THE U.S. GREEN PARTY:
CHALLENGES AND
PROSPECTS
by Ira Rohter
The "Green Movement" is a worldwide coalition of grassroots activists who share a concern for both environmental and democratic governance issues. European Green parties often speak about standing on Four Pillars - environmental balance, social justice, non-violence, and grassroots democracy. Greens played a role in overthrowing the centralized regimes controlling the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. Green parties have elected local and national representatives in Germany, Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, Austria, Italy, Luxembourg, France, Switzerland, Portugal, Bulgaria, Rumania, East Germany and the former states of the Soviet Union, to the European Community Parliament, and in New Zealand and Australia.
Official Green parties are just getting on the ballot in the United States. In 1990 the Green Party of Alaska elected two Greens to municipal offices, and ran a full slate of candidates in 1992. In 1992 Greens achieved official party status in California, Hawaii, Arizona, and New Mexico. Nearly a hundred Greens ran for public office, and 53 were elected in 1992.
Optimists see these newly formed U.S. Green parties as a vehicle for a new and different form of politics, based on a unique blend of environmentalism, social justice, and participatory democracy. The worldwide rising of Green parties is seen as the political expression of a "new paradigm" of values appropriate for meeting the challenges of living on this planet in the 21st Century.
Skeptics, however, see the American Greens as simply another chapter in this nation's long line of minor Third parties who flash brightly for an election or two, then fade away as mainstream parties adopt their innovative ideas.
The Woolpert and Halpern papers presented in this panel raise troubling questions about the psychological dynamics often expressed in transformational groups that may substantially impede the success of Green parties. They follow the style of theorizing first established by Harold Lasswell in his classic work Psychopathology and Personality, and continued by McClosky, Lane, Greenstein, etc.
Although I am sympathetic to their psychological analyses of individual members - I was one of the founding members of the Psychology and Politics Association - I think the psycho-dynamic approach can easily become too reductionistic. I intend to examine the question of the U.S. Greens' future largely in terms of their ability to successfully solve critical strategic, tactical, and organizational issues. This will set the context for an examination of the psycho-dynamic issues identified by Woolpert and Halpern that might affect the ultimate success or failure of the U.S. Greens.
An epistemological
note: I wear two hats as I write this paper - as a professor of
political science at the University of Hawaii, and as one of the
founding members of the Hawaii Green Party, of which I am
presently one of its State Co-Chairs.
The most basic question confronting the U.S. Greens is "What long term strategy will broaden the Greens' support, and allow them to win more political offices?" A sharper question is "Who exactly do Greens want electoral support from, and what kind of persons do they want to run as candidates?" Although traditional campaign organizations start their strategic thinking asking these questions, too many Greens, surprisingly, seldom explore them in any focused way. The U.S. Greens speak in many voices, ranging from leftists who talk about organizing non-voters, dis-empowered citizens, and the working class, to those who want to appeal to a broader middle-class, whomever that might be. Other Greens are intensely single issue oriented, and promote legalizing hemp, or animal rights, stopping nuclear powerplants, military spending, hydropower dams, toxic dump sites in their communities, etc.
Exactly who then can Greens expect to vote for their candidates? Is it the "Post-materialist rising new class" of educated, professional service workers in an industrialized society, as political scientists like Inglehart argue? In advanced industrial democracies, issues are moving away from a class-based materialist orientation toward a more quality-of-life, participatory emphasis. Is this "new class" really voting for Greens? Are there other segments of the voting population that are attracted to Green issues?
Too many Greens are more interested in writing the perfect platform document and organizational bylaws, and achieving perfect gender-fair and consensual processes in their group, than in asking these kinds of hard political questions.
Many voters view Vice President Al Gore as an "environmentalist" and believe the Clinton administration is promoting a strong environmental agenda. The soon to be revealed Clinton health-care proposals appear as a major program to set this country's medical system aright. The Clintonites are trying to advance many programs that Greens advocate, such as establishing community-development banks, sustainable agriculture programs, a BTU energy tax, environmental clean-up and protection, educational reforms, advancing gay and civil rights, promoting feminist issues, etc.
