January 14, 2008 Volume VII, Number 3
A PROJECT OF THE CASCOGREENS
Paul Stephens, Editor and Publisher 406.216.2711 greateco@3rivers.net
THIS BULLETIN IS NOT AN OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF ANY GREEN PARTY (see
disclaimers and selected resources at end)
Much of the content of this Bulletin is now being posted at
and http://www.myspace.com/greateco
Table of Contents:
UPCOMING AND ONGOING EVENTS
Conservation Council meets Thursdays at noon, Penny's Gourmet to Go, 815
Central Avenue (New location!!)
Rezoning Hearing for the Highwood Generating Station, Jan 15, Trades and
Industry Building, 3:00 pm - late.
Public Service Commissioner Ken Toole on "Martin Luther King, Corporate
Power and Energy Issues" on Monday, January 21st (MLK Day) at 7 PM at the
Neighborhood Center, 200 S Cruse Ave.
CALIFORNIA GREEN DEBATE - Primary election tomorrow, Jan 15
GREEN SOLUTIONS by Paul Stephens, CasCoGreens
Green Presidential Prospects for 2008 - the bottom line...
Diversity, Inclusiveness, and Exclusiveness
Take the SF Chronicle poll on the Green Party
FROM WORLDSOCIALISM.ORG
Why the Green Party is Wrong
http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/jan08/page3.html
The Nader for President Fiasco (1996) by Brian Tokar [long associated with
Murray Bookchin's Social Ecology movement] -
http://www.social-ecology.org/article.php?story=2003120210422243
LINKS TO STORIES FROM RABBLE.CA
FROM GREEN LISTSERVS
Canadian Young Greens Elect a New Council http://youth.greenparty.ca
Campus Greens -- Youth Caucus news campusgreens@yahoogroups.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/youth-caucus
Re: Michigan Voters Wary of Revitalization Talk
AG ISSUES
Livestock pollution turns off young Iowans
BRIAN DEPEW, SPECIAL TO THE REGISTER
Can Incrementalism Be the Path to Universal Health Care?
By Mark Dunlea [Green Party of New York State]
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/01/07/6234/
RADICAL PHILOSOPHY CONFERENCE http://www.radicalphilosophy.org/
Art, Praxis, and Social Transformation
Radical Dreams and Visions
EARTH AND SPIRIT
Greens connect ecology with democracy
By RICH HEFFERN
National Catholic Reporter, January 11, 2008 http://ncronline.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2008a/011108/011108zc.htm
GLOBAL NETWORK AGAINST WEAPONS & NUCLEAR POWER IN SPACE
The Global Network Protests StratCom
New: Come Together Right Now: Organizing Stories from a Fading Empire
FROM ZNET
The Kings of England
By George Monbiot
http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2008-01/01monbiot.cfm
Bush in the Middle East: Iran Over Palestine, Israel Over All
By Phylis Bennis
http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2008-01/10bennis.cfm
A NOTE ABOUT THIS PUBLICATION
WEBSITES AND OTHER RESOURCES
====================
FROM MONTANANS FOR CORPORATE ACCOUNTABILITY
CORPORATE POWER vs. HUMAN VALUES -- the Fifth in a Series of Events
Montanans for Corporate Accountability presents a talk and discussion
featuring Public Service Commissioner Ken Toole on "Martin Luther King,
Corporate Power and Energy Issues" on Monday, January 21st (MLK Day) at 7 PM
at the Neighborhood Center, 200 S Cruse Ave.
"Many people forget that Dr King's primary message was about who has power
in our democracy. The rise of corporate power has profound implications for
democracy, individual freedom and human rights," Toole said, pointing out
that King was in Memphis to support striking workers when he was
assassinated in 1968.
King is most widely known for his civil rights campaigns across the south,
which culminated in passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. According to
Toole, "the King story ends in 1964 for a lot of Americans. In reality he
continued his work for racial justice in the south, but he also began to
articulate a strong message of economic justice for all."
Since King's death in 1968 big corporations have steadily increased their
power across the globe and here in the US. The great peoples' movements of
the 20th century, the labor movement, the civil rights movement and the
women's movement, have declined while the power of big corporations has
continued to grow. "The Enron meltdown and deregulation of the power
industry provide a lens through which to examine the political changes that
have come about since King was assassinated," Toole said. "Hopefully it will
prompt us to examine what we can do to change that."
This event is free and open to the public.
Contact: Cedron Jones, corp@mhrn.org
(406) 442-5506 x18 or 442-1271 (home)
Date: January 2, 2008
____________
FROM PARRIS, MISSOULA - Definition of Jihad
Jihad
the Almighty. The greater, or internal Jihad is the struggle against the
evil within one's soul in every aspect of life. The lesser, or external,
Jihad is the struggle against the evil of one's environment in every aspect
of life. This is not to be mistaken with the common modern misconception
that this means "Holy War". Writing the truth (jihad bil qalam) and speaking
truth in front of an oppressor are also forms of Jihad.
