Exchange on “Diagnosing the Green Party”
by Scott McLarty and Joshua Frank
www.dissidentvoice.org
April 12, 2005



 

To the Editor,

Joshua Frank's column “Diagnosing the Green Party: Narcissism Runs Rampant” (February 24) is full of absurd charges against the Cobb/LaMarche campaign and the Green Party of the United States, beginning with the outright lie that the Green Party abandoned its opposition to the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, as anyone visiting a Green event or web site will quickly learn. It's difficult to imagine why Dissident Voice would publish a piece by someone whose stylistic apex is calling David Cobb a schmuck.

But the following paragraph would make even the Bush spinmeisters blush:

What is interesting is that Green Party “think tanks” have recently received big bucks from significant Democratic contributors, Richard and Marilyn Mazess of Wisconsin. According to the FEC the Mazess clique have given well over $50,000 to the Democratic Party since 2003. They contributed some money to the Green Party following the election in 2004. And they also tossed Ralph Nader several thousand dollars this past election -- perhaps to cover their own Democratic tracks.

If it's outrageous for Greens to accept money from the Mazesses, isn't it equally outrageous that the Nader campaign accepted it?  Why does Mr. Frank assume that the Mazesses are so secretive about their politics that they need to “cover their tracks”?  (One might equally assume that the Mazesses donate to the Democrats in order to cover their pro-Green or pro-Nader tracks.)

In fact, the Green Party and its candidates get most of their money from Democrats and Republicans, and we get most of our votes from people registered outside the party too.  As did Mr. Nader in 2004.  There's nothing to apologize for.  What's important is that the Green Party and its candidates (again, like Mr. Nader) refuse to accept corporate money.

If readers want to learn about the Green Party and with the Cobb/LaMarche campaign (including the recent Ohio and New Mexico recounts), I invite them to visit www.gp.org and www.votecobb.org. For detailed Green rebuttals to Mr. Frank's frequent and slanderous diatribes against the party, visit the archive at www.greensrespond.org.

Dissident Voice readers deserve better than Mr. Frank, whose reply to this letter I expect will be long on abuse and short on substance.

Scott McLarty
Media Coordinator
Green Party of the United States
Washington, DC

Joshua Frank Replies
 

Don’t Tell a Narcissist He’s Narcissistic

It’s comforting to know that the Green Party will dispense its Media Coordinator to pour water on the smoldering remains of their 2004 presidential campaign. It’s too late, however. The Greens are still covered in ash.

Mr. McLarty comes out of the gates charging that I lied about the Greens’ abandoning its opposition to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. He’s wrong. What I wrote was the following:

“The Greens could, and should, have been vociferously opposing the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. But they opted for a ‘smart-growth’ (read: safe-state) strategy instead, where they’d stay well below the electoral radar. They should have been on the frontlines of the campaign scene, denouncing John Kerry and George Bush’s neoliberalism and their handling of the downward economic spiral, civil liberties infringements, and environmental catastrophes. But instead the Green Party caved …. [and] they paid a steep price, getting pounded at the polls as a result. A miserable sixth place.”

So the GP opted for political expediency rather than movement building. They thought running a safe-state campaign would expedite the process of removing Bush from office. Their silly plan backfired. The GP, with David Cobb as their captain, helped sink the antiwar movement in 2004 by jumping on board the leaky vessel of “Anybody But Bush.” Essentially what Cobb believed was that his campaign “should stay out of the Democrats’ way unless they nominated Joe Lieberman.” In fact he did say as much.

Here is Cobb’s overall campaign strategy in his own words: [www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/cobb.html]

The Proposed Overall Strategy

The Green Party stands at a crucial moment in our history. The unelected Bush regime has deeply divided the American people. It is unacceptable to claim that there is no difference between the Democratic and Republican parties. If we want our party to grow, we must demonstrate to the American people (and especially progressive voters) that we hear their concerns of the danger Bush poses.

I propose the following strategy for the Green Party Presidential campaign in 2004:

1. We consistently articulate Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) as the only solution to the question of Greens as "spoilers."

2. The candidate should publicly state that if Dennis Kucinich or Al Sharpton wins the Democratic Party nomination, we will withdraw from the race. Greens know that the DNC leadership and their corporate funders will never allow a Kucinich or Sharpton nomination. By publicly making this statement we demonstrate our willingness to work across party lines with genuine progressives, and when Kucinich and Sharpton are rebuked by the Democratic Party leadership (as were Jesse Jackson and Jerry Brown), it will continue to illustrate that the Democratic Party is not the progressive party in the US.

