November 15, 2004
Green Party RIP
Even the delusional Jeffrey St. Clair over at Counterpunch recognizes that the Greens have been beaten badly, if not finished off for good. Yet St. Clair remains defiant about the need for a 3rd party, utterly disregarding the monumental psychological effect the Bush v. Gore debacle had and will continue to have on 3rd party activism for decades.
Yet the end of the Greens is in some ways a disappointing development, since it would be interesting to see a genuine Green movement in America, modeled after the Europeans (rather than the American model, which under Nader is simply a far left-libertarian position that has no appeal to conservatives) and centered on peace and ecology (which many conservatives support). For genuine effectiveness, it would have to operate both within and outside the Democratic Party. Yet a sensible strategy seems far-fetched considering the apparent lack of strategic sense in their camp.
As always, the problem is structural, not ideological. A winner-take-all system naturally leads to a two party system. Without some form of instant runoff voting or proportional representation we'll never see anything but two parties. Even Teddy Roosevelt couldn't garner more than 20% of the vote running on a third party ticket after having been president.
The party that controls power will never allow electoral reform UNLESS there is a long term effort within the party to support said reforms. That is one reason why the Greens should work within the Democratic Party.
That's one reason I was hoping that Kerry would win the EV, but Bush the popular vote this time around. That way there might have been *some* bipartisan agreement that the EC should go. Of course, it's a complicated question and I'm by no means convinced that abolishing the EC would be a good idea. It *seems* like it would, but I don't know enough about the details.
Well I'm pretty convinced about abolishing the EC. The only decent argument for keeping it is that it forces politicians to campaign on a more localized level. For me, that isn't good enough to outweigh disenfranchising such a large portion of the population.
But real electoral reform (proportional representation, IRV, run-offs) are a trickier proposition. I would like to see some more local experimentation--which we will need anyway before reform will be politically possible.
The birth of a third viable force is not a matter to be decided in one or three elections. The Greens know it and did not expect to make much difference in this election. Their goals are set for the long run.
The US once had three major parties, the Whig co-existing with the Republicans and the Democrats. Canada, with the same District majority system, has more at least four major parties. In England, where this system has its roots, there have been three major political parties for decades. There the Liberals are probably coming back to the position of ruling party or of main opposition force in one or two elections.
The question do we need a reform of the electoral system? makes sense and can be answered yes or no. But the question do we need a third party is nonsensical, even if you do not want a third party for any reasons. A third party starts to grow when, in bi-partisan structure, one of the two main factions, or even both of them, can no longer answer to the demands of a large section of a society.
The current problem with the Democrats is that they are not perceived as sufficiently progressive by the progressive electorate, but are seen as too progressive by the extreme right. It is a dilemma and the Democrats cannot go both ways: they have to face it sooner or later. Right now, the results in favour of the Republicans may be interpreted by the progressive electorate as an evidence against strategic vote.
Meanwhile, it is possible that the Republicans will favour a reform in the direction of a kind of proportional system if they understand that by giving a piece to the Greens they take some from the Democrats. This would not always lead to a conservative majority in every election, but the conservatives might think so. Who knows...
Here is an interesting article about E.F. Schumacher a convert to Catholicism who was, according to the article, an highly influential figure in the founding of the Green movement. I had never heard of him before so perhaps Ludwig can inform me if that is true.
Interesting article. I had never heard of Schumacher before, but then I don't know much about green movements or small-scale economy theorists in America.