Which Way Forward for the Green Party?

Under Cobb’s leadership, many in the liberal wing aligned themselves with the Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) whose stated aim is to transform the Democratic Party through a policy of encouraging progressives to think “realistically” about the immutability of the two-party system and apply their energies inside the Democratic Party, rather than through third-party challengers. Cobb has appeared on many PDA panels as an “alliance partner.” Cobb ally, Medea Benjamin, of Global Exchange and Code Pink, wrote a glowing fundraising letter for PDA, which was disseminated in Green Party circles.  

Like many inside/outside formations, such as the Working Families Party, PDA exists to shepherd progressives into the left wing of the duopoly’s electoral pen and reinforce the two party system and its consequences. If the AFL-CIO and mainstream civil rights groups— heavily integrated into the Democratic Party and backed with millions of members and millions of dollars—have failed to bring progress with this technique, the PDA, with its meager forces, stands no chance of succeeding. 

The Tulsa meeting was essentially a contest between the two wings of the party played out through the same undemocratic scheme that distorted the outcome of the 2004 Milwaukee Convention. Under this scheme California and New York control only about 16 percent of the Green National Committee (GNC), even though 65 percent of all registered Greens reside in these two states. By process of this disproportionate allocation system, liberals constitute as much as 75 percent of GNC representation and, through the Tulsa Green Party Convention, control 100 percent of the executive power vested in the steering committee (now reduced to a still unassailable 89 percent) and a similar percentage of standing committee and working group positions. These allocations can only be altered by a two-thirds majority vote and are thereby effectively self-sustaining. 

Conflict between the two wings erupted early in the convention over which delegates to seat from Utah, a state where two groups claim to be the official Green Party. The original Utah Greens split into two factions in 2004 over which candidate—Cobb or Nader— to put on their state’s ballot line. The small Cobb-supporting wing was officially recognized by the national steering committee as the sole representative of the Utah Greens. By contrast, the Nader- supporting wing, ten times the size of the Cobb-supporting wing, was recognized by the Utah secretary of state as the official Green Party of Utah, but was barred from access to the national Green Party by internal executive fiat. 

With both delegations asking to be seated,  the pro-GDI delegation from Florida proposed that each Utah group be allowed to seat a single delegate and that they resolve to work out their disputed affiliation after the convention. The liberal wing of the GNC, however, strongly opposed this proposal and the vote to seat one pro-GDI delegate was defeated 57 to 34 (with 4 abstentions). 

Cobb repeated several of Camejo’s points, but then emphasized an exclusionary message. Instead of inviting debate, Cobb condemned what he called “sectarianism”—his label for anyone who opposed his safe states strategy or believes in building a left wing of the party—and did not accept or even acknowledge Camejo’s olive branch. In answer to a question after his speech about critical reviews of Green Party performance, authored by prominent Greens that have appeared periodically in the online progressive magazine CounterPunch, Cobb assailed these articles and denounced Counter- Punch editor Alexander Cockburn, saying that he “represents why the sectarian left has failed.” The not-so-subtle message was that the Green Party should exclude the left, continue to support Democrats in their election campaigns, and suppress dissent. 

Key leaders of the liberal wing of the GNC made their support for Cobb’s position clear after the speeches. “I’m not willing to define us as a party independent of the corporate parties,” declared Illinois delegate Phil Huckleberry, who heads the Presidential Campaign Search Committee and co-authored the 2004 Convention Rules. “I did not join the Green Party to fight against Democrats and Republicans…. We are more than an independent party; we are a Green Party.” Similarly, Jody Haug, Green Party co-chair and delegate from the state of Washington, declared her opposition to independence from the two corporate parties by arguing, “We should not paint ourselves into a corner.” 

The GDI Proposals 

The real conflict broke out when GDI members presented their proposals to the National Committee. GDI’s strategy was to present a short overview of each proposal (since they had already been passed by several state parties and been discussed on the GNC’s list serve) and then allow delegates to provide comments, concerns, and amendments. 

The liberal wing, however, did not argue against the content of the proposals. Instead they relied on objections concerning bylaws, implementation, and procedural concerns. They also attempted to draw GDI supporters into accepting an alternative proposal from the DC Statehood Greens that would send the proposals to a committee without any political direction regarding democracy and independence, even though party bylaws forbid introduction for vote of new proposals without the mandatory three-week discussion period. 

The GDI wing stood its ground and rejected this “compromise” as it would have nullified the basic principals of their proposals. After a long period of confusion—during which the steering committee frequently left the room to caucus (without explanation) and anti-GDI forces led delegates in doing the “Wave” and singing “Oklahoma” and “Take Me Out to the Ball Game”—the GNC defeated all three proposals. 

While the Green National Committee defeated the GDI proposals, there can be no doubt that this decision expressed the minority view of grassroots Greens throughout the U.S. Many Greens will be horrified by the travesty in Tulsa while most will be kept in the dark. The test now for GDI is to determine how to rally the majority inside the party and appeal to activists outside the party to build a democratic alternative dedicated to challenging the corporate duopoly. 

If the liberal wing is able to maintain its dominance and orient the Greens towards subordinating themselves to the Democratic Party, the Green Party is likely to wither away like the New Party and other progressive alternatives before them. 

The opportunity and responsibility for GDI members is immense. Democrats continue to ratify the Bush administration’s program of deficit-financed corporatism, upward economic redistribution, and permanent war, thereby stoking frustration with the two-party system. Democrats continue to support the occupation of Iraq, the renewal of the PATRIOT Act, gave the margin of victory for the passage of CAFTA in the Senate, and helped confirm the nomination of conservative John Roberts as chief justice of the Supreme Court. 

Millions of Americans—workers, women, gays, Latinos, blacks, Muslims, the foreign-born, other oppressed populations, now including mainstream anti-war advocates who are finally reaching the majority of the U.S. public—find no electoral expression for their demands and aspirations. Millions more have grown frustrated with the failure and consequences of the lesser-evil strategy of voting for the Democrats in 2004 and its impending resurgence behind the early card of centrist Democratic hopefuls for 2008. They are looking for an alternative. They think it was a mistake to suspend all progressive social movements and anti-war activities in order to mobilize the vote for Kerry, who opposed all of their interests.

These millions of people form an electoral force with which GDI and supporting state Green Parties must connect. Such a coalition offers the hope of galvanizing the Greens and the broader social movements to build a genuine third party.