The following statement was initiated by Peter Miguel
Camejo. He is a
life-long
fighter for social justice who was the Green
candidate for
Governor in California
in the 2002 general elections and
in the 2003 recall
election.
THE
AVOCADO DECLARATION
INTRODUCTION
The Green Party is at a
crossroads. The 2004 elections
place before us a
clear and unavoidable choice.
On one side, we can continue
on the path of
political independence, building
a party of, by and for
the people by
running our own campaign for President
of the United
States. The other
choice is the well-trodden path of lesser evil
politics,
sacrificing our own
voice and independence to support whoever the
Democrats
nominate in order;
we are told, to defeat Bush.
The
difference is not over whether to "defeat Bush" -
understanding by that
the
program of corporate globalization and the wars and
trampling of the
Constitution
that come with it - but rather how to do it.
We do not believe
it is possible
to defeat the "greater" evil by supporting
a shamefaced
version of
the same evil. We believe it is precisely by
openly and sharply
confronting
the two major parties that the policies of the
corporate
interests these parties
represent can be set back and
defeated.
Ralph Nader's 2000 presidential
campaign exposed a crisis
of confidence in
the two party system. His 2.7 million
votes marked the
first time in modern
history that millions voted for a more
progressive and
independent
alternative. Now, after three years of capitulation
by the
Democratic Party
to George Bush they are launching a pre-emptive strike
against
a 2004 Ralph
Nader campaign or any Green Party challenge. Were the
Greens right
to run in
2000? Should we do the same in 2004? The Avocado
Declaration, based
on an
analysis of our two party duopoly and its history,
declares we were right
and
we must run.
ORIGINS OF THE PRESENT TWO-PARTY SYSTEM]
History
shows that the Democrats and Republicans are not
two counterposed
forces but
rather complimentary halves of a single
two-party system: "one
animal
with two heads that feed from the same trough," as
Chicano leader
Rodolfo
"Corky" Gonzalez explained.
Since the Civil War a peculiar
two party political system
has dominated the
United States. Prior to the Civil
War a two-party system
existed reflecting
opposing economic platforms. Since
the Civil War a shift
occurred. A
two-party system remained in place but no
longer had
differing economic
orientation. Since the Civil War the two parties
show
differences in their
image, role, social base and some policies but in
the last
analysis they
both support essentially similar economic platforms.
This
development can be clearly dated to the split in the
Republican Party
of 1872
where one wing merged with the "New Departure"
Democrats that had
already
shifted towards the Republican platform of
profinance and industrial
business.
Prior to the Civil War the Democratic Party
controlled by the
slaveocracy favored
agriculture business interests,
developed an alliance
with small farmers in
conflict with industrial and some
commercial
interests. That division ended
with the Civil War. Both
parties supported
financial and industrial business
as the core of their
programmatic outlook.
For more than 130 years
the two major parties have been
extremely effective
in preventing the emergence
of any mass political
formations that challenge
their political monopoly. Most
attempts to build political
alternatives have
been efforts to represent the
interests of the average
person, the working
people. These efforts have been
unable to develop. Both
major parties have
been dominated by moneyed interests
and today reflect the
historic period of
corporate rule.
In
this sense United States history has been different
from that of any
other
advanced industrial nation. In all other countries
multi party systems
have
appeared and to one degree or other they have more
democratic electoral
laws
and more representation has existed. In almost all
other cases
political parties
ostensible based on or promoting the
interest of
non-corporate sectors such
as working people exist.
STRUGGLES FOR DEMOCRACY AND SOCIAL JUSTICE
In
spite of this procorporate political monopoly, mass
struggles for social
progress,
struggles to expand democracy and civil rights
have periodically
exploded throughout
United States history. Every major
gain in our history,
even pre Civil War
struggles --such as the battles for the
Bill of Rights,
to end slavery, and
to establish free public education--as
well as those
after the Civil War have
been the product of direct action
by movements
independent of the two major
parties and in opposition to
them.
