THE RECALL\r\nBY PETER MIGUEL CAMEJO<\/i>
\r\nOctober 14, 2003
\r\n\r\n<\/p>
\r\n\r\nSYMPATHY & RESPECT Because of the Green Party's \r\nparticipation in the\r\nrecall election we have gained new respect and sympathy \r\nfrom millions\r\nof people in California and throughout the United \r\nStates.\r\n<\/p>\r\n
\r\n\r\nThe Green Party made history in the recall election on \r\nseveral\r\nlevels. In part because of the 5.3% of the vote we \r\nreceived in\r\nNovember 2002, and in part because of the nature of the \r\nrecall, we\r\nwere immediately considered a major candidate by the \r\nmedia.\r\n<\/p>\r\n
\r\n\r\nThis status resulted in a historic breakthrough. A third \r\nparty\r\ngubernatorial candidate was included in televised \r\ndebates. The Green\r\nParty has reached this status not because of any one \r\nspecific event\r\nor candidate but because of our overall following and \r\nsuccesses in\r\nCalifornia.\r\n<\/p>\r\n
\r\n\r\nDEBATE STRATEGY The televised debates allowed millions \r\nto hear and\r\nsee a Green candidate for the first time. In the first \r\ndebate on\r\nSeptember 3rd, I decided against trying too hard to make \r\nan\r\nimpression. For instance, I avoided humor. This was \r\nbecause many\r\nlisteners expect a third party candidate to be peculiar, \r\nunusual,\r\nshrill or single issue focused and desperately seeking \r\nattention. We\r\nneeded to appear exactly the opposite; sensible, \r\nserious, calm, and\r\nwith a clear message.\r\n<\/p>\r\n
\r\n\r\nMany of you heard my closing remarks in that debate but \r\nyou would not\r\nknow that I practiced them probably over 300 times. I \r\nworked it over\r\nword by word so that it would be 60 seconds long and \r\nstill touch on a\r\nlarge number of key issues. As it turned out, we were \r\ngiven 2 minutes\r\nand so I added to the message a bit as I presented it, \r\nincluding\r\nslowing my delivery down. But I did not dare try too \r\nhard lest I lose\r\nthe flow and impact. As it turned out, I took 2.1 \r\nminutes.\r\n<\/p>\r\n
\r\n\r\nIn the September 24th debate that included Arnold, I was \r\nprepared to\r\ntake a more aggressive stance. My wife, Morella, advised \r\nme strongly\r\nagainst it. We had a liaison committee with the Green \r\nParty of\r\nCalifornia leadership which held conference calls to \r\nadvise me before\r\nmany of these key moments in the campaign. In those \r\ndiscussions we\r\nmade the crucial and correct decision not to attack \r\nanyone.\r\n<\/p>\r\n
\r\n\r\nWe decided not to focus on Arnold, especially not to \r\nattack him in a\r\nmanner that could be perceived as a personal attack. \r\nFocusing on\r\nArnold would make him the center of attention and win \r\nhim sympathy.\r\nEven though this cautious strategy may have seemed too \r\nmild, it was\r\nbetter to differentiate only on platform issues and keep \r\nthe message\r\nfocused. I thought before the debate that the other four \r\ncandidates\r\nwould go into an attack mode. To my surprise, Tom \r\nMcClintock had\r\napparently made a similar decision to avoid attacking \r\nArnold.\r\nObviously Arianna made the opposite decision and tried \r\nto provoke\r\nArnold and expose him. In my view, this did not work \r\nwell. If all the\r\ncandidates had stayed on message, the lack of substance \r\nin Arnold's\r\nresponses would have been clearer. Instead he was judged \r\non his\r\nability to handle the attacks.\r\n<\/p>\r\n
\r\n\r\nAs I walked off the stage after having been heard by \r\npossibly 20\r\nmillion people, I wasn't sure how well I had come off. \r\nThen I saw the\r\nfaces of the young people who came rushing towards the \r\nfront to shake\r\nmy hand.\r\n<\/p>\r\n
\r\n\r\nThis decision on our part to stay focused and not make \r\nattacks turned\r\nout to be one of the most important ones we made. I \r\nstayed focused on\r\nour basic message and kept the image of the Green Party \r\nas serious\r\nand polite. There was another policy I followed that had \r\na very\r\npositive result for us. I made an effort to give \r\npositive comments\r\nwhen another candidate made proposals or points that we \r\nGreens feel\r\nwere valid. Also, I tried to be generous in any comments \r\nregarding\r\nthe character or intentions of other candidates.\r\n<\/p>\r\n