What issues remain for the U.S. Greens to advocate? Duplicate these positions at lower governmental levels, or stake-out areas that have been overlooked? Will American Greens end up being just Reformers, operating as a "green wing" of a reborn Democrat party? Perhaps the Clinton initiatives will not be passed, or effectively implemented.
Or, can the Greens stake out substantially different positions that will clearly differentiate them from liberal Democrats? One possibility is for Greens to advocate much more extreme positions, such as radical gay rights and feminism, strident leftist economics, Earth First style environmentalism, animal rights, etc. While these positions may be important to various single-interest groups, espousing them as though they comprise the core beliefs of the Greens seems the path to political marginalization.
Rather than being a shopping list of radical and politically-correct (PC) positions, the Greens offer a holistic analysis that gets to root causes of America's problems and advocates fundamental structural and attitudinal changes. Are not Gore and Clinton's programs just a light shade of green, at best, offering no more than superficial reforms? They certainly are not challenging the fundamental premises of our modern society: more growth-is-good, capitalism is the best form of economics, we can significant change our environmental practices without requiring us to alter our basic style of living, technology is our savior, consumerism is what life is all about. Greens need to communicate their alternative ideas about a more democratic economy, meaningful and decent paying work, a deeper appreciate of ecology and stewardship, cultural- and eco-feminism, less consumerism, revitalizing community life, and re-establishing citizen-based governance.
The likely failure of the Clinton presidency to implement significant environmental, health care, and campaign reforms, and restructure the economy, will support the Green's argument that radical change and not incremental reform is needed. Despite many progressives' relief over the defeat of Bush, and hopes for the changes the Clintons promised to deliver, believers in change are slowly realizing that the Clintonites cannot reach their lofty goals. Clinton and his band of supporters lack the political capacity to break through the national gridlock created by the connections between powerful Congressmen and interest groups.
Greens must set out clear difference between old and new paradigm values, and find ways to make them understandable and politically palpable to an ever-widening constituency. Greens must build grassroots groups who can pressure their legislators and elect better ones. A local-first strategy both matches the Greens' limited resources and ideological view of proper governance: work from the bottom up.
The classic political tactical question might be posed as: "How can U.S. Greens build alliances with sympathetic groups and voters?" The German Green Party, Die Grunen, has its roots in the coming together of an unusual association of conservative farmers, progressive ecologists, and anti-nuclear powerplant opponents. This coalition was later joined by veterans of the 1968 radical students movement, members of the peace movement mobilized against deployment of intermediate-range nuclear missiles in Europe, and various Left parties turning green.
In the American context, this means U.S. Greens need to craft programs that draw electoral support from environmental, peace, feminist, and social justice advocates, and then broaden out to draw in home renters, native rights activists, farmers, labor, mainstream women's organizations, etc. To be successful the U.S. Greens must write platforms and policy papers that appeal to as many like-minded interest groups as possible.
I believe this traditional model of political organizing is inappropriate given the Greens' limited resources, and is based on obsolete concepts. U.S. Green party groups need to think of themselves more as networks than formal organizations. Organizations have permanent hired staff and offices, and a centralized chain of command. Networks are informal and voluntary and self-organizing. They lack formal headquarters, permanent leaders, or a rigid chain of command. People voluntarily organize around specific issues, choose task-specific coordinators, find volunteers to do things, and freely exchange information by decentralized technologies such as copy machines, telephones, faxes, and electronic and regular mail. Organizations are legal structures that are funded by donations, grants, membership dues, and government contracts. Networks have little funding and volunteers usual pay their own expenses.
This new style of organization is emerging rapidly in the business world, and has been called Virtual Organization. The term "virtual" is drawn from world of computers, and describes how the machine acts as if it had far greater storage capacity than it actually possesses. A Virtual organization appears to an outsider observer as a single entity with vast capabilities, but in reality it really is a shell holding together numerous collaborations assembled only when needed.
Greens in other words should not limit themselves to "drawing support" from sympathetic groups and their members. Instead Greens parties can serve as the legal and organizational shell for existing green-oriented groups to function effectively in the electoral arena. Greens should be actively creating coalitions of existing groups that will jointly formulate shared policy positions, influence legislators and bureaucracies, and run candidates for elected office. Viable "Green" candidates with proven leadership ability and experience will come from these groups. Green parties in the U.S. as themselves have neither money or legions of grassroots supporters; it will take a coalition of established groups, who together have resources, to influence policy makers and run successful electoral campaigns.