Since the Civil War, without
exception, the Democratic
Party has opposed all
mass struggles for democracy
and social justice. These
include the struggle
for ballot reform, for the right
of African Americans to
vote and against
American apartheid ("Jim Crow"),
for the right to form
unions, for the right
of women to vote, against the war
in Vietnam, the struggle
to make lynching
illegal, the fight against the death
penalty, the struggle
for universal
health care, the fight for gay and lesbian
rights, and
endless others. Many
of these struggles were initiated by or helped
by the
existence of small
third parties.
DIVISION OF WORK
When
social justice, peace or civil rights movements
become massive in
scale, and
threaten to become uncontrollable and begin to
win over large
numbers of people,
the Democratic Party begins to shift
and presents itself
as a supposed ally,
always seeking to co-opt the movement,
demobilize its
forces and block its
development into an alternative
independent political
force.
The
Republican Party has historically acted as the open
advocate for a
platform
to benefit the rule of wealth and corporate
domination. They argue
ideologically
for policies benefiting the corporate
rulers. The Republicans
seek to convince
the middle classes and labor to support
the rule of the
wealthy with the argument
that "What's good for GM is good
for the country,"
that what benefits
corporations is also going to benefit
regular people.
The Democratic
Party is different. They act as a "broker"
negotiating and
selling
influence among broad layers of the people to
support the objectives
of corporate
rule. The Democratic Party's core group of
elected officials is
rooted in careerists
seeking self-promotion by offering to
the corporate
rulers their ability to
control and deliver mass support.
And to the people
they offer some concessions,
modifications on the platform
of the Republican
Party. One important value
of the Democratic Party to the
corporate world is
that it makes the Republican
Party possible through the
maintenance of
stability essential for business
as usual by preventing a
genuine mass
opposition from developing. Together
the two parties offer
one of the best
possible frameworks with which to rule
a people that
otherwise would move
society towards the rule of the people i.e.
democracy.
An example of this process is our minimum wage laws.
Adjusted
to inflation
it has been gradually declining for year. Every now and
then the
Democrats
pass a small upward adjustment that allows the downward
trend to
continue
but gives the appearance they are on the side of the poor.
MANIPULATED
ELECTIONS
Together the two parties have made ballot access
increasingly
difficult,
defended indirect elections such as the Electoral College,
insisted
on
winner-take-all voting to bloc the appearance of
alternative voices and
opposed
proportional representation to prevent the
development of a
representative
democracy and the flowering of choices. The
undemocratic
structure of the US
senate and the Electoral College, that
are not based on
one-person one vote,
but instead favor the more
conservative areas of the
nation, are supported
by both parties.
Elections are based primarily on money. By gerrymandering
and
accumulating
huge war chests -payoffs for doing favors for their rich
"friends"--
most
officeholders face no real challenge at the ballot box and
are re-elected.
In
the Races that are "competitive," repeatedly the
contests reduce
themselves
to two individuals seeking corporate financial
backing. Whoever
wins the battle
for money wins the election. Districts are
gerrymandered
into "safe"
districts for one or the other party.
Gerrymandering lowers the
public's interest
and involvement while maintaining the
fiction of
"democracy" and
"free elections." The news media goes
along with this,
typically
focusing on the presidential election and a
handful of other
races, denying
most challengers the opportunity to get
their message out to
the public.
Corporate
backing shifts between the two parties depending
on short-term,
and even accidental
factors. In the 1990s more
endorsements from CEOs went
to the Democrats. At
present the money has shifted to the
Republican Party.
Most corporations donate
to both parties to maintain their
system in place.
NO CHOICE NO
HOPE
The Democratic Party preaches defeatism to the most
oppressed and
exploited.
Nothing can be expected, nothing is possible but what
exists. Before
the
people they justify continues betrayal of what could be
with the argument
of
lesser evil. It's the Republicans or us. Nothing else is
possible.
DEMOCRACY
VERSUS COOPTATION
Democracy remains a great danger for those who have
privilege,
and control.
When you are part of the top 1% of the population that has
as
much income as
the bottom 75% of the people, democracy is a permanent
threat
to your
interests. The potential power of the people is so great
that it puts
sharp
limits on what corporations can do. The ability of the
Democratic Party
to
contain, co-opt and demobilize independent movements of
the people is a
critical
element in allowing the continued destruction of
our planet, abuse,
discrimination
and exploitation based on race, gender,
sexual preference and
class, and the
immense misdistribution of wealth.