\r\n\r\nThe media was at first quite confused by this. They are \r\nused to\r\ncandidates only being vicious to each other and trying \r\nto assign the\r\nworst possible motive to whatever another candidate does \r\nor says. In\r\nthe early weeks of the campaign the media thought I must \r\nbe planning\r\nto withdraw because I was saying kind things about \r\nArianna Huffington\r\n(more on Arianna later). When I congratulated Cruz \r\nBustamante for\r\ncalling for public funding of campaigns, for example, \r\nthe media at\r\nfirst concluded that I must be considering endorsing \r\nBustamante.\r\n<\/p>\r\n
\r\n\r\nBy the last two debates I felt I had sufficient \r\ncredibility to use\r\nmore humor. The media was starting to understand what I \r\nwas doing and\r\nlike the public, reacted positively. The result is that \r\nin almost all\r\npolls rating my performance in the debates, we came out \r\nquite well.\r\n<\/p>\r\n
\r\n\r\nA San Francisco Chronicle web poll which rated debate \r\nperformance\r\nshowed us in first place at 32%. This was well above all \r\nothers,\r\nespecially Arianna who came in last at 8%. A more \r\nscientific poll of\r\nDemocrats put us in first place at 25% and declared us \r\nthe winner\r\nover all others.\r\n<\/p>\r\n
\r\n\r\nThe campaign as a whole and the debates in particular \r\nwon the Green\r\nParty acceptance, respect and sympathy. We won some \r\nsupport and\r\nrecruits, but on a mass scale the sympathy was not yet \r\nstrong enough\r\nto overcome the spoiler factor and result in votes for \r\nus.\r\n<\/p>\r\n
\r\n\r\nOUR VOTE DECLINES It is surprising that after such \r\nmassive and\r\npositive exposure our vote declined from 5.3% to 2.8%. \r\nIn the 2002\r\ncampaign people were convinced that Gray Davis would win \r\nin spite of\r\na projected vote of 3 to 4% for me. Many polls showed \r\nthat. Therefore\r\npeople felt somewhat free to vote Green. Still, we \r\nprobably lost half\r\nof our vote due to the spoiler factor in 2002. This time \r\nit was\r\ndifferent. A kind of panic set in among many of the \r\npeople most\r\nlikely to vote for us because of the fear of Arnold.\r\n<\/p>\r\n
\r\n\r\nThe Democrats have gained a reputation for dishonest \r\ncampaigning.\r\nDavis is a master of demonizing his opponent as a way to \r\nget people\r\nwho dislike him to vote for him. While he still \r\nsucceeded in getting\r\nabout half his vote from people who think he is doing \r\npoorly, this\r\ntime the demonization partially backfired.\r\n<\/p>\r\n
\r\n\r\nDEMOCRATS LIE ABOUT THE POLLS The Democrats tried an \r\noutright lie at\r\nthe end of the campaign. It was primarily intended to \r\nmobilize their\r\nranks but it was also a maneuver that hurt our vote \r\ntotals. In the\r\nlast two days of the campaign, they began announcing \r\nthat they had\r\npolls showing that they were neck and neck with the \r\nRepublicans, both\r\non the recall question and in the Bustamante vs \r\nSchwarzenegger race.\r\n<\/p>\r\n
\r\n\r\nMonday evening, the day before the election, I went on \r\nKPFK in Los\r\nAngeles and as they hooked me in I heard Antonio \r\nVillaraigosa\r\nannouncing that the polls were exactly tied. I do not \r\nthink Antonio\r\nwas himself lying; he was just repeating the lie fed to \r\nhim by\r\nothers. It is amazing how poll results can be \r\nmanipulated. I hope\r\nthere is no one so naïve as to believe that the voters \r\nwere split\r\n50\/50 on Monday and then the next day Arnold wins by \r\n16%, 48% to 32%,\r\nand Davis loses in the recall by 10%, 55% to 45%!\r\n<\/p>\r\n
