2004 saw many Greens flock to the polls to vote for John Kerry, eroding the votes that would have built the Green Party -- but it could also be argued that Bush's policies are pushing more folks to the progressive side.

Questions to Debate:

Which hurts Greens more, Republican or Democrat in the White House? Why?

And for other Third Party members:

Which hurts your party more? Why?

From our point of view, this seems to be a choice between someone who might listen to us a little bit and someone who will not listen to us at all. In that sense, it's usually better to have a Democrat in office than a Republican. A Democrat is slightly more likely to agree with a Green position.

A seeming paradox emerges when we consider how the two major parties feel about us. The Republican candidate is delighted when we vote for the Green candidate, because those votes are seen as "stolen" from the Democratic candidate. The Democratic candidate, no matter how much she may sympathize with our concerns, can't help but feel that we are helping the Republican candidate. Because of this, the Republican candidate views us with amused contempt, and the Democratic candidate views us with frustration and resentment.

Rather than ask who hurts the Green Party more, perhaps one should ask who hurts causes supported by the Green Party more. The answer should be clear.

Which hurts Greens more, Republican or Democrat in the White House? Why?

In the past, one of the most "green" presidents was Republican: Teddy Roosevelt. The tradition of setting aside land as an act of preservation is one started by Republicans. I don't believe Republicans have been maintaining that tradition, unfortunately. While I have a few friends of mine who are "green Republicans", their voices are unheard in today's Republican party. The preservationist Republicans are too small a minority to make a significant dent in the dominating privatization-panacea Republican agenda.

Democrats on the other hand are a very mixed bag. The tradition of supporting labor has often been in conflict with green values. However, the "green Democrats" are heard. I believe though that different factions of Democrats are often in fundamental conflict with regard to green values. And, let's face it, greens are a minority.

That said, if given a general choice between a Democrat or Republican President (that is, not knowing the candidate specifically), I'd say it is more likely that a Democrat would hurt Greens less. However, I do not believe that this is necessarily a good way to evaluate one's vote. It is better to look at the record (if there is one) or even what they say to make a good determination. It is possible (though admittedly not likely at this point) that a Republican would further the Green position better than a Democrat.

Which hurts your party more? Why?

Since I don't have a party, I can probably get away with stating that both Democrats and Republicans have "hurt" my party. Neither do a good job representing my views. Of course, the latest incarnation of the Republican party has catered to certain special interests which I can never support (specifically, the religious zealots). As long as such pandering remains the case, I fear the Republicans have lost my vote.

Of course, that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. As far as Green politics go, I believe the folks who make the most difference are the local and state politicians. In that context, I have "spread" my votes amongst Greens and Libertarians (who are sometimes in opposition and sometimes not). They serve as a good counter-balance to each other.

It does seem as if Bush hurt Greens the most. He was so relentless and destructive on every front that progressives cared about: environment, social justice, peace (and on and on). It inspired the "Anyone But Bush" movement-- which meant that many with Green Values, or would have otherwise voted Green, united behind Kerry. That cost Greens some growth and ballot access in some places.

If Kerry had won, he would have not been as destructive on many progressive issues. And the bigger advantage, as far as Greens are concerned, is that having a pro-war moderate like Kerry in the White House would make the Greens look very good in comparison, which would spur some growth for the Green Party.

It was Clinton's terms in office that convinced me that the Democratic Party had lost it's progressive ideals. Many of his policies, such as NAFTA, were enough to push me to look for a party that supported my values. I believe a Kerry presidency would have done the same thing for many other progressives.