Principle, no compromise
By David Larson
Green Party of Iowa

As Greens look to the elections of 2006 and 2008, matters of party integrity raised by current events demand our consideration and resolution. A Jan. 10 Green Media Committee release, "Greens Challenge Democrats and the Media: Fix Our Broken Electoral System," contained a host of fine suggestions for reforming the electoral process and ensuring greater participation by citizens and alternative interests. But it also, troublingly, hailed several U.S. House and Senate Democrats who'd spoken out against Republican vote suppression in Ohio.

Vote suppression is wrong regardless of who's behind it. And I join with critics of such squelching of the public voice. But it was profoundly hypocritical of Democrats to criticize GOP vote suppressing, given their own party's shameful and concerted efforts to block Ralph Nader and Peter Camejo from state ballots across the country. In light of the Democrats' purposeful anti-democratic machinations, potentially denying to millions of citizens the opportunity to support the candidates of their choice, the Green Party doesn't look very respectable holding the donkey's hand.

To be fair, the Green release in question restricted its focus to Ohio. And the Green Party had previously condemned moves to block Nader and Camejo. Still, the subsequent saluting of Democrats as praiseworthy fighters against vote denial rankled Green Nader/Camejo supporters like me who'd witnessed up close Democrats' anti-democratic 2004 dirty tricks.

As the Nader/Camejo state coordinator in Iowa, I oversaw the collection of signatures and their presentation to the secretary of state. So I knew every step of the way that the effort was legitimate and that applicable Iowa laws were uniformly respected.

But our scrupulous compliance didn't stop Iowa Democrats from mounting a signature challenge they surely knew to be frivolous. (A glance at Iowa laws governing this process reveals that among their points of complaint were several not even addressed in the code.) Nor did it stay the state's largest and most influential daily, the Des Moines Register, from according Iowa Democrats' vote-blocking attempt favorable coverage. Indeed, the paper's "liberal" columnist, Rhekha Basu, went so far as to hail the political censorship efforts' leader as a folk hero. The Iowa Democrats' electoral censorship efforts were ultimately unsuccessful, but only after the matter was argued before a secretary of state hearing. Reports of similar (and worse) bids to deny Nader ballot access came in from other states, and it was disclosed that leading Democrats had coordinated such state efforts at that party's national convention. All of this brought home exactly how desperate and shameless Democrats can be to stifle alternative political opposition and shut the public out of its own government.

Who believes similar Democrat actions won't target our party in future elections?

One House Democrat who'd criticized the Republican Ohio vote suppression, and who was hailed by name in the Green release, was Rep. Stephanie Tubbs-Jones of Ohio. On Oct. 7, 2004, she appeared on the Fox News [sic] program "Dayside," making the case against Republican vote suppression. She presented an articulate and passionate argument, but was ultimately exposed as a partisan charlatan.

"Some of our viewers have said they suspect that the Kerry campaign or Democrats are trying to suppress votes by keeping Nader off the ballot in certain states. Is that happening?" asked host Linda Vester.

"No," Tubbs-Jones first snapped, before immediately contradicting herself. "We are trying to keep Nader off the ballot in certain states because he shouldn't be on the ballot. He's merely a spoiler." The Ohio representative later added of Nader supporters, "Those people can vote for whoever they want to," but did not explain how they could if she and her fellow Democrats were successful in blocking those voters' preferred candidate. Nor did Tubbs-Jones explain when it became her and the Democratic Party's place to decide for an entire electorate which candidates "should be on the ballot."

So much for credibility and principle.

I submit that the Democrats' bold indifference to ethics has no place in the Green Party. It presents itself as an honest and undeviatingly principled electoral alternative to the two traditional parties. Many rank-and-file members were attracted to it because of that image. I was.

Imagine, then, how disillusioned so many surely were to see the national hierarchy saluting enthusiastic vote-blockers
like Tubbs-Jones and the Democrats. At best, the release in question undercuts Green credibility on the issue. And at worst, it spotlights an alarming indifference toward our core Key Values. If the Green Party expects fair treatment for itself tomorrow, it must not encourage today's dirty tricksters.

David Larson is Iowa's Green Party media coordinator, and has also served on the national Media Committee.

Back to Spring 2005