Home | Read Issues | Join | Advertise | Donate | Staff List | Search | Contact Us

December 2000

Staff Editorial
There is hope in an era of Bush.
by the PERSPECTIVE staff

UC Endorsement
Steve Smith and James Coleman are the liberal's choice.
by the PERSPECTIVE staff

Canadian Comrades
It really is better up there.
by Danny Schlozman

Triumph or Tragedy?
Clinton's legacy is one of calculated compromise.
by Jeffrey Theodore

Buying Survival
Africa needs money, now.
by Ved Lekic and Alexandra Neuhaus-Follini

Pharmitas
Pharmaceutical companies fund Harvard research.
by Nathan Perl-Rosenthal

Students for What?
Folic acid has a hidden message.
by Shelby Meyerhoff

Greens Take Root
PERSPECTIVE talks to Cliff Ginn.
by Dev Purkayastha

A Year to Remember
A year from Seattle, the WTO protests go on.
by Bob Elliott

Cry Freedom
America's ideal of freedom is questionable.
by Nikhil Jaikumar

Introspective
In Defense of Money
by Brad Hershbein

Salmagundi

The Back Page
Keeping Christmas
by Julia Silvis

For the Green Party, the election actually ended on Election Day. The next morning, as the Gore and Bush camps battled on, Nader and his supporters could only look forward to the uncertain future of this young third party. In the end, Nader polled three percent nationally-a respectable amount, but still short of the magic five percent that the Green Party needed to gain federal matching funds. Some activists were disillusioned, and gave up the hope that the Green Party could ever succeed as a national political force. But many others viewed the election as an important step in the growth of their party. For these Greens, the candidacy of Nader was only the beginning of a larger movement.

Clifford Ginn is one of these hopeful Greens. Ginn sees his work with the Green Party as an extension of his interests in constitutional and environmental law. Formerly a Harvard undergraduate, Ginn returned to Cambridge this year as a student at the law school, after spending two years in New York City working with the Sierra Club and the Croton Watershed Clean Water Coalition.

As Nader's presidential bid gained momentum, Ginn enlisted a corps of volunteers to plaster the city with flyers and educate voters. His efforts paid off in Cambridge, where Nader polled higher than Bush; Nader scored fourteen percent of the city's vote, while Bush polled only thirteen percent. Nader supporter Scott Thompson even suggested that in Cambridge, “Everyone is a Green, just some of them were more afraid of Bush than others.” Although the campaign had ended, Ginn saw that real work still lay ahead, and took on the responsibility of creating a new political organization: the Harvard Greens.

Ginn has seen his share of the bitterness over the decisive outcome of this election. Nonetheless, he maintains that Nader is not to blame for the outcome. “Gore has no one to blame except himself. He had every advantage-he was an incumbent, had household name recognition, had a booming economy, peace, and served under a popular president.”

Many Greens-and more than a few Democrats-point to the Democratic Party's partial abandonment of the liberalism it once stood for. One Naderite, who chose to remain anonymous, blamed the centrist Democratic Leadership Council for Gore's weak performance: “If the ‘New Democrats' had not betrayed the Left on almost every major issue-labor concerns, environmentalism, international human rights, etc.-well, then Nader wouldn't be getting so much support. If the Democrats acted like the party of the Left, then they would get the Left's votes.” Halfway through the campaign, Gore made a half-hearted attempt to appeal to his alienated liberal base-“fighting for people, not the powerful”-but it was too little for the Greens, and too late for Al Gore.

Besides Nader's liberal platform, Ginn says the Greens are part of a larger battle for political choice. “The problem right now is that the two major parties are not sufficiently distinguishable. It's unfair to say they're the same-they certainly disagree on some issues-but the social contract is being rolled back. I don't think the choice between rolling it back slowly or quickly is really much of a choice.”

Although the Harvard Greens are currently affiliated with the Law School, Ginn is moving to create a similar group for undergraduates. “It's important to have an undergraduate organization to get people involved in the issues, and get them the skills they need.” Although a few campus organizations are sympathetic to Nader, such as the Progressive Student Labor Movement (PSLM), the lack of a central political organization keeps the Greens underrepresented and relatively disorganized in comparison to the stronger College Democrats and Republicans. PSLM member Mamie Thant notes that “aside from PSLM, I don't feel Greens are a super-huge presence on campus.”

Now that the national elections are over, Ginn is changing the Greens' focus from campaigning to educating. The Greens need to remedy the dearth of information about their candidates, especially given the media blackout many Green candidates face. Ginn cites this blackout as one of Greens' major obstacles: “We underestimate how damaging it was for Nader to be blocked out of the media.” The young organization needs more volunteers, and there is hope that these promotional efforts will draw support from the many progressive on campus.

Ginn plans for his organization to eventually play a significant role in running the campaigns of candidates who can promote the Green platform. Although the organization is not officially affiliated with any national organization, it is closely tied to local groups, such as the Mystic River Greens, which is made up of Greens in Somerville, Medford, Arlington, and Cambridge. A local emphasis on politics is an important part of the Green platform, and key strategy as well. “Right now, the Green Party is focusing on winning local elections and legislative positions,” says fellow law student Brian Range. “I'm sure they will field a candidate for president in four years, be it Nader or someone else, but winning some of the smaller offices is more important to the party-building strategy.” The organization has already begun to make inroads in local politics. The Greens are currently working with the Massachusetts branch of the Public Interest Research Group to promote critical clean energy legislation in the state legislature.

One of the Greens' most important issues will be electoral reform. In particular, they push instant runoff voting, a system in which voters rank the candidates by preference. If no candidate wins a majority of the vote, the voters for the lowest ranking candidate have their votes changed to their second choice, and the results are retabulated; this process is repeated until a single candidate wins a majority of the vote.

The turmoil of Election 2000 has highlighted a lot of the advantages that instant runoff voting could provide. For one, Nader sympathizers could finally vote their conscience, without hurting other progressive candidates. Many Nader voters would likely have listed Gore as their second chance and many liberals would likely have given Nader a chance, had the prospect of another Bush in office not been so threatening. With an instant runoff, Gore could have secured himself a victory, and Nader could have gotten his 5%-a win-win situation in what seems like a zero-sum game. Perhaps both sides can cooperate to achieve that electoral reform which the nation so desperately needs. “I think it's something Greens and Democrats can agree on,” says Ginn, “and its passage would make it easier for Greens and Democrats to work with one another, rather than against one another.”

Nader will be speaking at Harvard in April; his presence will definitely bolster the Harvard Greens' visibility on campus. Nonetheless, many members question the party's apparent reliance on a single popular figurehead. Discussion has already begun concerning who will be the next to run on the Green ticket. Some have suggested that the Nader's running mate, Winona LaDuke, would be the natural successor. Other Greens have promoted the need for star power on the ticket to counter the immense financial resources of the mainstream parties. Warren Beatty, for example, is a well-known actor and a staunch liberal, and could give the Green Party some much needed exposure. The Harvard Greens hope to host a number of progressive and Green speakers in the near future, such as LaDuke and Californian Senate candidate Medea Benjamin. Ginn even looks forward to future policy debates with the College Democrats. Political goals aside, the Harvard Greens have the potential to substantially increase progressive dialogue on campus, and to re-energize its latent activist energy.

Although the Green Party has a long way to go before it can compete with the Republicans or Democrats, the support is growing. “People are very excited about having a viable alternative,” say Ginn, and he is ready to develop the Greens into a strong campus-wide, and eventually, national political force.

Questions? Comments? Please contact perspy@hcs.harvard.edu