As we enter the 21st century there
is no more important
issue than saving
our planet from destruction. The world
economy is becoming
increasingly
globalized. Corporate power is now global
in nature and
leads to massive
dislocations and suffering for most people.
The planet is
over populated and
the basis of human life declining. The greatest
suffering
and dislocations
exist in the third world but there is also a downward
trend
in the United
States as globalization leads to a polarization of income
and
wealth. This
shift is making the United States each day closer to a
third world
country
with an extremely wealthy minority and a growing under
class. This
polarization
adds further fear of democracy for the elite.
THE GROWING SHIFT AGAINST
THE RULE OF LAW
The shift away from the rule of law has accelerated in
recent
years. This
process will be a factor in the 2004 presidential
elections especially
if a
Green candidate is involved in the race. The shift away
from our
Constitution
is proceeding with the complicity of both
parties and the
courts. The process
through which the Constitution can be
amended is not
used as changes are made
illegally through legislation
because it would
awaken a massive resistance
to the changes underway. A
similar process is
under way regarding the rule
of law internationally.
The reason given for these steps since September
2001 is
the terrorist
attack within the borders of the United States by forces
originally
trained,
armed and supported by the United States government. The
so-called
"war on
terrorism" does not exist. The United States Government
has
promoted,
tolerated, and been party to the use of terrorism all over
the world.
The
United States has even been found guilty of terrorism by
the World Court.
The
terrorist attacks against U.S. targets are important,
but they need to
be countered
primarily in a social/political manner. That
approach is the
opposite of the
Patriot Act, and the occupations of
Afghanistan and Iraq. On
the contrary,
by aggravating inequality, injustice,
disrespecting the rule
of law and its
military interventions and occupation, the
present policies
of the US Government
add to the dangers faced by US
citizens throughout the
world and in the United
States. Especially dangerous are
the promotion of
nuclear, chemical and bacteriological
weapons, and the
open declarations of
the intention to once again use nuclear
weapons.
This recent shift, while rooted in bipartisan policies
over
the last
decades, has been accelerated by the present Republican
administration.
Its
ability to carry out these actions has depended on the
Democratic Party's
support,
and its ability to contain, disorient and prevent
the development
of mass opposition.
Amazingly,
in December 2003 General Tommy Franks, the
recently retired head
of CentCom,
was quoted as stating that he thought the
people of the United
States may prefer
a military government over our present
Constitutional
Republican form if another
terrorist attack occurs. Such a
statement is so
far off base one most wonder
why it is being made. The
people of the United
States are solidly opposed to
any consideration of a
military dictatorship
in the United States. In fact,
polls have repeatedly shown
they favor
increasing our democratic rights such
as limiting campaign
contributions and
allowing more points of view in debates.
Never
in our history have top military leaders or
ex-military leaders spoken
openly
of ending our Constitutional form of government. No
leader of the
Democratic
Party has protested Franks' comments. How many
officers in the
armed forces
have such opinions? If there are any they
should be immediately
removed from
the military.
DEMOCRATS: PATRIOT ACT AND UNEQUIVOCAL SUPPORT FOR BUSH
The
Democratic Party leadership voted for the USA Patriot
Act. In the United
States
Senate only one Democrat voted against the Patriot
Act. Democrats
considered
"liberal" such as Wellstone and Boxer voted for
the Patriot Act.
Huge
majorities have repeatedly passed votes in the
Congress against the
United
States Constitution. In one case only one
Congresswoman, Barbara Lee,
voted
against the abrogation of the Constitution's
separation of powers in
Article
One Section Eight. Democratic Party politicians,
when called upon to
support
the Republican Party and their corporate backers,
repeatedly comply
and vote
against the interest of the people and against
the Constitution
they have sworn
to uphold.
The Democratic Party leadership as a whole gave repeated
standing
ovations
to George Bush as he outlined his platform in his January
2002 State
of the
Union address promoting the arbitrary decision to occupy
sovereign nations
through
military aggression in violation of international
law. The ovations
given the
Republican Platform by the Democratic Party was
done on a
nationally televised
format for the people to see a
unified political force.