3. The candidate should publicly state that if Joseph Lieberman wins the Democratic Party nomination our Presidential campaign will be run so as to prevent his election. We will not back away from an absolute rejection of such a corporate conservative candidate.

4. The candidate should publicly state that if a marginally "moderate" (but still woefully inadequate) candidate wins the Democratic Party nomination, we will follow a Strategic States Plan for our campaign. Most of our resources should be focused on those states where the Electoral College votes are not "in play."

There you have it. It wasn’t ever about opposition to the war. In fact Cobb said he’d follow a “Strategic States Plan,” where he would essentially support pro-war John Kerry by not opposing him in the states that mattered, i.e. swing states or states “in play.”

How’s that for Greens abandoning their opposition to the war?

Next McLarty Nader-bates me when he whines about the Democratic contributions to GP “Think Tanks.” “If it's outrageous for Greens to accept money from the Mazesses, isn't it equally outrageous that the Nader campaign accepted it?” Scoffs McLarty, “Why does Mr. Frank assume that the Mazesses are so secretive about their politics that they need to 'cover their tracks'? (One might equally assume that the Mazesses donate to the Democrats in order to cover their pro-Green or pro-Nader tracks.)”

Wrong. It is not at all unreasonable for me to write that perhaps the Mazesses covered their Democratic tracks by contributing to the Nader campaign. The few thousands of bucks they gave Nader (which I address in the first piece) pales in comparison to the money they have handed over to the Democrats, which is in the range of $1.5 million. It is also interesting to note the “Think Tanks” that received a total of $500,000 after the election from the Mazess duo were, and currently are, pro-Cobb safe-state Greens.

Connect the dots as you wish. But my larger point, which McLarty fails to address, is the following: “Certainly this raises questions as to which direction the GP will proceed in the future. How much influence will these ‘think tanks’ have, especially if the GP itself continues to struggle financially? Will it be replaced by these non-profit careerists? Will fruitless ‘smart-growth’ campaigns continue to be the failing GP strategy?”

As for all the Democratic money that has poured into the Cobb camp, I’ll let Green Party member Steve Greenfield explain his take:

Cobb got 9 contributions for over 4600 clams from Greens For Impact, which advocated voting for Kerry in swing states and made $4500 of that in the last two weeks of the campaign, long after Cobb had supposedly abandoned the safe-state strategy. Makes you say hmmmmm. Well, makes me say hmmmmm, anyway.

Here are some other typical donors to Cobb, selected at random. All information from FEC donor records and state enrollment records.

$1000 by Thomas Cafesjian who gave $3000 to the DNC, $1000 to Dollars for Democrats, $2000 to Kerry, and another $1000 to another Dem:

$200 from Kathie Arnold of NY, enrolled Dem

$200 from Christopher Bailey of NY, enrolled Dem

$700 from Ronald Crane of CA, gave $4,450 to Kerry, Dean, MoveOn, etc.

$200 from Jack Handley, also gave $1650 to the DNC, Kerry, and the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee.

$250 from Thomas Hannaford, also gave $3000 to DNC, Kerry, and a bunch of other Dem candidates.

$700 from Linda Harmon, also gave $2000 to Dems.

$200 from Robert Hofler of NY, enrolled Democrat

$1000 from Megan Hull of DC, enrolled Democrat

$2000 from Stephanie Low of NY, enrolled Dem

$1000 from Nina Pratt, enrolled Dem

$500 from John Schwartz of Rosendale, NY, enrolled Dem

$400 from Eric Stein of NC, also gave $2400 to Kerry, MoveOn, and a bunch of Dems.

$1000 from Carolyn Summers of NY, enrolled Democrat

$500 from Jill Suttie of CA, gave $5,350 to Kerry, Dean, DNC, and a bunch of Dems.

$500 from Andrew Swanson of Wisconsin, another $700 to Dem PACs MoveOn & Running for Change

$750 from John Wetherby of Alaska, also gave $4,500 to Kerry, Dean, Dem PACs

$1000 from Glen Whitney of E. Setauket, NY, enrolled Dem.

$500 from Kevin Yoders of NC, also gave $1000 to the DNC and $250 to a local Dem.

Hey, lookie here what I just stumbled on, we also have $400 from Jasmine Moini, who gave over 5 Grand to Republicans! So do we have the Cobb pot calling the Nader kettle black? Ouch, that's gotta hurt.

And for the “substance” McLarty and the other GP apologists won’t give you, check out Steve Greenfield’s excellent piece on the “Decline of the Green Party” over at CounterPunch.

Cheers,

Joshua Frank
New York

HOME