\r\n\r\nThese lies that were spread far and wide by the media \r\nhelped reduce\r\nour vote further. There probably has never been an \r\nelection with such\r\na high number of those who wanted to vote for us, but \r\ndidn't. There\r\nis also another phenomena that may be involved. I call \r\nit the third\r\nparty curse in a winner-take-all system. Once the \r\n\"novelty\" of a new\r\nparty or candidate wears off and supporters see that a \r\nthird party\r\ncandidate does not win, they stop voting for you in \r\nspite of their\r\nsupport for your platform. Such people can be won back \r\nin local\r\nraces. And of course they would come back to us if we \r\nhad Instant\r\nRunoff Voting.\r\n<\/p>\r\n
\r\n\r\nThe political mistake made by those Green supporters who \r\nvoted\r\nDemocrat is sad, because a large vote for the Greens \r\nwould have given\r\nus power in discussions with Democrats and Republicans. \r\nIt would have\r\nstrengthened the chances for Green candidates to win \r\nlocal races.\r\nGreen supporters who voted Democrat wasted their vote \r\neven from the\r\npoint of view of so-called \"strategic voting\". Strategic \r\nVoting is a\r\nnew and polite term for lesser-evil voting.\r\n<\/p>\r\n
\r\n\r\nWHAT OUR VOTE REVEALS ABOUT OUR BASE Some of the exit \r\npolls showed us\r\nwith a larger vote than we actually received, so some \r\nmight be\r\nsuspicious that perhaps our vote wasn't fully reported. \r\nIt's more\r\nlikely that voters told pollsters how they wish they had \r\nvoted, not\r\nhow they actually voted.\r\n<\/p>\r\n
\r\n\r\nThe exit polls show our support quite strong among young \r\npeople. We\r\nwere at 9% for 18 to 29 year old voters. African \r\nAmericans were the\r\nstrongest racial group to vote for us at 6%, followed by \r\nLatinos at\r\n5%. European-Americans came in at 3%. People not \r\nregistered Democrat\r\nor Republican gave us 8%. The poorest people in \r\nCalifornia (below\r\n$15,000 a year income) gave us the highest vote of all \r\nincome\r\ncategories with 9%.\r\n<\/p>\r\n
\r\n\r\nIn gender we were split evenly. One poll showed that the \r\nmore\r\neducation people have, the more they tend to vote for \r\nus. So who is a\r\ntypical Green Party voter? An underpaid but educated, 24 \r\nyear old\r\nAfrican American or Latina who is registered Decline to \r\nState! The\r\ndemographics of our support continue to shift beyond our \r\noriginal\r\nbase, which is primarily European-American \r\nenvironmentalists and 60s\r\nprogressives. Our initial base is still critical to the \r\nGreen Party's\r\nefforts and activist core. We should see our expansion \r\nas the early\r\nsteps in becoming a truly mass party.\r\n<\/p>\r\n
\r\n\r\n2004 ATTACK CAMPAIGN We need to be aware that we will \r\nface a very\r\ndifficult time over the next 13 months. The Democrats \r\nwill launch an\r\nunfair campaign which is really against democracy. They \r\nwill attack\r\nthe Green Party simply for running candidates. The \r\n\"Nader effect\"\r\nfrom the 2000 Presidential election has become a \r\nstandard term now\r\nfor Democrats. They use it as a way to oppose free \r\nelections and\r\nblame the victim for their opposition to democracy. The \r\nlevel of\r\ndishonesty and hypocrisy this shows is rarely \r\nappreciated. These\r\nDemocrats have no complaints when their leadership votes \r\nfor a\r\nresolution calling for \"Unequivocal support for George \r\nBush\" or votes\r\nfor the Patriot Act, or gives repeated standing ovations \r\nto Bush's\r\nState of the Union address with it's attacks on the rule \r\nof law.\r\nInstead they attack the Greens for supposedly \"helping\" \r\nto elect Bush\r\nwhile they openly, politically support him.\r\n<\/p>\r\n
\r\n\r\nIn the recall election many Democrats could not see the \r\nhypocrisy in\r\nurging Greens to drop out to prevent \"spoilership\", but \r\nnot calling\r\nfor Tom McClintock to drop out so that he wouldn't \r\n\"spoil\" the race\r\nfor Schwarzenegger. In other words, they have no shame \r\nin trying to\r\nwin against the will of the people.\r\n<\/p>\r\n