The effect is to make
people who believe in peace, support
the UN charter,
the World Court and the
rule of law feel they are
isolated, powerless and
irrelevant.
A
resolution was passed in March of 2003 calling for
"Unequivocal Support"
to
"George Bush" for the war in Iraq. It had the full
support of the
Democratic
Party leadership. Even Democratic "doves" like
Kucinich would not
vote
against the resolution. Only a handful (11) of
congressional
representatives
voted against the motion for "unequivocal
support" to George
Bush.
THE
ROLE OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
The usefulness of the Democratic Party in its
open defense
of the
Republican Platform and its attacks on our Constitution
and
the rule
of law internationally would be of little value to those
who favor
the
present policies if it led to the development of a mass
independent
opposition.
The failure of such forces to exist in
sufficient strength
permits the Democrats
to be more open in their support for
antidemocratic
policies.
Nevertheless
some voices outside the Democratic and
Republican Parties are
beginning to
be heard. Massive antiwar street
demonstrations, and the voice
of a new small
party, the Green Party, have gained some
attention and
respect. In no case
did the Democratic Party as an
institution support, call
for, or help mobilize
popular forces for peace and
respecting international
law. Yet large numbers
of its rank and file and many lower
level elected
officials against their party
participated and promoted
anti-war protests.
Many lower elected
officials among the Democrats and even
some Republicans
who defend the Constitution
of the United States are
voting to oppose the
USA Patriot Act at the local
level. Even many middle-level
Democrats have
conflicting views and some time
take progressive stances
in concert with the
Green Party's platform. These
individuals live in a
contradiction with the
Party they belong to and while
we can and should join with
them behind
specific issues we do not adopt their
error of being in a
party that is
against the interest of the people, pro-corporate
and
against the rule of
law.
DEMOCRATS ATTACK THE GREEN PARTY
The
Democratic Party allows its lower level
representatives to present
themselves
as opposed to the war. Some of its leaders have
begun to take on
an appearance
of disagreeing with "how" the policies of
Bush are being
implemented.
The Democratic Party has unleashed a campaign
to divide and
conquer those opposed
to the pro-war policies. On one hand
it tries to
appear sympathetic to antiwar
sentiment while on the other
it tries to
silence voices opposed to Bush's policies.
Soon
after the 2000 presidential election The Democrats
began an attack on
the Green
Party on the grounds that since there is no
run-off system, that
is, since
the Democrats in partnership with the
Republicans do not allow
free elections,
the Green Party's existence and its
candidate for President
Ralph Nader in
2000 should be declared responsible for
George Bush becoming
the president.
This
campaign has been heavily promoted by the corporate
media. It has
achieved
success in part because of the support it has
received by the more
liberal
wing of the Democratic Party and some of the
"progressive" journals
controlled
by liberal Democrats such as The Nation, and
Mother Jones.
PROGRESSIVE
DEMOCRATS JOIN ATTACK
Their political message is simple and clear: "no
voice
truly critical of the
platform of the Republicans may be permitted; only
the
Democrats must appear
as 'opponents' to the Republicans". They have
no objection
to rightist,
prowar third party candidates entering the race and
promoting
their views.
They only oppose a voice for peace and the rule of law
like that
of Ralph
Nader in 2000.
Never in the history of the United States
has a magazine
claiming to favor
democracy run a front page article calling
on an
individual not to run for
president -- until The Nation did so against
Ralph Nader
running for
President in 2004. The fact polls show 23% of the people
favor
Nader running
(extrapolated to the total voting population that
represents
about 40
million people) and 65% favored his inclusion in debates
is of no
concern to
The Nation, which seeks to silence the only candidate who
in 2000
opposed
the premises of George Bush's platform.
THE CONSPIRACY
AGAINST THE VOTERS
The Nation's editorial board is free to campaign for the
Democratic
Party
and urge people to vote for the Democrats in spite of
their support for
the
Patriot Act, their votes for "Unequivocal support to
George Bush"
etc. That
is their right. But they want something else. They want
the Greens
to join
with them in a conspiracy to not allow the voters a
choice.