We Greens in Hawaii, for example, are always being asked: "Who are YOU going to run for Governor or City Council or . . . in `94?" I always answer: "Who do you think WE, the activist coalition, should jointly nominate and support?"
In this sense U.S. Green parties are really virtual organizations or networks. They constitute the minimal structure or formal organization that is needed to meet legal requirements, and their job is to maintain a network of collaborative relationships between already existing groups. The Greens' limited resources do not allow them to "organize" the downtrodden masses. The small band of diligent members who keep the Green network alive can help embryonic grassroots activists organize their communities, mostly with advice on political strategy and help in networking with other groups, but it is simply beyond their capabilities to do intense community organizing and run a political party.
Choosing Winnable Races and Viable Candidates
Winning political offices in the United States is a daunting challenge, much harder than in Europe, where proportional representation allows Greens to be elected with only small percentages (5%) of the total vote. Since races in the U.S. for higher offices allow only one candidate to win, Greens have to carefully select which races they should contest. Many Greens are political amateurs, and seem too willing to run holy crusades directed towards making symbolic points, rather than engage in careful pragmatic targeting. To run candidates in many races dilutes already limited resources, and Greens need to target selected races where they have a decent probability of winning. The Hawaii Green Party, for example, in their first election in 1992, sought to target races where they had both activist groups within the district to draw support from, and whose incumbent officeholder was not very popular.
High visibility state-wide races can, however, be vehicles for gaining media attention and produce a "Trickle-down" benefit for local Green candidates. These races also provide creditability for the party and help educate the voting public on Green ideas.
The concept of "fusion" campaigns is another tool Greens can utilize in their election strategy. Social justice, feminist, environmental, and grassroots-democracy groups can work together to come up with a list of candidates to support who share common ideals and choose to run as Democrats, Republicans, or Greens based on tactical considerations. On the Island of Hawaii, for example, Greens helped to elect two independent Republican Councilmen, who later joined with the Green Councilwoman and an independent Democrat to form the minority faction in a 5 to 4 split Council. Many Green agenda items are being advanced by this informal alliance. What makes the alliance even more effective is the knowledge that more than 27 percent of the Big Island voters cast their ballots for the Green mayoral candidate in `92 - more than double the votes garnered by the Republican. Any aspiring mayor will have to win the Green vote!
A related tactical question is the "kind" of candidate Greens should run. Too often, people come out of the woodwork as candidates. They are either solo renegades, or associated with single-issue causes. I would suggest several criteria be used to evaluate "viable" candidates. Do they have the breadth of holistic vision that Greens stand for? Can they speak knowledgeably about the many Green solutions to the community's problems? Do they have relevant leadership experience; that is, do they appear to be knowledgeable and have demonstrated competence in working with others? Are they known in the community? Do they come with recognition as community or issue-based leaders? What community groups are they involved in? Do they intend to run a serious campaign designed to win? Are they willing to make an all-out commitment of their personal life for several months?
Minor parties are greatly disadvantaged by the America majority vote system. The hundreds of Greens who hold elected offices in Europe do so only because their systems allow proportional representation, so that minority viewpoints are represented. If non-conventional views are to be represented, the winner-take-all American electoral system must be altered. Unfortunately this winner-take-all concept is so deeply imbedded in the average American's consciousness as an unchallenged assumption that it will take years to change. We can perhaps approximate proportional representation by working for multiple member districts, smaller-sized districts, home-rule for towns and urban neighborhoods, etc.
How can Greens creatively use the media and other forums for presenting their ideals? New candidates - and especially ones with fresh ideas - need to get themselves heard. In small districts walking the neighborhood or community and talking to people face-to-face is one tool used by newcomers. In larger districts, teams of canvassers can carry a candidate's message to the voters' homes. But in the absence of an army of volunteers, and in huge districts, newspapers, radio and television become the major form of communication.