\r\n\r\nThe worst mistake we could make is to bend to this \r\npressure. Many\r\nGreens will, many already have. In the recall election \r\nthis phenomena\r\nwas already at work. Differences will be heightened \r\namong Greens\r\nregarding our approach to this problem. All of this is \r\nnormal. If it\r\nwere not the case it would mean we are not part of \r\nreality. Our task\r\nis to handle internal differences in an extremely \r\ndemocratic manner,\r\nshowing respect for all points of view, especially \r\nminority views.\r\nUnlike the Democrats, we do not suppress criticism but \r\nregard it as\r\npositive, part of a normal process.\r\n<\/p>\r\n
\r\n\r\nOne of the smartest moves the Green Party made was to \r\ncompromise and\r\nallow its members to disagree on the recall and not take \r\na formal\r\nParty position, which would have been very divisive. \r\nEvents can some\r\ntimes lead to sharp differences which then shift over \r\ntime as people\r\nget a chance to think the issues through or further \r\nevents clarify\r\nthe roots of the differences. We will probably be \r\narguing the recall\r\nissue for some time, but it is no longer such a divisive \r\ndanger now\r\nthat it is in the past.\r\n<\/p>\r\n
\r\n\r\nDEMOCRATIC PARTY FRONT ORGANIZATIONS There is a web site \r\ncalled\r\nMoveOn.org that presents itself as progressive. I \r\nbelieve it is\r\nnothing more than a Democratic Party organizing center, \r\nallowing\r\nDemocrats to keep progressive minded people co-opted to \r\nthe\r\nDemocrats. They launched a campaign, as did Code Pink, \r\nagainst Arnold\r\nSchwarzenegger's attacks on women. But this campaign was \r\ndirectly\r\nlinked to a \"Vote Democratic\" campaign and therefore \r\nwould not\r\nmention anything negative about Democrats, specifically \r\nallegations\r\nthat Gray Davis intimidated and attacked women he worked \r\nwith. The\r\ntruth is that the real purpose of both of these \r\ncampaigns was to help\r\nthe Democrats, no matter how sincere many of the people \r\nwere in their\r\ndisgust with Schwarzenegger. I attended one of these \r\nevents and spoke\r\nat it. The content of the event, sponsored by Code Pink, \r\nwas\r\noverwhelmingly focused on defense of women's rights, \r\ninter mixed with\r\nsome pro-Davis signs. Unlike MoveOn.org, Code Pink tried \r\nto some\r\nextent to keep the two issues separated.\r\n<\/p>\r\n
\r\n\r\nI understand MoveOn.org came out with a \"Suddenly, I \r\nLove Gray Davis\"\r\nslogan. They are openly a front for the Democrats. They \r\nraised\r\nhundreds of thousands of dollars and had a place for \r\nvoters to sign\r\npledging that they would never vote for Schwarzenegger. \r\nOf course\r\nMoveOn will play a role in mobilizing progressive voters \r\nto vote\r\nDemocrat in 2004 as part of a \"stop Bush\" movement, but \r\nyou can bet\r\nyour life they will not have a pledge calling on voters \r\nto refuse to\r\nvote for anyone who voted \"Unequivocal support for \r\nGeorge Bush\",\r\nbecause that would be most of the Democratic Party's \r\nleadership.\r\n<\/p>\r\n
\r\n\r\nWe can expect that Democratic Party controlled \r\norganizations like the\r\nSierra Club, NOW; MoveOn and many union leaders will all \r\njoin in the\r\nattack on the Green Party. In so doing they will show \r\ntheir failure\r\nto understand or support democracy. Instead, they show \r\ntheir\r\nsubservience to a corporate controlled party. Their \r\npolitics opens\r\nthe door and helps facilitate Republican victories. This \r\nis because\r\nDemocrats always accept the premises of the Republican \r\nplatform,\r\nwhether it is the so-called \"war on terrorism\" or \r\n\"energy\r\nderegulation\". The only thing they argue over is the \r\nnuts and bolts\r\nof implementing this platform. It is these organizations \r\nand their\r\nopposition to democracy that has historically blocked \r\nthe development\r\nof any effective opposition to corporate domination or \r\nthe Republican\r\nagenda.\r\n<\/p>\r\n
\r\n\r\nARIANNA HUFFINGTON When Arianna Huffington first \r\nannounced her\r\ncandidacy I saw it as a golden opportunity for the Green \r\nParty. I\r\nimmediately welcomed her into the race and tried to form \r\na working\r\nrelationship so we would both campaign together to \r\npromote the\r\nprogressive agenda. But it quickly became clear to us \r\nthat she was\r\nnot that interested in any serious relationship with the \r\nGreen Party\r\nor in holding joint campaign events.\r\n<\/p>\r\n