All
voters are fully aware there is no run off in a
presidential race. They
understand
and many who support the platform of the Greens
will vote against
their views
by voting for the Democratic Party. The voters
will make that
decision. But
The Nation, along with many others, is
calling on the Greens
not to allow voters
who do not agree with The Nation's
opinion, to vote
Democratic, to have a choice
and be able to express their
electoral wish.
They want to silence their voices,
not to allow it to be
registered, as a
way to try and force them to vote for
their party, the
Democrats.
The passage of the USA Patriot Act,
the undemocratic
electoral laws, the
manipulation of electoral campaigns by
the corporate media
and the campaign
to silence the Greens are all part of
the same phenomena
against democracy.
It is just another example of how the
two-party system is
set up to repress
and silence those who favor democracy.
LESSER
EVIL LEADS TO GREATER EVIL
This campaign's effectiveness has penetrated
within the
Green Party, where a
minority supports the concept that the Green
Party should
not run in 2004.
Behind this view is the concept that politics
can be
measured as degrees,
like temperature, and that the Democrats offer
a milder
and thus lesser evil
alternative to the Republican Platform. This
view argues
that to support the
"lesser evil" weakens the greater
evil.
Such a view fails to grasp the essence of the matter.
Political
dynamics
work exactly the opposite. To silence the voice of the
Green Party
and
support the Democrats strengthens George Bush and the
Republican Party
because
only the appearance of forces opposed to the
present policies,
forces that
are clearly independent of corporate
domination can begin to
shift the relationship
of forces and the center of
political debate. Despite
the intention of some
of its promoters, the anti Green
Party campaign helps
the policies pursued
by Bush as well as his re election
possibilities.
Although some
claim that George Bush's policies represent
only a small
coterie of neo-conservative
extremists, the reality is
otherwise. Bush and
his friends serve at the pleasure
of the corporate rulers.
His standing with
the American people can be crushed
in a moment if the
corporate rulers so
choose -- just by the power of their
media, which today is
concentrated in
the hands of a half dozen giant conglomerates.
It
is presently in the interests of the corporate effort
to pursue anew
colonialism
to have Bush re-elected, thereby
legitimatizing his government
before the world.
In order to safely achieve that, the
voices that truly
oppose Bush's policies
need to be silenced.
OPPOSITION IS RISING
Opposition is rising
against Bush. The massive
overwhelming majority of the
world is against Bush's
war policies. The resistance to
the occupation in
Iraq and Afghanistan, and
the inability of the US media
and government to
prevent the world from hearing
the truth about these
events, is weakening
Bush's standing. The corporate interests
and their media
apparently want to
make a great effort to get Bush elected,
but if this
becomes too difficult,
the Democratic Party will be prepared to
appear as an
"opposition" that will
continue the essence of Bush's
policy with new
justifications, modifications
and adjusted forms.
The
only force that could upset the general direction set
by the bipartisan
policies
voted over the last few years would be a
destabilizing mass
development inside
the United States along with world
public opinion. This
occurred during the
war in Vietnam and forced a reversal
of US policy.
In the case
of Vietnam the Republicans under Eisenhower
initiated the direct
U.S. intervention
by sponsoring the Diem regime in the
south of Vietnam when
the French withdrew
in the mid-1950s. With U.S.
encouragement, his regime
refused to abide by the
peace accords and hold talks and
elections to
reunify the country. The Democrats
under Kennedy sent
ground troops in the
early 60's. The US force expanded massively
from 16,300
under Kennedy to
more than half a million by 1967 under Lyndon
Baines
Johnson, Kennedy's vice
president, who won re-election in 1964 as the
supposed
"peace" candidate.
The rise of a massive uncontrollable
opposition within the
United States and
around the world became a critical
brake on the pro-war
policies. An entire
generation was starting to deeply
question the direction
of the United
States in world affairs. The Democrats
and Republicans,
reflecting the
opinion of the major corporate leaders and
strategists,
decided they had no
choice but to pull back and concede military
defeat in
Vietnam because the
developing division in U.S. society threatened
to result
in the emergence of
a massive independent political force. This change
in
policy was carried out
under Republican Richard Nixon.
Saving
Bush from a backlash is now on the agenda and the
positions of the
Democratic
Party helps Bush in several ways. First, they
seek to prevent
even a small
but independent critical political
development, that is they
try to silence
the Green Party, and they orient those
opposed to the new
colonialism to stop
demonstrating and focus instead on the
electoral
campaigns of their Party.