Greens have become clever in obtaining some free news coverage. They also have worked hard at appearing at public voter forums, or participating in debates, as often only the "major" parties are normally represented. But they find it difficult to get their press releases printed, or press conferences reported. The media centers its attention on the major name contenders and offices, and only reluctantly covers the "other" candidates and local races. Paid ads in newspapers and radio are a necessary tool for a large-scale viable campaign, and unless Green candidates are capable of raising large sums of money for this advertising, they are at an enormous disadvantage in getting their ideals heard by the public.
Greens therefore should, during off-years, be vigorously pushing for a number of campaign reforms, such as abolishing paid TV and newspaper political advertising, getting public funding for forums and debates to publicize candidates' stands on issues, promote the distribution of voter information booklets before each election containing candidates' background and position on major issues, and information on initiatives, charter reforms, etc.
European Greens get nearly all their income from generous state subsidies. These substantial election reimbursements pay for running party organizations and election campaigns. Winning officeholders - which occurs easily given low proportional representation threshold-levels - also receive paid staff and day-to-day expenses.
American Greens do not enjoy the luxury of paid professional staff and campaign funding. Green organizations, like most volunteer-based groups, are funded largely out-of-pocket and through small fund-raising events. Campaigns are run largely on shoe-string budgets, or from loans. Even in a small state like Hawaii we estimate a decent legislative or council campaign requires at least $10,000 to $12,000. A serious statewide race might require a minimum of $200,000 for large numbers of potential voters to hear what a Green candidate stands for. Guerrilla media tactics are not enough to get proper exposure. An alternative to such large spending is mobilizing an army of unpaid volunteers.
Greens embrace the ideal of citizen-based politics, and believe there are legions of volunteers just waiting to march forth to carry the Green message far and wide. Well - I'm still waiting for this to happen! What I do see are small numbers of committed souls - usually family and close friends of the candidate - working their butts off and often paying for their campaign literature from their own pockets.
Can Greens raise enough money to run serious campaigns, when they lack good access to the usual sources of major campaign funds - big business, big labor, etc.? As challengers to the status-quo, what do the Greens have to sell?
To take the Hawaii example, if we limit campaign contributions to $250 per individual, where will 50 or more large contributors per district come from? Or a hundred smaller ones? For Governor, who will elicit the support of nearly 1,000 contributors? Despite their rhetoric about being grassroot-based, I've seen no Green groups anywhere get close to meeting their organizational and campaign needs. Unless Green groups can raise modest amounts of funds and enlist the support of large numbers of volunteers, they will always be relegated to "also-ran" status.
Greens pride themselves on being grassroots democrats. They have attempted to transplant the ideals and aspirations of movement politics and small group dynamics into the bureaucratic political structure of our modern industrial state. Green citizen-based organizations (the "anti-party" as some put it) are supposed to be characterized by (1) a low degree of formalization, (2) dominance of the grassroots over higher-level functionaries or elected officeholders, and (3) a strong emphasis on linkages with grassroots social movements. Germany's Die Grunen promoted these ideals, for example:
The major question then, is: "What models of party organization are compatible with Green values of decentralization and consensus building, yet allow timely and efficient decision-making?" Greens have found these ideals difficult to achieve, even in Europe where they are comparatively well funded and citizens are often well informed. Although the Green ideal is to establish open communications and participation with a large membership, U.S. Greens, like most grassroots groups, find themselves forced to operate with severely limited resources. They are almost totally dependent on voluntary labor, and have minimal funds for communications, duplication, travel expenses for local representatives to travel to regional meetings, etc.
While Greens emphasize maximum citizen participation and involvement, politics operates in real-time. Quick decisions often must be made to take advantage of fast-breaking public events. Responding to a scandal, or some action of the State or business, requires quickly put together press releases, news conference, and plans for mobilizing actions. How can "the membership" be engaged in deciding what exactly is said or done on behalf of the Green Party?
This need for quick yet authoritative decision-making is even more acute during election periods.
Some situations do allow for a more leisurely process, where information can be shared by mailings, meetings held and votes taken. If consensus is not easily reached, then more talking-it-out can occur. Writing platforms, policy papers, and bylaws can be done in accordance in Green organizational ideals.
