each other. That's not how things have to be, and more people are coming to that realization.

Everybody can run for president. The biggest problem with the Democratic party is that it can't seem to find one.

[John_H]

57. The greens have the luxury

of nothing they do making a bit of difference. Irrelevance doeshave it's privilidges

[Terwilliger]

60. Irrelevance seems to have a fan following

and I'm not the one who thinks they're irrelevant.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Moderator]

63. I am locking this thread.

It is inflammatory.


DU Moderator