The Avocado Declaration
by Peter Miguel Camejo and the Avocado
Education Project.
The Avocado Declaration was initiated by Peter
Miguel Camejo (www.votecamejo.org).
Peter was the Green Party candidate for Governor of California in the
2002 general elections and in the 2003 recall election. This
statement was issued by the Avocado Education Project.
January 2004
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 that to mean 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
counterpoised forces, but rather complementary 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 which reflected 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,
which was pro-finance and industrial business. Prior to the Civil War,
the Democratic Party, controlled by the slaveocracy, favored
agricultural business interests and 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 over 130 years the two major parties have been extremely effective
in preventing the emergence of any mass political formations that
could 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 another these
countries have more democratic electoral laws and better political
representation. In most other countries, there exist political parties
ostensibly based on or promoting the interest of non-corporate sectors
such as working people.
STRUGGLES FOR DEMOCRACY AND SOCIAL JUSTICE
In spite of this pro-corporate 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. Its goal is always 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 which benefits 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 General Motors 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
the stability that is essential for "business as usual." It
does this by preventing a genuine mass opposition from developing.
Together the two parties offer one of the best frameworks possible
with which to rule a people that otherwise would begin to move society
towards the rule of the people (i.e. democracy).
An example of this process is our minimum-wage laws. Adjusted for
inflation, the minimum wage has been gradually declining for years.
Every now and then the Democrats pass a small upward adjustment that
allows the downward trend to continue, but gives the appearance that
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 block the appearance of
alternative voices and opposed proportional representation to prevent
the development of a representative democracy and the flowering of
choices. Both parties support the undemocratic structure of the U.S.
Senate and the Electoral College, which are not based on one person,
one vote, but instead favor the more conservative regions of the
nation.
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 are reduced 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. To the people they justify continuous betrayal of the
possibility for real change with the argument of lesser evil. It's the
Republicans or us. Nothing else is possible.
DEMOCRACY VERSUS COOPTATION
Democracy remains a great danger to 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 overpopulated 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 underclass. 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 changes are made illegally through
legislation rather than the official process by which the Constitution
can be amended because to do otherwise would awaken a massive
resistance. 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. An attack made 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 and political manner. A
manner which is the opposite of that taken by the USA 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
U.S. Government add to the dangers faced by U.S. 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 of 2003 General Tommy Franks, the recently
retired head of U.S. Central Command 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 must
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 Paul Wellstone and
Barbara Boxer voted for the USA 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 as
stated in Article 1, Section 8. 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, a speech that promoted 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 were done on national television for
the people to see a unified political force. The effect is to make
people who believe in peace, support the U.N. 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 Dennis Kucinich would not vote against the
resolution. Only a handful (eleven) of congressional representatives
voted against the motion for "unequivocal support" to George
Bush.
THE ROLE OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
The Democratic Party with 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 allowed 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
anti-democratic policies.
Nevertheless some voices outside the Democratic and Republican Parties
are beginning to be heard. Massive anti-war 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.
While we can and should join with them behind specific issues, we do
not adopt their error of belonging to a party that is against the
interest of the people, that is pro-corporate and is 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 anti-war 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 runoff
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 president.
PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATS JOIN ATTACK
This campaign against the Greens 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.
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, pro-war 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 that polls show 23% of the
people favor Nader running (extrapolated to the total voting
population this would represent about 40 million people) and 65%
favored his inclusion in debates is of no concern to The Nation as it
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 USA 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 deny the voters a choice.
All voters are fully aware there is no runoff in a presidential race.
Many who support the platform of the Greens will vote against their
own principles by voting for the Democratic Party. Each voter will
make that decision. But The Nation, along with many others, is calling
on the Greens to disenfranchise voters who disagree with The Nation's
preference for the Democratic Party. It wants these voters to have no
choice and be unable to express their electoral wish. The Nation and
those it represents want to silence the voices of these voters, 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 campaign
against democracy. They are 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
The effectiveness of the "lesser evil" campaign 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 in degrees, like
temperature, and that the Democrats offer a milder and thus less 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 in exactly the opposite way. 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 will 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 in the interests of the corporate effort toward a new
colonialism to have Bush re-elected in 2004, 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 U.S.
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 of the
bipartisan policies put in place 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 U.S. 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 U.S. 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 help 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 that NATO was not the military
form used, or that the U.S. did not include France and Germany in
stealing Iraq's resources, or that 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 the exception of a relatively few isolated voices they
offer, not real opposition, but only nuances.