Just exactly WHO? is to participate is another major unresolved question for U.S. Greens. Within any chapter, only a small group - the steering committee and kindred souls- runs day to day affairs. A larger number (though still few) show up to talk and vote at public meetings, but are mostly uninvolved otherwise. During elections another cluster of people appear who work on the campaigns by waving signs, contributing small amounts of money, passing out literature, canvassing, etc.
Green ideals say whoever shows up at a meeting has an equal voice. But in practice some sort of "seasoning" process needs to be applied to "qualify" decision-makers. Should not being well-informed, adhering to Green values, and demonstrated responsibility to the Party all play a factor in judging each member's role in decision-making? Should a candidate for U.S. Senate have her campaign tactics and statements and leaflets voted on by total membership votes? How much discretion do candidates, or elected Green leaders, have in their roles as spokespersons for the Greens?
The issue of voting, consensus, and requiring super-majorities for decisions is another area of great debate among U.S. Greens. Some state and local groups require a 80% approval before any policy can be approved. This requirement for consensus decision-making has often impeded party effectiveness. Some groups have found themselves paralyzed in seemingly endless debates on policies. Both Hawaii and Alaska groups - and others I'm sure - fall back on simple majority votes on most questions, though still demand a 2/3rd proportion on major issues such as bylaw amendments.
A few groups are exploring ways that new technologies such as E-mail, electronic bulletin boards, and fax broadcasts can enhance membership involvement in policy discussions. These devices have become essential tools for leaders. The old bugaboo about limited access to these technologies is the downside to this solution. Experiments in publicly funded computer terminals in Santa Monica and Hawaii offer new potentialities for greater citizen participation in public policy-making. Private corporations are rapidly connecting their employees by e-mail systems that allow interactive decision-making too. I see some possibilities here, but frankly this gets us into the electronic democracy and tele-democracy material that in many respects is the antithesis of face-to-face democracy.
My guess is U.S. Greens will continue to muddle-through, and try to strike a balance between getting-the-job done and ideals of participation. Those groups who have actually elected Green candidates, and try to support them in office, will struggle with this issue constantly. One important structural antidote to centralized power, is the creation of citizen-based taskforces and working groups that involve widely-representative members of the local community and government at all levels in solving important community problems. Having so many citizen groups working on festering issues involving housing, transportation, the environment, social justice, women's concerns, economic conversion, etc. shares important information and allows fresh viewpoints to be heard and validated.
The U.S. Greens face incredible challenges to their creating of a successful third party. The American political structure burdens them with a winner-take-all election format. The present method of campaign financing advantages corporations, the wealthy, and well-organized special interest groups. The apathy and alienation of half of the electorate, and the entertainment-oriented form of television campaigning, makes it difficult to overcome the advantages held by incumbent officeholders and regular party candidates.
The Greens' success revolves ultimately about their ability to influence, and be the benefactors of, a process of national party realignment. This process will have to entail: (1) a weakening attachment between voters and regular parties; (2) a significant increase in mass political participation; and (3) a crystallization of new party alignments based on new social divisions.
The kinds of questions about individual psychologies raised by Halpern and Woolpert must be set within these larger political and social contexts. How well Greens meet these challenges will be effected by their courage and cleverness, willingness to balance their ideals with practical day-to-day political demands, and perhaps a bit of luck.
Greens must remember the distinction between being an electoral party and a social movement. Lots of reality intrudes if they want to be a party that seeks to influence government in a significant way. Unlike Euro-greens who can win elected office if they receive only 5% of the vote, American-Greens must reach out to a mass public if they want to win in a first-to-the-post system. Greens must appeal to a broader audience, and not be labeled as "fringe" players. They must address questions that average citizens are concerned with, such as decent paying jobs, affordable homes, safe neighborhoods, good health-care, quality schooling, etc. Greens must speak like knowledgeable policy-makers. They must package their idealism into concrete solutions and understand the realities of political and bureaucratic processes.
The U.S. Greens are in a transition, from being a protest movement and sculptor of idealist solutions, to being a political party that can win offices and influence policy-makers. The next election cycle or two will tells us whether the Greens are up to the challenge, or will remain a philosophical and debating society.
I would like to acknowledge Karen Lofstrom, Toni Worst, and Linda Martin, for their ideas and comments.