Second,
they seek to convince the people that what was
wrong with the
invasion of Iraq
was just that the United Nations -meaning
the undemocratic
Security Council
dominated by the wealthiest
countries--did not lend it
political cover, or
NATO was not the military form used,
or the US did not
include France and Germany
in stealing Iraq's resources,
or not enough
troops are being used or some other
question about how
things are being done
rather than what is being done.
They
promise that all will be well if the Democrats can
take charge and
handle the
matter better. With this orientation the
Democrats free the hands
of corporate
America to give their funding and support to
Bush. With few
exceptions of relatively
isolated voices they offer, not
real opposition,
but only nuances.
And
those isolated voices, (Kucinich, Sharpton and
Moseley), of opposition
within
the Democratic Party, no matter how
well-intentioned, have a negative
consequence:
they give legitimacy to the Democrats as
"opponents" of the
Republicans.
These
exceptions to the general rule are allowed on
condition that after the
primary
campaigns they urge a vote for the Democratic
nominee. This must be
done no
matter how different that endorsed candidates
positions are from the
positions
taken during the primary. The cover for their
political sell out
is the winner-take-all
system that allows them to posture
as just "opposed
to Bush" as they
support the very Party that has supported
Bush.
Those are the dues
you have to pay to "play" in that game;
otherwise they
will be eliminated
and driven out of the House, the Senate
or a Governor's
office. For the Green
Party there is nothing more
important or effective
long-term and short term
in stopping Bush than to expose
how the corporate
interests use their two-party
system and the role of the
Democrats in that
system. We must let all Americans
who question the
policies of Bush, who
favor the rule of law, peace, and our
Constitution and
Bill of Rights see
the Democratic Party's hypocrisy, how they
support the war
and the Patriot
Act.
DEMOCRATS HELP INSTITUTIONALIZE
BUSH'S PLATFORM
It is transparent that the Democrats' objective is to help
institutionalize
the
USA Patriot Act's break with our Constitution and Bill
of Rights, by
proposing
amendments and adjustments that will disorient,
divide and weaken
the opposition
to the USA Patriot Act, and give the
appearance public
concerns have been corrected.
The
Democrats are making interesting suggestions for how
to pursue the war
effort.
Some are calling for a more extensive commitment
and the sending of
more troops
to suppress any resistance to US domination in
Iraq and
Afghanistan. Others
are suggesting more flexibility
informing alliances with
European nations that
had made capital investments to
exploit Iraq's oil
wealth under the Saddam
Hussein dictatorship. These
proposals are all aimed
at continuing the denial
of self-determination for the
people of Iraq, which
means continuing war and
continuing violation of
international law.
The Democrats and Republicans
both supported Saddam
Hussein and the
Baathists in Iraq before 1990 when it
served their
interests. Now they argue
with each other on how best to oppress
the Iraqis as they
try tomfool the
American people into thinking they are actually
trying
touring the Iraqis
democracy and freedom.
SELF-CORRECTING
MECHANISM
The role of these two parties is not a conspiracy. Boxer,
Wellstone
and many
other Democrats did not vote for the USA Patriot Act
consciously seeking
to
assist Bush. Being Democrats they become part of a system
that will have
them
removed if they do not follow the rules of support
when corporate
America insists.
To rise in the Democratic Party there is
a process that
leads to compliant
people unable to question, who remain
silent before
betrayals, or criminal
acts. Cynthia McKinney is an
example of a Democrat
who refused to go along,
stepped across the line within
the Democratic Party
and was driven out of office
by the combined efforts of
both the Democratic
and Republican parties and the
corporate media.
Voting to abrogate the 4th amendment to the Constitution,
which
prohibits
searches without probable cause and a judge's order, as
the USA Patriot
Act
does directly is an illegal act. The Democrats and
Republicans who voted
for
this law were fully aware of what they were doing. It is
an insult to the
intelligence
of people like Wellstone and Boxer not to
recognize that they
fully understood
the choice they were making. The Green
Party differs, it
defends the 4th amendment
and seeks to defend the
Constitution and respect
for the law on how the Constitution
can be amended that
requires the
consideration and vote of the states.
