One of the aftermaths of the Presidential Election of 2000 is the fact that many Democrats have a visceral haterd of Ralph Nader and the Green Party. This is an unfortunate outcome, basically because Nader was speaking the truth when he found little difference between the policies of the Republicans and the Democrats. As the implications of the Florida vote became apparent, there were many Democrats who were looking for someone to blame, and placed the blame on Nader and the Greens.
I won't debate the question of whether or not that was correct. There is data that supports both sides of the arguement and most minds are made up: Greens believe one thing, disappointed Democrates believe another. Still, there is a significant decision for the Green Party to make for 2004. Should they run a major campaign or should they bow to Democratic Pressure to support the Democratic Candidate, whoever that might be.
If this means anything to you. read the petition of the Avacodo Education Project . It argues for the Green Party to have a major campaign specifically for the reason that the Democratic Party has developed a progressive rhetoric, for the worker, pro-union, supporting the down trodden, caring for the little guy, while implementing policies not unlike their Republican rivals.
The United States is not, and never has been, set up to be a two party system. If that were so, then we would still be voting between the Federalists or the Whigs Democrats even endorsed the candidacy of the "Liberal Republican" party at one time. Democrats and Republicans are rather latecomers, emerging first as third parties when the established parties no longer met the needs of this country.
Posted by at January 19, 2004 07:53 AM