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