And those isolated voices of opposition within the Democratic Party
(Kucinich, Rev. Al Sharpton and Carol Moseley-Braun), no matter how
well-intentioned, have a negative consequence: they give legitimacy to
the Democrats as the "opponents" of the Republicans.
These exceptions to the general rule are allowed on condition that
after the primary campaigns these individuals will urge a vote for the
Democratic nominee. This must be done no matter how different that
nominated candidate's positions are from the positions taken during
the primary campaign. The cover for their political sellout 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 the efforts to stop 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 USA PATRIOT Act.
DEMOCRATS HELP INSTITUTIONALIZE BUSH'S PLATFORM
It is transparent that the Democrats' objective is to help
institutionalize the USA PATRIOT Act and its break with our
Constitution and Bill of Rights. They do this by proposing amendments
and adjustments to the law that will disorient, divide and weaken the
opposition to the USA PATRIOT Act, and give the appearance that 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 U.S. domination
in Iraq and Afghanistan. Others are suggesting more flexibility in
forming 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 over how best to oppress the Iraqis as they try
to fool the American people into thinking they are actually trying to
bring 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 results in 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.
The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution prohibits searches without
probable cause and a judge's order. Voting for a law that abrogates
this amendment, 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 to say that they didn't fully
understood the choice they were making. The Green Party differs; it
defends the Fourth Amendment and seeks to defend the Constitution and
respect for the law which provides the only method by which the
Constitution can be amended, requiring the consideration and vote of
the states.
It should be said that 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.
Through trickery, the Democratic Party co-opted the powerful and
massive rise of the Populist movement at the end of the 19th century
using precisely 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 pro
labor. Continuing the policies of Woodrow Wilson who oversaw a reign
of anti-union 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
they 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 their 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.
GREEN VOICE MUST BE HEARD
Those who call for a "lesser evil", which is still a call
for evil, will unfortunately succeed. The call for a "lesser
evil" is what makes possible the greater evil. Those voices who
say Ralph 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 helping Bush's re-election by
weakening the development of an opposition political movement which
could shift 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 this 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 interests 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 the leadership of their party and its
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 is 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 of
all.
THE GREEN PARTY
The Green Party can and will win the hearts and minds of people when
they see us as reliable and unshakeable, if we stand our ground. In
time this leads to respect and then support. Those Greens who agree
with the Ten Key Values 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 only be ascertained 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 GREEN PARTY MUST BE A PLURALISTIC ORGANIZATION
The Green Party seeks to bring all those who agree with its Ten Key
Values into one unified political party. It welcomes diversity,
debate, and discussion on issues of strategy, tactics and methods of
functioning. By its nature, a healthy organization that fights for the
interests of the people will always have 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.
ORIGINALLY DISTRIBUTED ON
JANUARY 01, 2004
--------------------
AVOCADO
EDUCATION PROJECT
Mission Statement
The Avocado Education Project (AEP) educates about the history of
struggles for democracy in the United States and their relationship to
a multi-party political system. Americans have repeatedly called for a
multi party democracy throughout our history. Since the founding of
the United States of America, the political establishment has rejected
moving towards a multi-party framework.
Related to this development is the one person, one vote issue that has
also faced a long uphill battle in U.S. history. While often accepted
as the goal of democracy, many U.S. institutions, such as the
Electoral College and the U.S. Senate reject the concept of one
person, one vote.
The AEP seeks to learn from the experience of the majority of nations
holding elections where multi-party systems exists, whose laws protect
one-person one-vote and where the juridical electoral forms favoring a
two-party system have been rejected.
Specifically the AEP is a project that focuses on the existing debate
within the United States on this issue. Should the U.S. electoral
system favor limiting elections to two parties or should it be opened
up to a multi-party system? Should governmental electoral institutions
and electoral forms that do not follow the one-person one-vote rule be
allowed to exist?
Should entities that are not people and do not follow a one-person
one-vote policy in their own decision making, such as corporations, be
allowed to participate in elections through financial donations?
Through its website, publications, conferences and symposiums, the AEP
will provide a forum where all those committed to advancing democracy
in the United States can share ideas, and learn from each other.
Note:
The website url will be available soon.
----------------------------
This article is the work of the authors only and
does not necessarily reflect the views of the Green Party of the
United States. If you wish to send a message to the editors
regarding this or any item on the website, please email
us.