\r\n\r\nIn three of the first four debates I made positive \r\ncomments about\r\nArianna. I thought it made our position stronger when \r\nasked about the\r\ndeath penalty, for instance, if two candidates opposed \r\nit instead of\r\njust one. Arianna, however, never said one word that was \r\npositive\r\nabout our campaign or the Green Party during the \r\ndebates. In fact, in\r\nthe first debate she twice referred to Bustamante being \r\n\"the Nader\",\r\nmeaning a spoiler. Nevertheless, most of her comments \r\nwere excellent\r\narticulations of issues where we completely agree with \r\nher.\r\n<\/p>\r\n
\r\n\r\nThe pressure began building on Arianna from the \r\nDemocrats to pull out\r\nand declare for the Democrats. Arianna capitulated in a \r\nmanner that I\r\nthought hurt the progressive movement. She literally \r\nbecame an\r\noperative of the Gray Davis campaign. She had pictures \r\nof herself\r\nwith Davis repeatedly shown on TV. She flew with him on \r\nhis private\r\ncampaign jet and attended get-out-the-vote Democratic \r\nParty union\r\nrallies. (By the way, as was explained to me by one \r\nunion leader,\r\nthese rallies were failures in terms of their turn out. \r\nExit polls\r\nshow 49% of Union members voted yes on the recall).\r\n<\/p>\r\n
\r\n\r\nArianna formally represented the Democratic Party at the \r\nOctober 2nd\r\ndebate in Los Angeles. So, of course she could not say \r\none word in\r\ncriticism of Democrats in that debate.\r\n<\/p>\r\n
\r\n\r\nArianna also joined with Senator Diane Feinstein and \r\nDolores Huerta\r\nin supporting Davis, but refusing to support Bustamante. \r\nThat\r\nreflected the conservative wing of the Democrats.\r\n<\/p>\r\n
\r\n\r\nArianna Huffington remains in agreement with the Green \r\nParty on many\r\ncrucial issues. And we should try to work with her and \r\nothers who\r\nsupported her, where we have agreement. One of those \r\nissues is public\r\nfinancing of campaigns. However, we have a problem with \r\nthe wording\r\nof her proposed ballot initiative on public funding. As \r\nwritten, it\r\ntreats third parties as second-class citizens. The \r\nproposal is\r\nwritten so that it will only really fund Democrats and \r\nRepublicans.\r\nWe will have to oppose her campaign unless the proposal \r\nis changed to\r\nbe more like the laws in Maine or Arizona which treat \r\nall candidates\r\nequally.\r\n<\/p>\r\n
\r\n\r\nDid we make a mistake in giving her the benefit of the \r\ndoubt when the\r\ncampaign began? Some Greens think so, but I think it was \r\ncorrect to\r\nwelcome her and try to win her over to fight the \r\nRepublicans and\r\nDemocrats. I don't think she understands the effects of \r\nher reversal,\r\nwhere she first opposed Republicans and Democrats and \r\nthen began\r\nsupporting Gray Davis. In the end this only helped \r\nArnold\r\nSchwarzenegger win. When progressives who stand \r\nindependent of the\r\nDemocrats capitulate and then support those Democrats, \r\nit undermines\r\nthe credibility of our current. In this case it weakened \r\nour\r\ncredibility and made voters more likely to express their \r\nanger by\r\nvoting for Arnold rather than voting Green or \r\nindependent.\r\n<\/p>\r\n
\r\n\r\nOne of her books is titled, \"Pigs at the Trough\". What \r\nGovernor has\r\nput more feed in the trough than Davis, who in the end \r\nshe\r\nchampioned? The excuse, of course, is that there is a \r\nRepublican who\r\nis \"worse\". Of course, there is always a Republican who \r\nis worse.\r\n<\/p>\r\n
