Where there's a Will, there's a way

Elections in Illinois could get a little more interesting next year now that the Green Party has a guaranteed line on the general election ballot. I'm one of those odd people who daydreams about political strategies so I asked myself what I would advise the Illinois Green Party to do in the upcoming election.

First let me be clear that I'm a Democrat and no one in the Green Party has asked my opinion. I decided the Green Party was a disorganized waste of time when I watched a portion of their 2002 National Congress held in Carbondale Illinois. They were supposed to have a panel discussion on the Greens' role in the 2004 Presidential election that I thought might be interesting. The panel discussion never happened because their two-day long session of bickering about combining the two national Green Parties ran overtime. That's correct. There are two Green Parties, and in the tradition of the various American socialist and communist parties of the last century, they can't put their differences aside to make a united front.

Consequently, I'm not convinced that the Greens will become organized enough to win any elections even if they do take my advice. But for the sake of argument, I'll post what I would suggest they do if they want to accomplish more than spinning wheels and arguing amongst themselves.

Setting aside the 2000 election and the arguments over whether Nader threw the election to Bush, there are two scenarios that most alienate the Green Party from the progressive voting block it seeks to attract. The first is the Pennsylvania example where Green Party candidates take support from Republicans in close races. People aren't going to take the Green Party seriously if progressives see them as tools of Republicans looking to use them as spoilers.

The other point I hear liberals make against the Green Party most often is that they ran a candidate against Paul Wellstone. Wellstone was probably the most liberal member of the US Senate and beloved by progressives across the nation. The fact that Greens ran someone against him is still an embarrassing indictment against the Green Party's supposed dedication to the progressive cause. Are they really about electing progressives when the Democratic Party moves too far to the right, or are they just as bitterly partisan as the conservative Democrats who tell liberals they must vote for any conservative Democrat on the ballot?

The Green Party would be making the same mistake in Illinois if they ran someone against Dick Durbin, who was the only Senate Democrat other than Wellstone to vote against the war in Iraq while he was up for re-election. Running a candidate against Durbin would ruin any chance they might have of convincing liberal Democrats to vote for a Green in any office.

How then, can the Illinois Greens compete while avoiding these strategically disastrous pitfalls? There are two scenarios I can see that would allow them to win new supporters and have a chance at winning an election or two.

First, identify State House and Senate districts where Democrats have given up. Every year there are Republicans who run unopposed. Those are uphill battles but it provides an opportunity for the Greens to get votes from Democrats who won't support them in a three-way race.

That's how Rich Whitney earned his highest totals running for State Representative against Mike Bost. Even when they lose, it becomes a party building activity that doesn't leave liberal Democrats angry about a close election being thrown to a Republican. This should be their primary strategy in downstate.

Second, look for heavily Democratic districts in the Chicagoland area represented by moderate or conservative Democrats. There are districts that won't vote more than 33% Republican even in a three-way race. That's an opportunity for the Greens to win with someone who more accurately reflects the views of a liberal district.

At the state level, we could end up with more legislators who aren't dependent on party leaders. As long as Green candidates pledge to vote for a Democratic Speaker or Senate President then there's no danger of throwing control of the General Assembly to the Republicans.

The same strategy can be used in Congressional races. There are two incumbents that quickly come to mind.

One is Dan Lipinski in the 3rd Congressional District. I don't particularly have anything against Lipinski (in fact I briefly met him once while I lived in Knoxville and he was teaching at UT) but I know there are many people who feel his views are too conservative for the heavily Democratic district he represents. He had a strong primary challenge last time and already has a Democratic Primary challenger this year.

A progressive candidate might have better luck in the general election during a Presidential race than in the primary when fewer people vote. A Republican won't get more than 25% in a three way race in that district, so a Green could easily win with 40% of the vote.

Alternately, if there's no Republican candidate, a Green could win with support of liberal Democrats, anti-machine independents, and partisan Republicans who want to vote for anyone that doesn't have a "D" next to their name. The 3rd district looks like the most realistic chance for the Greens to win a Congressional seat in Illinois and they'll be able to compete without completely alienating all of the liberal Democrats in the district.

The other possibility is Rahm Emanuel. Rahm isn't as conservative as Lipinski but he has become the leading Congressional poster child for "Third Way" moderate Democrats. He lives in a heavily Democratic district that would vote for Eugene Debs if he ran as a Democrat. Its fine for conservative Democrats to argue that we must elect moderates in more moderate to conservative areas, but Rahm is a moderate in a very liberal district.

A Green Party challenge against the House's leading DLC Democrat could become a national race in the same vein as the Lieberman/Lamont primary. The Greens could raise money nationally by making it a referendum on vacillating Democratic leaders whose play-it-safe strategy on Iraq and other issues is angering liberal voters. Emanuel already butted heads with Cindy Sheehan and pushed Congressional approval ratings below 25% by not taking the kind of strong stand war opponents expect from Democratic leaders.

An exciting Green candidate with some money of his own would attract volunteers and donations from people across the country who want to make a statement about the compromising, ineffective, "third way" approach of Democratic Party leaders. The district is liberal enough that it might actually work.

That's my advice for the Greens if they want to at least be relevant, gain support, and build their party structure during the next election. These are ways the Illinois Greens can build support rather than further alienating their likely progressive voters as they have in other states.

Again, being a Democrat, I'm not saying I necessarily want all of these things to happen, but its makes for an interesting hypothetical question. I'll be interested to see what the Greens decide to do. I'd love to hear what other people think.