That
is not to say there are many issues where Greens
agree with Democrats
like
Boxer and Wellstone and even admire positions they
have taken and
efforts they
have made. But to go into denial, and refuse
to recognize the
obvious --that
the Democrats have joined in passing and
promoting the USA
Patriot Act against
the Constitution with the support of
people like
Boxer--is to deny the true
framework we face politically
in our nation.
The self-purging process
of the Democratic Party is an
ongoing balance
between allowing, even welcoming,
voices of opposition in
order to co-opt,
but not allowing those voices to form
a serious challenge,
especially any
challenge that favors the development of
political
formations not dominated
by corporate money.
SUCCESS
OF DEMOCRATIC PARTY
The Democratic Party should be seen historically as the
most
successful
political party in the history of the world in terms of
maintaining
stability
for rule by the privileged few. There is no
other example that
comes near what
the Democratic Party has achieved in
maintaining the
domination of money over
people.
The Democratic Party, through trickery, co-opted the
powerful
and massive
rise of the Populist movement at the end of the 19th
century precisely
using
the same lesser evil arguments now presented against the
Green Party.
They
blocked the formation of a mass Labor Party when the
union movement
rose in
the 1930s. They derailed, co-opted and dismantled
the powerful civil
rights
movement, anti-Vietnam war movement and women's
liberation movement.
They have
even succeeded in establishing popular myths
that they were once
for labor,
for civil rights and for peace. Nothing could
be further from the
truth.
One
quite popular myth is that Franklin Delano Roosevelt
was prolabor.
Continuing
the policies of Woodrow Wilson who oversaw a
reign of antiunion
terror, including
black listing and deporting immigrant
labor organizers,
FDR's administration
sabotaged union drives every step of
the way. When
workers overcame their bosses'
resistance and began
winning strikes, FDR
turned on them and gave the green
light for repression
after police killed
ten striking steel workers in 1937.
As FDR said himself,
"I'm the best
friend the profit system ever had.
"After WWII Truman used
the new Taft
Hartley Anti-Labor Act to break national
strikes more than
a dozen times.
The Democrats have not abandoned
"progressive" positions
once held as some
Democrats repeatedly claim
but have simply shifted further
to the right as
world globalization has advanced
leading to the lowering
of democratic
rights and the growth of wealth polarization
within the
United States.
If a massive opposition develops, if
the Greens begin to
win races and their
following grows, the corporations will
put more money
behind the Democrats,
the media will become more sympathetic
to the Democrats,
promote its more
"progressive" voices. The media
would also become more
critical of the
Republican lack of sensitivity, all
in an effort to
maintain the two-party
system. That is, a shift towards the
Democrats will occur
if the Democrats
cannot control the people.
The
two-party system is a self-correcting mechanism that
shifts back and
forth
between the two parties, and within different wings
of those parties,
to maintain
corporate political control. Loyalty to the
two-party system is
inculcated
in the educational system, and our electoral
laws are rigged to
discriminate
against third parties.
GREENS VOICE MUST BE HEARD
Those who
call for a "lesser evil", that is, for evil will
unfortunately
succeed.
The call for a "lesser evil" is what makes
possible the greater
evil.
Those voices who say Nader should not run, that the
Greens should
consider
withdrawing, that the Greens should not campaign
in states where
the vote is
close are, unconsciously, actually helping
Bush's re-election by
weakening
the development of an opposition political
movement that shifts
the balance
of forces. Nothing is more important than the
appearance of
candidates and
mass actions that tell the full truth, that
call for the rule
of law, respect
for the Bill of Rights, and speak out for
peace and social
justice.
There
is nothing more threatening to the rule of the
corporations than the
consolidation
of a party of hundreds of thousands of
citizens, especially
young people, that
fearlessly tell the truth to the
American people. Only
such a movement can
in time become millions, then tens of
millions and
eventually win. But it is
also the best strategy for the
short term, to
force a shift away from the direction
being pursued today.
SHORT TERM VERSUS LONG TERM
The idea there
is a conflict between the short term and
the long term is a
cover for capitulation.
It has been the endless argument
of the Democrats
against challenges to their
policies. When independent
movements appear they
call on people to enter the
Democratic Party and work from
within. There is
no time to go outside the two-party
framework, they argue.
This argument was
made 100 years ago, 50 years ago,
25 years ago and, of
course remains with
us today. Millions have agreed there's
no time to do the
right thing. Very
powerful groups, like the AFL CIO, have
followed their
advice. As a result
the number of workers in unions has dropped
from 37% of
the work force to
12% as they politically subordinated themselves
to the
pro-corporate
Democratic Party.
Rather than success,
these movements have found the
Democratic Party to be
the burial ground for
mass movements, and of third party
efforts that sought
to defend the interest
of the people throughout American
history. If we
follow the advice of the "left"
Democrats who call on
Greens to return to
the Democratic Party, the Green Party
will collapse like
the New Party did
for fear of confronting the Democrats.
The
exact opposite is needed. We need to encourage those
Democrats who are
opposing
the policies of their party to follow the lead of
Congressman Dan
Hamburg and
break with the Democrats and join with us in
developing an
alternative force,
fighting for democracy, social justice
and peace.
All people who
believe in democracy need to call on The
Nation and others to
stop their campaign
against the Greens, a campaign at the
service of
corporate America. Instead
they should join with the
Greens in a battle for
democracy in the same manner
in which many progressive
Democrats in San
Francisco rejected their party's
nomination for mayor and
joined with the
Greens to create a progressive alternative.
We need to
suggest to
"progressive" Democrats that they should concentrate
their
attacks on their
leadership's support for George Bush's policies, and
not
on the Greens for
telling the truth and actually fighting for the ideals
many
of these
Democrats claim to hold.
THE YEAR 2004
The year
2004 will be a critical year for the Greens. The
campaign of the
Democrats
will be powerful and to some extent effective.
Some will abandon
us but others
will be attracted by our courage and our
principled stance. In
California the
Green registration continues to rise even
as the campaign
against the Green
Party grows. We may very well receive a
lower vote than in
2000. But if we
do not stand up to this pressure and hold
our banner high,
fight them and defend
our right to exist, to have our
voice heard, to run
candidates that expose
the two-party system and the
hypocrisy of the
Democratic Party and its complicity
with the Republicans,
we will suffer the
greatest lost off all.
THE
GREEN PARTY
The Green Party can and will win the hearts and minds of
people
when they
see us as reliable and unshakable, if we stand our ground.
In time
this
leads to respect and then support. Those Greens who agree
with our Ten
Points
but have disagreements with this Avocado
Declaration need to be
respected.
We need to allow an open and honest debate as
an essential part
of our culture.
Truth
can be ascertained only through the conflict of
ideas. Thus democracy
is essential
for society but also for our internal
process. The present
discussion around
the 2004 elections is one that will not
end but will be
with us for a long
time. It finds _expression in many forms
because it is the
most FUNDAMENTAL
ISSUE of American politics in our epoch.
Are we willing to
stand up to the
rule of corporate domination and its
central political agent
that has deceived
and betrayed our people, the Democratic
Party?
THE GREENS MUST
BE A PLURALISTIC ORGANIZATION
The Green Party seeks to bring all those who
agree with
its Ten Key points
into one unified political party. It welcomes
diversity,
debate, and
discussion on issues of strategy, tactics and methods
of
functioning. A
healthy organization that fights for the interest of the
people
by its
nature will always have all kinds of internal conflicts,
sharp differences,
personality
difficulties and all other things human. This
is not only normal
it is healthy.
The
Greens do not consider themselves a substitute for
other movements or
organizations,
such as peace organizations and other
specific issue groups
that seek to unite
people of all political persuasions
around a specific
platform. We welcome
diversity with other groups that seek
to move in the
same direction with us
but are not agreed to join us. We
will try to work
with such organizations
where common ground exists. Thus
the AVOCADO
DECLARATION includes a call for
the Greens to accept
diversity, and maintain
unity as we seek to build an effective
mass organization.
Let those that agree with the AVOCADO DECLARATION
help
protect and build the
Green Party as a vehicle for democracy, freedom,
liberty
and justice for
all.
JANUARY 1, 2004