The European Greens' misguided intervention in the U.S. presidential elections highlights their dead-end strategy in addressing the problems of European citizens.
On November 1, just four days before the U.S. presidential elections, the European Greens issued a public statement[i] calling on Jill Stein[ii], the Green Party presidential candidate, to withdraw from the race in favor of Kamala Harris.
The final U.S. election results have demonstrated
how misguided and unacceptable the EGP’s intervention was.
Why it was misguided:
- Diminishing
Jill’s results didn’t prevent Kamala’s defeat. Of course, there was a
slight possibility that the difference between Kamala's and Trump’s votes
could have been smaller than Jill’s. However, such
mathematical coincidences are rare, and it makes no sense to base our
political strategies on them.
- Politics
isn’t mathematics. The EGP’s decision seems to ignore voters’ motivations:
Why would a Biden supporter switch to Trump, abstain, or vote for Stein
instead of backing Kamala? Did the EGP try to understand voters’
tendencies before asking Jill to withdraw? The EGP disregarded voters who
had abstained in previous elections and, more critically, ignored people
completely disillusioned with the Biden-Kamala administration. In this
election, the Democrats lost over 13 million voters, who mostly did not
vote for Trump (since he also lost over 1.5 million voters compared to his
2020 total). The EGP leadership has shown itself to be totally
incapable of understanding the political reality in the U.S. The final
results show that these elections were a prime opportunity to attract some of those 13 million disappointed voters to the Green ideas—a chance the EGP
undermined. I cannot predict how many voters responded to the EGP’s appeal
and ultimately voted for Kamala. Millions of Americans have families in
Ireland, Germany, or other countries where the EGP has a strong presence.
It is beyond my role to quantify the damage, but as a politically engaged
person, I find it difficult to decide which is worse: the possibility that
the European Greens have such respect that they created significant harm,
or that the damage was minimal because people no longer respect the European
Greens’ recommendations.
- The
EGP’s reasoning fails to consider the deep and dangerous divisions in U.S. society. It views Trump as a threat, ignoring that
"Trumpism" predates Trump’s presidential run, as explored in the
insightful book How Democracies Die. The Democrats are equally
responsible for fostering these divisions. The latest election results
reveal just how disconnected the EGP leadership is from U.S. society—and,
I fear, from European society as well. Similar trends appear in Europe, where
recent election outcomes show the EGP leadership as ill-equipped to
address or confront these issues and incapable of offering attractive
alternatives to voters.
Why it was unacceptable:
- If
the U.S. Greens had decided to withdraw and support Kamala, it would have
been a mistake for the reasons outlined above, but we would respect their
decision. However, the EGP’s external intervention violates Green
principles. It recalls the Third Communist International, where Russian
Bolsheviks controlled the labor movements in Greece, Spain, and elsewhere.
Such "politburo-style" thinking, which assumes a sort of
"papal infallibility," led to tragedies like the Greek Civil War
of 1946–1949. Greens fundamentally oppose this mindset. A core Green
principle is that what works best in Germany could be disastrous for
Greece. Seeking an absolute “right or wrong” solution is as absurd as
deciding …whether feathers or fur is better for animals in natural
ecosystems. This is why our movement isn’t bound by orthodoxy, unlike
Marxists, neoliberals, or Keynesians.
- I
would like to remind you of the EGP’s internal crisis in 2005 over whether
to support the European Constitution. Con Bèndit advocated for a unified
EGP campaign in favor of the draft constitution, but for member parties in
Greece, Sweden, or Ireland, such a campaign could have been disastrous.
Fortunately, at an extraordinary council in Brussels, the EGP accepted an
amendment from the Greek Greens acknowledging the right of some parties to
campaign against the constitution. Reinhard Bütikofer’s intervention in
support of this amendment was pivotal. A majority that respects and
acknowledges a legitimate minority view is a triumph of Green principles.
Unfortunately, it seems that today’s EGP leadership has slipped into
dangerous intolerance.
- Far
more troubling is the EGP’s rationale for its appeal: the U.S.
electoral system. In many countries (e.g., the UK, and Greece), the
largest party wins a majority in parliament, even without a majority of
the popular vote. In some authoritarian regimes, it’s nearly impossible
for small parties to influence central politics. In such systems, having a
few parliamentary seats often doesn’t affect major decisions that are
guided by other factors like corruption and clientelism. Many voters see
voting for a small party as “wasting their vote.” What exactly is the EGP
suggesting? Do they admit that in these countries, like USA or Greece,
it’s useless for a Green party to participate in elections, and instead
they should support a chosen larger party as the “lesser evil”?