-----
I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the
people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent
and sudden usurpations. ... The means of defense against foreign danger
historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home. --James Madison
**********************
Parris ja Young parris.ja.young@gmail.co
Parris is the moderator for the Glacial Lake Missoula Greens discussion
list. E-mail him for more information, or to subscribe.
=====================
CALIFORNIA GREEN DEBATE - Primary election tomorrow, Jan 15
"Green Campaign 2008: A Presidential Debate that Matters" happened today in
San Francisco. Wow!! I have been waiting to see if someone else posts or if
the video gets on YouTube, but I see nothing yet, and feel I have to share a
bit of my excitement, before I go to bed. Despite several issues which
caused the organizers some agonizing concerns, it went very well. We almost
filled the 900+ capacity theater...it looked full and I heard estimates of
between 400 and 800 people, but I think it was closer to the latter, though
not everyone made contributions and we told people that if there were
available seats at 2:00, which there were, they would be able to come in.
There were lots of people videotaping, and I don't even know who they all
were...though I am sure someone does. Next to where I was sitting was a man
who had flown out from WBAI in New York. I know Feinstein had a crew working
on it, and I fully expected to already see it on YouTube...after all, it has
been over for all of four hours. Mike is a night person and I am a morning
person, so maybe it will be there when I get up in the morning.
It was exciting to us, that all of you around the country were interested in
our effort, so I am glad that it was covered so that it could be shared.
Well, perhaps even more important than all the coverage, the candidates were
brilliant. Every single one of them did a great job. Our goal, as
organizers, was to educate our state Greens about those listed on the CA
ballot, and we were pleased that everyone listed on the ballot was invited
to speak, and they all came, except Elaine Brown, who had turned down our
invitation. Nader's advisors said that because of reasons that I don't quite
understand, he could not appear on the stage during the debate between
declared candidates, but after much discussion we did agree to let him speak
at the end, with no more time than the declared candidates had had during
the debate. We felt we needed to do that as many people were coming to see
him, and since we advertised that he would be there, we had to follow
through. We know that some may not think that was fair, but we sincerely
felt we needed to do what we did.
I must admit that I am a bit prejudiced, and my favorite candidate, Cynthia
McKinney, was her usual brilliant and articulate self and even more
beautiful than usual. I have really been favorably impressed by Jared Ball
as well, and in what was a surprise move to me, he announced that his
campaign would continue, but to support Cynthia. I was not surprised that he
was supporting her, I was just surprised that he made that declaration so
early in the campaign. When I met Head Roc in December, I was so pleased
that at the same time as they are such strong advocates for social justice,
they send an equally strong message of unity and love, and they showed it
tonight. He also made what I felt was the strongest case for not voting for
evil, and the lesser of two evils is still evil. He is an outstanding new
voice for the Green Party, particular among the young. All the candidates
made strong statements about discounting the idea of the Green Party as
spoilers.
Cynthia made a strong plea for that unity, and asked for the infighting in
the Green Party to stop, so that we can move forward against our real
adversaries in the corporate controlled duopoly. I am not quoting her
directly, but you get the general idea. You will see or hear it yourself
when the media comes out.
Much of Nader's talk was about the strangle hold corporations have on our
government and thus on our country. Probably most of you are already
familiar with his work in this area. I did not know that he held a
conference last year on the subject and most of it is on video and on line.
to support the Green Party.
I must admit, that I have always had the desire to do something that could
make a difference, I think producing this event does that, at least on some
scale....and I know, oops, here comes a dreaded sports metaphor, that some
will take the ball and run with it.
Well, news from others is beginning to come out, so I better send this.
Some thoughts from one of the organizers,
Sanda
===================
FROM PEOPLE'S E-MAIL NETWORK (PEN)
Before the holiday break, in defiance of the perverse decision by Harry Reid
to bring forward the version of the FISA bill with telecom immunity, and
thanks to your voices and leadership of Senator Dodd, this was beaten back
by filibuster. We need to keep beating them back by continuing to speak out
on this.
No Telecom Immunity Action Page:
Facebook Version:
you must be a member of Facebook and logged in)
And we have a new incipient national leader on this, John Laesch, who is
running for the old Dennis Hastert seat (IL-14) in a special primary
election coming up in just 3 weeks on March 5th. Please submit the action
page sponsored by John above, and please also consider making a donation to
encourage him to keep standing strong on the issues you care about.
John Laesch Donations:
As the Democratic nominee in 2006, John Laesch pulled 40 percent against the
powerful incumbent Hastert in the general election, and John is in the
running again. With numbers like that, and especially given the shift in
public sentiment in the last two years, this is a very winnable race. Here
is John's message to you on the importance of defeating blanket telecom
immunity:
***********
President Bush and the National Security Agency enlisted the help of
telecommunications companies to spy on American citizens without the FISA
required warrants. Now Bush wants Congress to give the telecom companies
permanent immunity from prosecution. I ask you to fight Telecom Immunity
Telecom immunity means that corporations who worked with the government to
illegally spy on our citizens would never have to answer for their actions.
This bill exemplifies how wealthy corporations have more rights than U.S.
citizens. Large telecommunications companies spied on Americans, violating
the 4th Amendment, the right to privacy, and now Congress and the president
wants to give them a get out of jail free card. We need to protect the
Constitution of the United States. Please join me in calling our U.S.
Representatives.
They would avoid all prosecution and never be held accountable for their
unconstitutional acts. I am appalled by this dangerous possible precedent
that threatens our rights. In August 2007, Congress betrayed the people and
voted to give the telecom companies temporary immunity for their complicity
until February 2008.
In December 2007, a bill to make this temporary immunity permanent came to
the floor of the Senate. Due to the organized efforts of activists like you,
a group of Senators led by Senator Chris Dodd managed to postpone a vote the
FISA bill. The Senate is back in full session on January 15th and we expect
a vote on the bill soon...
In December your voice made the difference, and gave your Senators the most
important support there is, the will of the people. Now your support will
give your Senators the courage and will to join Senator Dodd.
In December Senator Dodd told the Senate: "But here in this chamber, a
minority-even an impassioned minority of one-has the right to stand against
all the combined weight and machinery of government and plead: Stop!"
We can turn that minority into a majority. Let your Senators know that the
people will not support lawmakers who give immunity to those who violate our
rights. I ask you to call, write or e-mail your Senators today and tell them
that we the people say no to Telecom Immunity.
/\/\/\/\/\
GREEN SOLUTIONS by Paul Stephens, CasCoGreens
Green Presidential Prospects for 2008 - the bottom line...
[The following was contributed to a GPUS "Free Speech" list. Many
theoreticians are hesitant to post their views or their research online,
but, hey, I was born to it! It's all real to me! -- PHS]
I still don't know who "Bob" is, but the way I see it in Montana (and I
think it's similar other places) is that about 1/3 of people are registered
or "yellow dog" Democrats, another third is Republicans, and the remaining
third is "independent" which means they always try to support the best
candidate regardless of party. I'm saying that a third of those who call
themselves "Democrats" are progressive. They will vote for a better
candidate who is an independent or Green if that person has a good track
record, and supports their core values, such as peace, labor, the
environment, etc.
We currently have a Governor who is mostly aligned with corporate interests
(particularly agribusiness - he's a farmer who made a fortune working for a
Swedish company in Saudi Arabia and Libya). So, real environmentalists,
Zionists and other Jews (who don't like where he got his money), peace
activists (he always supports military pork), etc. who are normally
Democrats would vote for a Green if that person were experienced and
credible. The same is true of our senior Senator, Baucus, who voted for the
war, the PATRIOT Act, etc., even after his nephew was killed in Iraq! So,
that's a third of the third, or 11% of total voters.
On the Republican side, there are many "conservationists" and opponents of
Big Government (and anti-war, anti-PATRIOT Act) people who would vote for a
Green who really follows the 10 Key Values. There are also secular
Republicans who would vote independent or even for a Democrat if the
Republican is a religious fundamentalist, and outspoken on those issues. In
Montana, that might be a third or more of the usual Republicans.
Among the independents, Libertarians, Constitution Party (the biggest third
party in Montana), there are many who would vote for a good Green
candidate - especially if there isn't one of their own party running for
that office, and the Dem and Rep candidates are indistinguishable. The key
is to find candidates who have this broader appeal, and a track record of
responsible leadership.
Of course it's an uphill fight even then. But this how we would build a
coalition (not in Congress, but in a particular electoral venue - state or
local) to win. There may be other states which have real expectations for
electing someone to Congress, as well. We want to run a former Democrat and
radical environmentalist [Steve Kelly] against Baucus. He isn't a
"demogreen," though. He actually got the Democrat nomination (more or less
by default) for Congress in 2002 (we only have one representative). And he
got no support from the Democratic party - in that case, the Independents
and many regular Democrats actually voted for the Republican - one of the
most conservative in Congress, but he is a native Montanan and had a lot of
experience. People didn't want to vote for an unknown person, even though he
had much better positions (but very little money or other support).
Of course, we need to work towards getting a presidential candidate who can
get 5% of the vote, in order to get federal funding (not to buy stupid ads,
but to hire staff, do grass-roots organizing, etc.) If we have a black
candidate, and Obama doesn't get the Democrat nomination, we might get 5% of
the vote because a large number of black people will vote for our candidate.
Nader simply isn't popular. And after 2000 and 2004, he lost most of his
supporters for a variety of reasons. So I don't think he can get us the 5%.
Cynthia doesn't have a national following yet, but she might get a lot of
women's (and most of the progressive Left) votes if Hillary isn't the
nominee, and most of the black vote if Hillary defeats Obama. So, we have
lots of potential in this election. If Elaine Brown was our nominee, nearly
all of these factors wouldn't apply. She doesn't have Washington or
Congressional experience. I think that is key (unless you've already been a
governor, VP, or whatever).
So, among all the candidates who are presently running as Greens, Cynthia
stands out as the best - IMHO.
Paul Stephens, Montana
______________
Diversity, Inclusiveness, and Exclusiveness
"Respect for diversity" is one of the Green Party's "10 Key Values"
(something like our Ten Commandments or Buddhism's Noble 8-fold Path). But
what does this mean in practice?
From my recent experience as a National Committee person of the Green Party
of the United States, it would seem to mean "attack anyone and everyone as
racists, homophobes, male chauvinists, elitists, demogreens, capitalist
dupes, or just plain stupid." I have never seen or even heard of a group
that is more conflict-ridden, factionalized, and intent on purging,
disenfranchizing, or demanding the resignations of people from different
factions.
Why should this be so? Obviously, these people don't "respect diversity."
They are not "inclusive," although you are welcome to join and participate
so long as you don't make any "mistakes" in your voting or communications
with the Party. Although we've all read about how the Communist Party
operated under Stalin's "Comintern", most of us have had no direct
experience with such an organization. Even the most doctrinaire religions
like Catholicism, Islam, or Mormonism rarely rise to the level of censoring
or purging people for their views. You have to be someone very visible and
important to have your views considered worth suppressing.
The last time I experienced this directly was in the Ayn Rand "Objectivist"
movement in the 1960's. There were regular purges and re-alignments, a major
schism in the leadership, and to this day, there are several competing
"Objectivist" institutes or organizations, all claiming to be in possession
of the True Cross. That, of course, is the reason why there isn't much of an
Objectivist movement these days, and those who think they are following
Rand's philosophy and teachings are rarely associated with any "official"
group. They find it a distraction, if not outright embarrassing.
The Green Movement is much different. It doesn't have a leader or leaders.
It relies on numerous prior philosophies and movements for its ideas. Engels
is generally revered above Marx, and there are many strains or currents in
the Green flow of things. New England Transcendentalists like Thoreau are
major influences, along with vegetarianism, animal rights, peace and
reconciliation movements, organic farming, renewable energy, and most of
all, local grass-roots democracy, or community self-determination. These are
all-American values of the most enduring kind.
How, then, did we get to the point where we are, today? I've found a couple
of articles by early Greens which explain this. The main reason is that
we've become obsessed with national presidential politics, rather than
sticking to our core mission of building grass-roots movements and
organizations which can "take back our government" and our lives from
corporations, the military-industrial complex, and other authoritarian
structures. We need to restore another value, popular in the 1970's --
"Think globally, act locally."
- Paul Stephens
_______________
Take the SF Chronicle poll on the Green Party
In a sidebar next to the online version of the San Francisco Chronicle story
covering the Green presidential debate, there's a readers' poll on the Green
Party:
Currently, "Green Party is irrelevant nonsense" and "Could hurt the
Democrats again" are leading "Necessary progressive alternative" by a strong
majority.
If enough Greens go to the page and vote, we can turn the poll results
around.
Scott
==================
WORLDSOCIALISM.ORG
Why the Green Party is Wrong
People are right to be concerned about what is happening to the environment.
Materials taken from nature are being transformed by human activity into
substances which nature either can't decompose or can't decompose fast
enough. The result is pollution and global threats such as the hole in the
ozone layer and global warming.
There really is a serious environmental crisis. The issue is not whether it
exists but what to do about it. The Green Party has one view. We have
another.
The Green Party sees itself as the political arm of the wider environmental
movement, arguing that it is not enough to be a pressure group, however
militant, like Greenpeace or Friends of the Earth. Greens, it says, should
organise as well to contest elections with the eventual aim of forming a
Green government that could pass laws and impose taxes to protect the
environment.
We say that no government can protect the environment.
Governments exist to run the political side of the profit system. And the
profit system can only work by giving priority to making profits over all
other considerations. So to protect the environment we must end production
for profit.
Pollution and environmental degradation result from the inappropriate ways
in which materials from nature are transformed into products for human use.
But what causes inappropriate productive methods to be used? Is it ignorance
or greed, as some Greens claim? No, it is the way production is organised
today and the forces to which it responds.
Production today is in the hands of business enterprises, all competing to
sell their products at a profit. All of them - and it doesn?t matter whether
they are privately owned or state-owned - aim to maximise their profits.
This is an economic necessity imposed by the forces of the market. If a
business does not make a profit it goes out of business. "Make a profit or
die" is the jungle economics that prevails today.
Under the competitive pressures of the market businesses only take into
account their own narrow financial interest, ignoring wider social or
ecological considerations. All they look to is their own balance sheet and
in particular the bottom line which shows whether or not they are making a
profit.
The whole of production, from the materials used to the methods employed to
transform them, is distorted by this drive to make and accumulate profits.
The result is an economic system governed by uncontrollable market forces
which compel decision-makers, however selected and whatever their personal
views or sentiments, to plunder, pollute and waste.
Governments do not have a free hand to do what is sensible or desirable.
They can only act within the narrow limits imposed by the profit-driven
market system whose rules are "profits first" and "you can't buck the
market".
The Green Party is not against the market and is not against profit-making.
It imagines that, by firm government action, these can be tamed and
prevented from harming the environment. This is an illusion. You can't
impose other priorities on the profit system than making profits. That's why
a Green government would fail.
The Green Party fails to realise that what those who want a clean and safe
environment are up against is a well-entrenched economic and social system
based on class privilege and property and governed by the overriding
economic law of profits first.
If the environmental crisis is to be solved, this system must go.
Needless to say, agreement is not expected and feedback welcomed.
Yours for a world of free access,
Robert Stafford
Internet Department
feedback@worldsocialism.org
PS You might also like to read a socialist perspective on freeganism:
===================
TWELVE YEARS LATER, AND VERY LITTLE HAS CHANGED [my headline, not Brian's -
PHS]
The Nader for President Fiasco (1996)
by Brian Tokar [long associated with Murray Bookchin's Social Ecology
movement] -
This article originally appeared in Z Magazine, November 1996.
During the spring and summer of 1996, I spent considerable time following
and supporting the Green Party's effort to run Ralph Nader for President. I
got involved in all this extremely reluctantly, as a person who has long
insisted that the Greens should in principle abstain from national electoral
politics. However, reports from around the country of all the new energy
that was coming into the Greens as a result of this effort soon compelled me
to put my reservations aside and at least find out for myself. I spent
countless hours on the phone, and several on the streets, helping get Nader
on the Vermont presidential ballot, and also maintaining communication
between our local effort and others across the country. I have tried to play
a skeptical but supportive role on the national council of the Greens/Green
Party USA., of which I have been a member for some years. In retrospect, I
feel that all this was an exceedingly poor use of my limited time and
activist energies during the past several months. I'd like to explain why.
Like most other progressive presidential campaigns in recent years, the
Nader for President drive was supposed to be primarily about movement
building. In a time of widespread public skepticism toward national politics
and the two-party system, Nader would be a voice for a genuine independent
alternative. As a lifelong crusader against the corruptions of corporate
power, he would articulate a message that would otherwise be silenced during
the campaign season. He would breathe new life into local Green organizing,
and perhaps even spark a much broader grassroots democracy movement, such as
Greens and progressives in the U.S. have long envisioned.
But, once again, activists discovered the inherent contradiction between
presidential politics and grassroots movement-building. Like other
progressive presidential efforts of recent decades-from Barry Commoner's
"Citizens Party" effort in 1980, to Jesse Jackson's abortive campaigns in
1984 and 1988-the Nader effort demonstrated that national electoral politics
is largely incompatible with a democratic, participatory model of political
organizing. Running for president is about money, power and personal
ambition, and very little else carries much weight once the logic of
conforming to election rules, playing the media and contending for votes
begins to take hold. While Nader himself mostly stayed out of all the
organizational maneuvering that came to dominate this campaign, a thoroughly
unaccountable cast of aspiring political operators acting in his name have
used this effort to try to reshape Green politics in the U.S. into a
demoralizing mold of politics-as-usual. The Green vision of a cooperative
relationship between electoral and non-electoral activism, brought together
to promote values of ecology, justice, peace and democracy, is in danger of
being discarded in favor of a bureaucratic approach largely shaped by state
ballot access rules and the politics of expediency.
Presidential Politics and the Greens
Involvement in presidential politics has always been controversial among
Green activists in the U.S. It arose at the very first decision-making
national gathering of representatives of Green locals in 1989 in Eugene,
Oregon when John Rensenbrink of the Maine Green Party proposed a long-range
strategy of Green involvement in the presidential campaigns of 1992 and
1996. After a brief discussion, it was clear that there was very little
support among those assembled for such an effort. During the next several
years, Greens across the country affirmed their commitment to a
locally-based strategy merging a social movement agenda with electoral
efforts at the local level.
While many Greens felt that the development of a political party at the
state, and eventually the national levels, should be the main priority of
the Greens, most groups around the country pursued a far more eclectic
approach. They combined local efforts around issues ranging from nuclear
waste to Indian treaty rights to urban development, with projects aimed at
realizing a Greener future through community gardens, co-ops and a wide
diversity of educational projects. Scores of Greens ran for office at the
local and county levels from coast to coast, and by 1992, the Greens had
elected more people to local office than any independent political movement
since the 1930s. Also in 1992, the Greens made their first, and thus far
only, attempt at a coordinated national action plan, encompassing campaigns
around alternative energy sources, rebuilding inner cities and supporting
Native activists' plans to recast commemorations of the Columbus
quincentennial.
Despite considerable success at the local level, and an evolving vision of
confederated grassroots efforts, some continued to see the development of a
national political party as the true underlying mission of the movement. In
1990, Greens began running for state office in the hope of gaining ballot
status for state Green parties. The first success was in Alaska, where
gubernatorial candidate Jim Sykes polled 3 percent of the statewide vote,
bringing the Greens there to full ballot status. In California, the
establishment of a state Green Party remained controversial. Numerous Green
locals were attracting dedicated members, but they often kept aloof from
wider activist circles, particularly in the larger cities. Impatient with
the continuing reservations of left activists and New Age spiritualists
alike, several key organizers of the statewide network of Green locals
departed to form the Green Party of California and, in 1992, registered over
90,000 Green voters to certify their own ballot line. The visibility of the
Greens in California increased markedly with this move; however the diverse
statewide network soon evaporated as the focus increasingly shifted toward
the new state party leadership. Still, with dwindling organizational
resources at the national level, the quest for state ballot access soon
became the de-facto national strategy of the Greens.
The national organization of the Greens/Green Party U.S.A. was slow to bring
the new state parties into its formal national structure, and state parties
often resisted joining the national network. The national organization's
focus continued to be aiding the formation of local Green chapters and
giving local and regional groups a participatory voice in national
decision-making. Those seeking to move the Greens toward a more traditional
political party structure ironically condemned the 1992 action plan and
other non-electoral activities as unreasonable national impositions on the
priorities of local groups. For those increasingly committed to an
electorally-centered strategy, the national organization's social movement
orientation and radically visionary program were seen as obstacles to the
development of a more mainstream political strategy. John Rensenbrink and
others split from the national Green organization to form a small but vocal
tendency known as the Green Politics Network (GPN) to promote a more wholly
electorally-centered approach.
For some time, the GPN has tried to position itself as a catalytic force to
unite third party activists under the leadership of the new state Green
Parties. In a pair of "Third Parties '96" conferences leading up to the 1996
elections, they gathered representatives from a wide spectrum of third party
efforts-from the New Party and Socialists to Libertarians and members of
Perot's Reform Party. "Transcending left, right and center: building the new
mainstream," was their slogan; carrying a rather watered-down version of
Green politics into the presidential arena was their strategy, in
conspicuous contrast with the emerging Independent Progressive Politics
Network which sought to unite grassroots organizers and third party
activists around an agenda of far more sweeping demands. An editorial in the
respected Vermont-based political journal Toward Freedom described "Third
Parties '96" as "pretentious and deceptive," particularly the so-called
"Common Ground Declaration," a platform that emerged from an entirely
synthetic exercise in consensus involving less than fifty participants.
The presidential fever struck first in California. At the 1995 national
Green Gathering in New Mexico, long-time California Greens Greg Jan and Mike
Feinstein proposed a nationwide drive to register state Green Parties in
1996. Such an effort, combined with a Green presidential run would,
according to Jan, tap voter discontent with politics-as-usual and spread
Green ideas nationwide. Subsequent drafts revealed a further motive: if a
Green presidential candidate could capture 5 percent of the popular vote
nationwide, the Greens would be entitled to some $4 million in federal
matching funds for a presidential run in the year 2000. This odd mixture of
hopeful idealism and ambitious opportunism largely set the tone for the 1996
Nader campaign.
By the fall of 1995, advocates of a Green presidential race were playing an
increasingly vocal role, both in internal discussions and in efforts to
shape national media coverage of the Greens. In California, Greens
determined to have a presidential candidate on their own 1996 state ballot
petitioned a variety of nationally prominent progressive figures to see if
any of them would agree to run in the California primary as a Green
candidate. Ralph Nader was the only one to respond, and an impressive list
of over 40 activists statewide subsequently signed a letter demonstrating
broad support for a Nader candidacy. In late November of 1995, the Green
Party of California announced that Ralph Nader had agreed to be their
candidate for president.
It was clear from the beginning that this was not to be a traditional
presidential campaign. "I intend to stand with others around the country as
a catalyst for the creation of a new model of electoral politics, not to run
any campaign," Nader declared, announcing that he would neither seek nor
accept campaign contributions. In a number of subsequent statements and
interviews, Nader articulated his goals for the campaign: it would encourage
and energize new activists, pressure the Clinton administration around
environmental and regulatory issues, and promote a plan Nader first drafted
for the 1992 New Hampshire primary to expand public oversight of utilities,
the media and the federal electoral process.
Nader and the Greens
The Nader campaign immediately sparked controversy within the Greens. In
several states, most notably Maine and Virginia, the presidential campaign
quickly became a major focus for Green activists who wished to extend the
Nader effort beyond California. In other states, Greens were far more
hesitant to allow a presidential campaign to dominate their agenda,
particularly one in which the grassroots apparently had very little say. The
difficulties were political, as well as structural. Many women, people of
color and gay activists within the Greens, who for years had been assured
that their concerns were central to the Green agenda, felt thoroughly
marginalized by a straight white male presidential candidate who openly
refused to embrace their issues. In California, for example, Nader would not
taking a stand against the anti-affirmative action "California Civil Rights
Initiative," despite grassroots Green efforts to help defeat the initiative.
Queried by a hostile reporter about his position on gay issues highlighted
in both the national and California Green platforms, Nader said he would not
become involved in "gonadal politics;" when Phil Donahue asked Nader in
February about the politics of abortion, he dismissed the entire issue as
"too much private stuff." Nader refused membership in the Greens and
disavowed the movement's democratically drafted platforms; he even refused
an interview with the national newsletter of the Greens, the quarterly
tabloid Green Politics. Greens committed in principle to a politics of local
initiative and a decentralized radical confederalism felt their efforts were
being compromised by the growing association of the Greens with presidential
politics.
The situation became further polarized when Linda Martin of the Green
Politics Network set up a separate Nader campaign clearinghouse in
Washington D.C. in direct competition with the national clearinghouse of the
Greens. The so-called "Draft Nader Clearinghouse" tried to dominate media
coverage of the campaign and of the Green movement overall, and offered
legal advice designed to support their activities. They claimed that Nader's
pledge to limit campaign contributions-and thereby escape the scrutiny of
the Federal Election Commission-could only be respected if each state were
to establish a campaign committee, entirely separate from the Greens, that
communicated with Nader only through the D.C. clearinghouse. Subsequent
research by the Green Party of New York state proved this claim to be
spurious and thoroughly manipulative. Guy Chichester of the New Hampshire
Green Party described the D.C. clearinghouse as a classic case in the
history of the Greens of "dissidents on the electoral[ist] right wing
creating parallel organizations and trying to divide the Greens."
In state after state, the integrity of Green efforts at the local level was
compromised by the Nader campaign's single-minded determination to be on as
many state ballots as possible. Wherever the Greens hesitated to jump on the
Nader bandwagon, ambitious individuals were sought out and encouraged to
break with their local group to launch a petition drive of their own. Greens
in Ohio were told that organizers linked to the California effort would
bring a petition drive to their state if the Ohio Greens declined to do so.
When Greens in Texas decided against a statewide Nader drive, Greens across
the country received repeated "emergency" fundraising appeals over the
Internet to send campaign organizers there over the objections of the Texan
Greens. In North Carolina, on the other hand, a ballot drive was first
organized outside of the existing Green network, but activists soon agreed
to cooperate on a petition for a write-in candidacy for Nader.
In the northeast, the resolution was even more acrimonious. Richard Alcorn,
a member of the steering committee of the newly formed Massachusetts Green
Party, was asked to leave the group after repeated violations of group
decisions. The result was two conflicting petition drives, one in the Boston
area and another launched by Alcorn in the Western part of the state under a
different party name. Each group obtained about half of the 10,000
signatures needed to get Nader on the ballot. Having failed in
Massachusetts, Alcorn went to New Hampshire, where he represented himself as
a Green Party organizer with financial support from the California Nader
campaign. Long time New Hampshire Greens offered to cooperate if there were
to be a unified effort, but threatened to take legal action if Alcorn tried
to establish a competing Green organization. Alcorn never showed up for a
planned campaign rally and was never heard from again in New Hampshire.
Alcorn next appeared in Vermont, where he again refused to cooperate with
Green activists who had already launched a decentralized grassroots petition
drive in the northern part of the state. A long-standing Vermont Greens
organization had gone dormant during the early nineties, but the new
"Vermonters for Nader" effort was beginning to attract many people who had
not previously been involved in politics. Nader supporters in Vermont were
committed to organizing from the ground up, in the spirit of Nader's
"people's campaign." But this did not satisfy the ambitious Richard Alcorn.
He launched a competing petition drive in the southern part of the state,
under the name of a spurious "Green Coalition," with a different set of
electors and a different Vice Presidential candidate than the northern
Vermont-based grassroots effort. (Queried about his approach over electronic
mail, Alcorn, who declined to be interviewed by telephone, cited unspecified
"flaws" in the original petition and wrote, "our objective was to ensure Mr.
Nader got on the Vermont ballot as a vehicle to encourage media coverage of
his issues on both a statewide and nationwide basis." Alcorn described his
Green Coalition somewhat obtusely as "a group of folks who want to bring
together Green Party activists, Labor, people of color and the poor for
shared political objectives.")
Less than two weeks before the state deadline, rumors began to circulate
that Alcorn had already obtained the needed 1000 validated signatures. These
rumors clearly stalled the momentum of petition drives in Burlington and
other communities. When a young activist from Vermonters for Nader went to
the Secretary of State with some 900 signatures validated by various town
clerks throughout the state (an additional 150 or so were to have been
mailed directly to the Secretary of State and 50 more still required the
needed validation by town clerks), he was told that Nader was already on the
ballot and his signatures were not needed.
A further source of acrimony was the platform that Nader held in his hand
when he accepted the Greens' nomination for president at a Los Angeles
gathering this past August. The platform was the product of an initiative by
New Mexico Green fundraiser Steve Schmidt. In February, Schmidt's group
announced to Greens across the country that they were convening a committee
to approve a new national platform for the Nader campaign. The New Mexico
group would draft the platform, and Green representatives from around the
country would be offered an opportunity to discuss it over the Internet's
World Wide Web. The effort was widely rejected as insufficiently democratic,
even by core Nader campaign organizers; barely a handful of responses ever
appeared on the New Mexico group's Web page. The resulting platform was
uninspiring at best, an amalgam of lowest-common-denominator proposals on
issues that in many cases had never even been discussed by the Greens. It
was a far cry from the comprehensive national program the Greens have been
developing through an open, participatory process since 1988 (see, for
example, Z, November 1990). Still, when Greens arrived in L.A. for their
national gathering and nominating convention, the New Mexico platform was
presented as a fait accompli.
Prospects for the Future
In late September, a front page headline in the San Francisco Chronicle
proclaimed: "Nader's Green Party Run Wilting. He won't campaign; slips in
the polls." The Chronicle reported that Nader's polling in California had
slipped from ten to around three percent as the election approached.
Criticisms of the Nader effort from more mainstream circles were mostly
linked to the unconventional nature of the campaign: the lack of
fundraising, traditional campaign appearances, etc. But many Greens believe
that Nader's vision of a grassroots campaign might have been realized if it
had been carried out in a genuinely grassroots-democratic manner. In New
York and a few other states, Nader efforts were closely linked to local
candidacies and alliance-building efforts at many different levels. New York
Greens also brought their campaign for Nader into statewide actions against
the dismantling of welfare and a late October demonstration on Wall Street.
But overall, fewer local and statewide Green candidates will appear on the
November ballot than in any election this decade, due at least in part to
the all-consuming demands of Nader's presidential campaign.
Many Greens have come to believe that the relentless internal logic of
presidential politics has inevitably turned a hopeful and idealistic effort
to spark a new democracy movement in the United States into yet another
cynical political game. By mid-summer, Nader campaign organizers became
increasingly strident about their underlying motive: they wished to divide
the existing national network of Green activists that has been evolving,
with many fits and starts, since 1984, and replace it with a streamlined new
"association" of state Green Parties. The Greens would "shed their radical
wing," in the words of one California Green Party activist, and Green
Parties would be defined exclusively by their adherence to state and federal
ballot rules. Thus, Ralph Nader's reputation as a crusader for democracy and
public accountability is being squandered by a crew of aspiring politicians
whose main goal is apparently to recast the Greens in the confining mold of
politics-as-usual, and perhaps someday control their own cache of federal
matching funds.
What are the lessons of this effort? Election years are always a dismal time
for genuine grassroots politics, and the lure of electoral politics has
become stronger as other alternatives have become more difficult to sustain.
Both seasoned activists and those relatively new to politics seem equally
resigned to a future of diminishing possibilities; many in California and
elsewhere felt the Greens would soon evaporate without the added stimulus of
a presidential run. "The vast majority of new California Green Party
participants seem to fully accept a liberal model for 'progressive'
politics," explains Sonoma County Green Lloyd Strecker," and as far as most
of them are concerned, the Nader effort is a shining example of grassroots
organizing. To them, it is the 'radical' component which is wasting valuable
time with all this pickiness about 'process,' and the Draft Nader people who
have taken the bull by the horns." (The "Draft Nader people" will almost
surely conclude that they have failed by being too open.)
"The root problem of the Nader campaign stems from Greens' difficulties with
leadership," according to Greta Gaard, a founder of the Minnesota Green
Party and author of the forthcoming book Ecofeminism and the Greens. "Thus
far, some Greens have mistaken charisma, initiative, and the ability to
'think big' for leadership. Surely, these are the necessary characteristics,
and they are transformed into Green leadership when they are placed in
service of the Green community through the process of participatory,
democratic decision-making."
To still others in the Greens, the Nader campaign reflects all the
traditional failings of alternative presidential candidacies.
Petition-gathering, fundraising and seeking to conform with state election
rules precludes imaginative grassroots organizing and inevitably sabotages
long-standing commitments to grassroots democracy. Despite Nader's clear
message about the evils of corporate power, presidential campaigns only
serve to reinforce the widespread and thoroughly naive hope that one brave
individual on a proverbial "white horse" can somehow make the system right.
The real losers, sadly, are all of the thousands of idealistic people who
enthusiastically carried and signed Nader petitions thinking they were
helping to usher in a real alternative in 1996. Hopefully they will discover
the lesson of the old adage, popularized in the 1980s by Audre Lorde, that
"you can't use the master's tools to dismantle the master's house."
http://www.social-ecology.org/article.php?story=2003120210422243
No comments:
Post a Comment