\r\n\r\nWell what if it's a \"really bad\" Republican? Do you get \r\nit? We are\r\ntold that our job is to vote for evil if the Republicans \r\ncan come up\r\nwith a really bad candidate. That's the whole point of \r\nthe\r\nwinner-take-all system. The mass of the people gives up \r\non building a\r\npolitical force which will defend their interests \r\nbecause they have\r\nto stop evil by voting for more \"reasonable\" evil. Even \r\nthe most\r\nMachiavellian schemer couldn't have come up with a more \r\ndevious\r\nsystem to keep people under control, while allowing them \r\nto think\r\nthat they chose the government. People not only vote \r\nagainst their\r\nown interests, but some will argue against and even hate \r\nthose who\r\ntry to warn them of their error. And they think they \r\nlive in a\r\ndemocracy where elections are fair and square. How many \r\ntimes did you\r\nhear the argument \" but Davis won fair and square only a \r\nfew months\r\nago\"?\r\n<\/p>\r\n
\r\n\r\nAnd of course Arianna will argue that she didn't support \r\na candidate,\r\nshe opposed the recall. While many progressives, \r\nincluding a few\r\nGreens make such an argument, I do not agree. The recall \r\nwas a yes or\r\nno vote on Gray Davis and that is how the mass of \r\nworking people,\r\nminorities, and the poor saw it. To vote no on the \r\nrecall in their\r\neyes was to condone the cut backs in education and the \r\npay to play\r\npolicies of Gray Davis. The Democrats were able to \r\nconvince many\r\npeople that it was all a Republican conspiracy, bought \r\nand paid for\r\nby one millionaire. To believe that is to delude \r\noneself. The\r\nRepublicans correctly noted the general rejection of \r\nGray Davis and\r\nsought to take advantage of it. They were hoping for a \r\nspecial\r\nelection where few voters, except Republicans, would \r\nshow up.\r\nInstead, more voted in the recall than in the previous \r\nregular\r\nelection.\r\n<\/p>\r\n
\r\n\r\nThere are all kinds of progressive consequences from the \r\nrecall. In\r\ntrying to get his base to save him, Davis had to sign \r\nmany bills he\r\nhad previously opposed. These included the financial \r\nprivacy act,\r\ndriver's licenses for the undocumented, more rights for \r\ngays and\r\nlesbians and some environmental issues. The debates \r\nopened up and\r\nmillions heard a pro democracy message. Young people \r\nsuddenly became\r\ninterested in politics and in general there was an \r\nincreased interest\r\nin political participation.\r\n<\/p>\r\n
\r\n\r\nArnold Schwarzenegger won, and most of his votes did not \r\ncome from\r\nRepublicans! The Republicans ran two candidates. Daryl \r\nIssa at one\r\npoint even suggested he might vote against the recall \r\n(to stop\r\nBustamante and keep Davis). Their pro-recall campaign \r\nreceived about\r\n1\/3 the funding that the anti-recall forces got. Most of \r\nthe major\r\nRepublican donors refused to give to the recall. Some \r\nRepublican\r\nconspiracy.\r\n<\/p>\r\n
\r\n\r\nPaid signature gatherers have also been used for every \r\nprogressive\r\nballot initiative in recent years. Right now, an effort \r\nis under way\r\nto reform the Three Strikes law with an initiative that \r\nneeds funding\r\nto gather signatures, and they are looking for wealthy \r\nbackers. The\r\nrecall election was far more complex than the Democratic \r\n\"Republican\r\nConspiracy\" propaganda line.\r\n<\/p>\r\n
\r\n\r\nSince the recall passed, Governor Davis has vetoed a \r\nliving wage bill\r\nand a bill giving the children of undocumented workers \r\nthe right to\r\nattend college at the same rate as other residents of \r\nCalifornia. Of\r\ncourse, once again, not a word of protest is heard from \r\nany\r\nDemocratic Party leaders or their so-called \"labor \r\nleaders\". Imagine\r\nif it was Arnold who had vetoed a living wage bill. The \r\nDemocrats\r\nwould all be howling in loud protest.\r\n<\/p>\r\n
\r\n\r\nUNDERSTANDING THE DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS Our party \r\nwill not\r\nsurvive if we do not stand up to the Democrats. Once we \r\nstart urging\r\nvotes for Democrats because Republicans appear to be \r\nworse, we will\r\ngo the way of the New Party, into oblivion. How fast \r\npeople forget\r\nthat it was the Democratic Party that led us to war \r\nagainst Vietnam,\r\nkilling two million people, and it was the Republicans \r\nwho ended that\r\nwar. The people who run the United States remain in \r\npower regardless\r\nof which of their parties they put in charge at any one \r\ntime. Their\r\ngoal is to control and appease popular pressure. When \r\nthey see they\r\ncan get a Republican elected, they go for it. But if the \r\npeople begin\r\nto protest, they bring the Democrats in to co-opt, \r\ndisorient and\r\nprepare the way for a return of the Republicans..\r\n<\/p>\r\n
\r\n\r\nThis dynamic is not a \"conspiracy\", but is simply the \r\nnature of our\r\nmoney-driven system. It is a feedback loop that is on \r\nautomatic.\r\nWithout \"liberal\" and \"progressive\" Democrats, the \r\nusefulness of the\r\nDemocrat Party to their corporate rulers would be \r\nsharply diminished.\r\nThey need the Democrats to co-opt and thus de-mobilize \r\nmass social\r\nmovements like the civil rights, peace, women's rights \r\nand labor\r\nmovement.\r\n<\/p>\r\n
\r\n\r\nOf course, individual Democrats can be affected by the \r\npressure from\r\nbelow to oppose some of the pro-corporate platform, and \r\neven feel\r\nsympathy towards the Greens. In this election many of \r\nthe people who\r\nvoted for the Democrats are quietly sympathizing with \r\nus. We must not\r\nbetray that sympathy. They are looking to us to be \r\nprincipled and in\r\nthe end they will respect those who do not waiver.\r\n<\/p>\r\n
\r\n\r\nBut most Democratic Party leaders who consider them \r\nselves\r\nprogressive have bought in to the idea that the best \r\nthat can ever be\r\ndone is to keep the Democrats in power, and that is all \r\nthe people\r\nshould hope for. They believe that any attempt to go \r\nagainst the\r\nDemocrats is hopeless. Deep down, they are defeatists \r\nwho promote a\r\n\"slave\" mentality. Accept and please the master or you \r\nwill only\r\nanger them. Resistance is hopeless.\r\n<\/p>\r\n
\r\n\r\nWhat they fail to see is the great power of the people. \r\nThe power of\r\nmoney is limited by the awareness, the consciousness of \r\nthe people.\r\nThe media works day and night to confuse and disorient \r\npeople so that\r\nthey act against their own self-interest. But the \r\nday-to-day reality\r\nof most people counters the propaganda message of \r\nwealth.\r\n<\/p>\r\n
\r\n\r\nThe Green Party, on the other hand, is the electoral \r\nexpression of\r\nliving mass movements, like the peace, women's rights, \r\ngay and\r\nlesbian, social justice, civil rights and civil \r\nliberties movements.\r\nNote that all of these movements were built outside the \r\nDemocratic\r\nParty and usually against them. Democrats do all they \r\ncan to weaken\r\nthese movements and then to co-opt them, get them off \r\nthe streets and\r\ninto the two party game. Once that is achieved, the \r\npower of popular\r\nmovements sharply declines. Greens work to keep these \r\nmovements\r\nindependent and to increase the power of people. Our \r\nelected\r\nofficials work to defend the majority and increase the \r\npower of the\r\nenvironmental, labor and other movements.\r\n<\/p>\r\n
\r\nAbove all, we Greens are fighting to save the earth. The \r\nGreen Party\r\nstands as a genuine force for democracy, free of the \r\ninfluence of\r\nmoney. The Green Party truly defends our Bill of Rights \r\nand the rule\r\nof law. We do not waiver or lower our banners because \r\nothers panic.\r\nIf we cannot show confidence in ourselves, we can never \r\nwin masses of\r\npeople to rally behind us. Time and history are with us. \r\nThe next\r\ngeneration must see people who stand firm by their \r\nprinciples. The\r\nyouth who vote for us today will be tomorrow's leaders \r\nin all the\r\nmajor social movements. We are planting the seeds; they \r\nmust be\r\nwatered, not trampled. We made one more step forward in \r\nthis\r\ncampaign. Keep our beautiful Green flag waving high and \r\nproud!\r\n<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\n","contact":"","link":"","address":"","phone":"","parent_id":0,"mime_type":"text\/html","summary":"Subject: Peter Camejo on the Recall\r\n","numcomment":2,"fileurl":"\/uploads\/","filesize":null,"article_url":"\/news\/2003\/10\/89870.php"},"attachments":[],"comments":[]}