Last but not least: Could supporting the
Democrats benefit the U.S. Greens?
Yes, but to ensure a win-win result, some
crucial conditions are necessary: Kamala would need to officially acknowledge
the Green Party’s support by possibly offering a House seat, including Green
advisors in ministries, and making specific policy commitments. In similar
situations, political alliances can produce surprising results: 1+1 could equal
3, 4, or even 5. However, if the alliance appears opportunistic, 1+1 might
equal 1 or even less. Such alliances must be based on compelling reasoning and
goals that could inspire citizens. Otherwise, even core voters of both parties
may be disappointed and abstain. Alliances like this must be discussed
thoroughly within the U.S. Greens, including members and supporters, to avoid
perceptions of betrayal. Most importantly, political decisions like this
require long time to explain and communicate to the public. In the case of the
EGP’s appeal just days before the election, Kamala’s need for Green support
may have seemed more like desperation than a genuine alliance.
What are the real reasons behind the EGP’s
appeal?
The EGP’s decision was not based on thorough
research or discussions with the U.S. Greens and Kamala’s office. Searching for
logic, I am reminded of the Comte de Buffon’s saying: “An act’s reasoning can
be worse than the act itself.”
It seems the EGP leadership is paralyzed by
fears over the rise of fascism in Europe. Only a few years ago, we Greens were
optimistic, seeing ourselves as the main alternative to the fading traditional
political forces. The EU Commission’s “Green Deal” signaled that our proposals
were becoming mainstream and the media spoke of a “Green Wave.”
This growing acceptance of Green policies by
political and economic institutions led us to a strategic error: instead of
building grassroots support and spreading Green proposals among farmers,
industry, and the productive base of European societies, we became arrogant. We
forgot that Green solutions must first serve the people and address their
everyday problems. Instead, we were captivated by our influence over Brussels’
bureaucracy, transforming from advocates for people’s needs into participants
in the EU nomenclature.
Meanwhile, nationalists, Euroskeptics, and
even fascists seized on growing problems—poverty, inflation, fear of
immigration—and cleverly blamed these issues on the Green transition.
We supported Biden’s foreign policy instead of
recognizing the risks it posed to European citizens. The invasion of Ukraine is
an unacceptable crime, but is military escalation the best response? A similar strategy has been proven disastrous in Afghanistan, as predicted in the 2004 book Imperial
Hubris: Why the West Is Losing the War on Terror.
A
clearer example: Cyprus's land remains illegally occupied by Turkey since 1974.
How “Green” would a proposal be to regain these territories through
military escalation? Is it a “Green solution” to propose arming and sacrificing
Cypriot youth for the liberation of the island? Does anyone believe that
bombing Turkey with ATACMS[iii] would compel Erdogan to withdraw? Even
the most fervent Cypriot patriots do not advocate a military solution. Does
this mean they condone the invasion?
Now, anyone advocating for a ceasefire in
Ukraine is accused of being a Putin supporter. We are sacrificing Ukrainian
lives to exterminate Putin, just as we sacrificed Iraqi lives to exterminate
Saddam, or Afghan lives to exterminate the Taliban. I fear we have lost our
nonviolent identity. During NATO’s bombing of Yugoslavia, I said at the 1999
EGP Council in Larnaca: “We’re burning down our house to exterminate the rats.”
During the Cold War, the Greens envisioned an
independent Europe fostering mutual respect between nations. Since 1999, we
have abandoned this core EU principle. Increasingly, we became part of U.S.
policy in Israel, Iraq, China, and beyond, weakening the EU itself. This has
made us complicit in the rise of new nationalism across Europe.
All recent European election results show that
citizens do not accept our choices. The “Green Wave” has lost its momentum, with
people increasingly choosing far-right and even fascist options as the main
alternative to neoliberal policies. Instead of self-reflection and rethinking
our strategy, we tried to prevent Trump’s victory with a nonsensical decision
that undermined our purpose. Rather than promoting our own ideas, we chose to
cling to Kamala.
Drowning, we clutch at straws.
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου