[Marxism] "demo-green" paranoia and slander: in response to xxx

[Joaquin Bustelo]

Mark Lause:

<<So, too, the coherent, monolithic Demo-Green leadership is a
hallucination.  If you break down the term to figure out what it means, it
has so many different (and contradictory) trends that it would be misleading
ourselves to see a common, coherent strategy.>> 

I don't know this to be true of my own experience since there is pretty much
no Green Party in the Atlanta area to relate to, but it makes sense. 

People might remember that among the pieces the people on Camejo's side of
the dispute put out in 2004 was a polemic I wrote called something like,
"the sound of one hand clapping." (I forget if that was my working title or
the title it finally had -- I no longer have a copy to check). 

It was, to be frank, a four-age philippic, as hard as I could make it, to
make the case that David Cobb was running on behalf of essentially an ABB
"safe states" strategy. But WHY did it take such a polemic to make the case?
Because, quite simply, it was anything but clear. 

EARLY ON the pro-Cobb folks were open about this, but after Peter Camejo
launched his "Avocado Declaration" challenge, they started equivocating,
bobbing and weaving, and Cobb's stance was that his campaign was about a
candidate who would be solely and singly focused on helping to build the
Green Party, meaning mostly locally, and implicitly --but not in so many big
words-- criticizing tilting at windmills and alienating potential
allies/supporters at least at the local level by focusing too much on the
national race.

The pro-Cobb vote was not all a "demogreen" vote driven by an ABB agenda.

One of the points I made in that polemic if I remember right was that
--compared to a Nader campaign-- a David Cobb campaign was in and of itself
a "safe states" campaign, a campaign that would be attractive to very few
people -- as the election results confirmed.

Now I find that same argument recycled and deployed against Cynthia
McKinney, claiming she is a virtual unknown. I think it is in this case a
completely bogus argument. McKinney has WON a half-dozen congressional races
in two Georgia districts. She has shown herself to be anything but a "white
bread" candidate that no one would notice, nor an ineffective campaigner. 

It is likely true that she isn't as well known as Nader -- but that isn't
the whole story. She is a national political figure, she is known, but not
just known, she is actively identified with, by a significant layer in the
Black community and by women activists. I would say the *quality* of her
"name recognition" compensates for its probably being lower in "quantity" in
comparison with Nader. 

Nader is, in a sense, a much surer bet for the Greens. McKinney is more of a
gamble. The gamble is quite simply that she will be able to open the door to
the Greens in the Black community (and also among women) in a way that Nader
has not been able to. In 2004, Nader early on drew quite a bit of interest
in the Black community, polling as high as 10% or so, but in the end he was
unable to consolidate any of that early interest. If there is someone on the
political scene who can do that, it is McKinney.

Another Nader campaign, I'm afraid, would simply represent a holding
operation for the Greens. But strategically, in the longer term, a real
challenge to the 2-party system in this country almost certainly can ONLY be
built by starting from a strong mass base in the nationally oppressed
communities. And although McKinney offers fewer guarantees than Nader, she
also offers much more of an upside than Nader, especially among women and in
this strategic community. 

I think she is WELL worth the risk, and even if it doesn't pay off
handsomely, I think it can be safely said it won't be another David Cobb
campaign, which had all the force of a wet noodle.

That said, I don't think we should look for "political" reasons to back
Cynthia instead of Nader in the sense of their positions on issues. I don't
believe there is a real difference on the level of the what regular people
would understand the campaign's message to be. I think another Nader
campaign would be unobjectionable on this score, just as a McKinney campaign
would be. This is a different kind of debate than in 2004. This is a choice
between two really good, positive, candidates. 

That Nader would formulate, for example, his support to the struggle of
Black people for equality in more "workerist" terms while McKinney's
speeches will hark back more to the language and traditions of the Civil
Rights movement is true, but that's just part of the picture of saying that
McKinney is more likely to really open the door to the Greens becoming a
party that Blacks identify with, as opposed to some "programmatic" divide
about what the party stands for. 

My ideal scenario would be a McKinney-Nativo Lopez ticket, with Nader and
Camejo hopefully willing to be campaign co-chairs (or some such similar
honorific) to help with some public events and fund-raising. Nativo Lopez,
in case people don't know him, has been a long-time Chicano activist and is
the head of the Mexican-American Political Association who led them to
support the Greens in recent elections rather than the two major parties. He
has also been one of the central national leaders of the left wing of the
immigrant rights movement. 

For some reason, a McKinney-Nader or Nader-McKinney ticket just doesn't
"feel right" to me, although some have suggested that combination. There is
an awkwardness in it -- perhaps from having two candidates with such
contrasting styles and already formed public images that don't really blend
well: the somewhat cold and cerebral policy wonk Mister Nader; and the warm
and passionate Sister Cynthia. In (real) politics, when your audience is in
the millions, I think it is of great importance not just to think about
"positions," but tone, stance and image -- and I don't believe this
combination would work well on that score. Then again, IF Nader and McKinney
BOTH decide to aggressively seek the nomination, that would be the logical
outcome.

As for Peter Camejo, unless I'm very much mistaken, he doesn't feel he is in
a position to commit to a major national campaign, as he is still
recuperating from a major illness.

Joaquin