GREEN BASHING

A member of Team Eschaton recently posted a few words about and a link to an anti-Green Party screed. The post's bottom line is that it is the mandated duty of everyone who is to the left of the Republican Party to vote for whomever the Democratic candidate is in 2004. Even though the post seemed to imply some of the Democratic arrogance and misplaced anger toward the Greens that have made me hate the donkey butts all the more, it was not particularly mean-spirited. The debate that then raged in the Eschaton comments section, however, became quite evil at points.

Here is the comment I posted:

I voted for Nader in 2000, myself, but I live in Texas, so I'm sure it didn't affect anything at all--I may very well do it again because it feels pretty damned good to vote for what I believe in. However, one thing that I'd like the venom-spewing Nader haters to tell me is why I should vote for a candidate that doesn't represent my views. "Get rid of Bush at all costs!" Well, okay. I suppose that's a laudable goal. I hate Bush, as well.

And then what? Odds are, I'll probably end up hating any Democrat that might win, too, and I'll have voted for him. (This happened to me years ago when I idealistically voted for Clinton in 1992. D'oh!) The fact is, the Democrats just don't represent my views.

Either way, Republican or Democrat, I'm disgusted: Democrats are for slow and smiling national self-destruction; Republicans are for fast and frowning national self-destruction. I feel like the choice you guys are demanding that I make is suicide by shotgun or suicide by sleeping pills. Either way it's suicide. I know the Greens can't win the presidency, but there's no way in hell I'm going to endorse this bullshit with my vote.

Instead, I'll continue to vote my conscience. Doesn't that concept mean anything, anymore? Don't you guys have any respect for that? I guess not. Whatever. It's my vote, and I'll use it however I please.

Berate me all you want; I'm not on your side.

And here is a link to the hard core hate-the-Greens/love-the-Greens debate.

The pompous, spiteful attitudes displayed by many Democrats during this debate do nothing but push me further away from the liberal pretender party. Even so, there is some sense in the argument to remove Bush at all costs, despite the fact that if the Democrats win, the left will be ignored once again. A writer for whom I have a great deal of respect, Norman Solomon, makes a better and friendlier attempt at persuasion:

The Green Party is now hampered by rigidity that prevents it from acknowledging a grim reality: The presidency of George W. Bush has turned out to be so terrible in so many ways that even a typically craven corporate Democrat would be a significant improvement in some important respects.

Fueled by idealistic fervor for its social-change program (which I basically share), the Green Party has become an odd sort of counterpoint to the liberals who have allowed pro-corporate centrists to dominate the Democratic Party for a dozen years now. Those liberal Democrats routinely sacrifice principles and idealism in the name of electoral strategy. The Greens are now largely doing the reverse -- proceeding toward the 2004 presidential race without any semblance of a viable electoral strategy, all in the name of principled idealism.

For the full essay, click here.

I guess that I haven't yet made up my mind. The more I learn about how totally evil the Republicans are becoming, the more scared I get about the future of this country. I've got a lot of thinking to do.

One thing's for sure: there is no way in hell that I'm voting for Joseph Lieberman.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$