Should the Green Party be replaced?
It's beginning to look unlikely that Jill Stein will merit 5% of the vote this year. This reality shouldn't keep us from trying, though. The question on my mind, however, is one of whether or not the Green Party needs to be replaced with some other party, or a new party, capable of challenging the Democratic Party in the election cycles ahead.
The main problem that I see with the Green Party is that its membership appears to be what's left over after the debacle of 2004, in which the convention, in Milwaukee in June of that year, was engineered to produce David Cobb as the party's Presidential nominee for that year.
The people who stayed with the Green Party after that loss were likely to be those who imagined the Green Party as their own private terrain -- gatekeepers, then, whose interest in politics was in keeping the impure out rather than in gaining votes or members. These are people who have always been with the Green Party and who aren't necessarily "bad people," but who would prevent the Green Party from being a contending party, a party which would compete with the Democratic Party for the votes of the liberals whom it has abandoned.
As far as I can tell, the gatekeepers have always been with the Green Party. Back in 1996 I was part of a fledgling attempt to form a Green Party of Ohio. Soon after the effort was organized we discovered that our contact in Cincinnati was basically turning people away. At some point, the people in Cleveland made some phone calls and got a new contact.
In 2002 I was part of an attempt to form a new, anticapitalist movement within the Green Party, which we called the "Green Alliance USA." We held a meeting in January of that year in New Orleans, with the main proceedings conducted by Howie Hawkins and Walt Sheasby. After Walt passed away a couple of years later, the Green Alliance held a number of conference calls with the aim of keeping the organization going. At the last of these conference calls some of the remaining members complained that they weren't getting anywhere because -- you guessed it -- gatekeepers were holding the Green Party back.
At first, when Sanders endorsed Clinton, I thought that maybe the Sanders people would take a look at the Green Party and join its locals. Now, as Sanders campaigns with Clinton, I'm beginning to wonder if the Sanders people just looked at the Stein press releases and gave up on politics altogether.
Oh and did you notice something curious about the Green Party of California's web page? There's a page for the county organizations, but where is the page for the locals? It's almost as if they didn't want the outsiders to know -- or maybe it's that so many locals have folded that nobody is there to clean up the failed links.
So do we need a new political party? I suppose we ought to wait until the November elections are over to find out if there's anything left of the Green Party to support. What do you think?
Comments
Stein is beginning to get more mainstream coverage...
the CNN town hall and, then, This Morning w/ GS, today. I don't dispute that you have to have grassroots from the bottom up, but you must have a very clear, articulate and passionate leader who can lay out the vision. How did Bernie build what he built, when it didn't exist before? Because he was that passionate, honest leader w/ a vision. Stein's style is a little different, but she is still very passionate and compelling, and, I would argue, more articulate than Bernie.
I agree... stick w/ Greens since the infrastructure is there and the leader is passionate and extremely sharp... see where it goes. We seem to be gathering some momentum, so why cut it down before it can bloom?
Stein is beginning to get more mainstream coverage...
the CNN town hall and, then, This Morning w/ GS, today. I don't dispute that you have to have grassroots from the bottom up, but you must have a very clear, articulate and passionate leader who can lay out the vision. How did Bernie build what he built, when it didn't exist before? Because he was that passionate, honest leader w/ a vision. Stein's style is a little different, but she is still very passionate and compelling, and, I would argue, more articulate than Bernie.
I agree... stick w/ Greens since the infrastructure is there and the leader is passionate and extremely sharp... see where it goes. We seem to be gathering some momentum, so why cut it down before it can bloom?
Oh please
You do what is right because it is right, not because it is easy. You face reality and you do it anyway because it is all you've got.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
A shame if folks didn't have a 'take-away' from Bernie's Run.
Some might have learned that 'The Democratic Left' was but one faction of the enthusiastic Bernie supporters. Only one. And, they might have been the smallest faction of the active Bernie supporters across the US. I say "small" because after the primaries ended, most of 'The Democratic Left' shuffled back to the born-again Dempublican Party. They went on to puff up with pride during the Democratic Convention's shameful Troop-fluffing political melodrama, they cheered for the dog whistles calling for moar war, and they cried "USA, USA" for the cheap soul-killing finale of fervent patriotism. There was not a single moral compass to be found in the convention hall.
Who would include any of them among 'The Left' in America?
The Bernie experience showed us that both Parties stand to the right of the American people. The big energy supporting Bernie's message was coming from much larger groups — the Millennials, the worker classes, and the Independents. You could see the People's passion building at each of Bernie's outsized rallies, and it was completely unplanned and unexpected. No one in the Democratic Establishment had anticipated this massive American groundswell for Bernie Sanders.
The was a steely panic among the Party leaders, their rigging was first exposed in the ludicrous scheduling for what were supposed to be low-key televised debate performances of little interest. Meanwhile, more money than made any sense was pouring in to the Sander's campaign from every forgotten place in America. The numbers were staggering and at various points exceeded Clinton's take. Who were these people?
Sander's campaign staff had to scramble week after week to rebook his rallies in the largest venues they could find — until no stadium could hold all the Americans who turned out to hear him speak. By the end, they had to gather in the public spaces of the nation's large cities.
Their numbers continued to swell, but they were not coming out and gathering to support the Democratic Party.
Sander's avid supporters were not necessarily members of the Democratic Party or members of any party. They came because they wanted to feel, for just one moment, the possibility of real representation at the highest level of government. They wanted to hear the words that no other politician would dare say to the People — words that they knew in their hearts were true. They felt they were recognized by a potential President for the first time in half a century of middle-class memories.
They are the People, and do not belong to the Democrats or to The Left. They are the massive Coalition that would join with the Left, if they were recognized and asked. They only need to be activated with a genuine strategy that promises to deliver real visible power to the People. They need to hear those words.
They want to hear again the words that describe the basic rights they know are denied to them by the government. They want to hear again the words that describe the abuses they suffer collectively, abuses that are generated by deliberate policies made at the top. They will not rise up for words of incrementalism, or for the "long" game, or for "voting your truth" while the center is collapsing. If they do not hear true words and real strategies, they will not rise up and they will not vote in 2016. They will wait until the bulk of the pre-computer-era, know-nothing voters who actively sabotage their future have died off — and then, they will stand and demand their generational sovereignty.
At least, that's what I learned from the Bernie experience.
It was never a Democratic revolution. It was the People's revolution, and they still look to an outsider to lead the way. They do not trust or respect the US political system or the types of leaders it produces.
Correct.
You're awesome, Pluto. Thanks for putting it so well.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
What a fetching narrative, Pluto!
Paraphrasing Winston Churchill (in his history writing), "And if it didn't happen that way, IT SHOULD HAVE!" Much admiration to you!
BTW, it's now past 3:30 on the 22nd, and the number of comments on this thread is 210 and counting.
It's an all-afternoon task to read through the essay and all the comments. So many of them are really good, committed, insightful comments that anyone who lands here should make the effort and not miss anything.
But is there a way to split this into separate, ongoing essays or something? To make all that's here more easily accessible?
and this is the rub:
They only need to be activated with a genuine strategy that promises to deliver real visible power to the People.
We don't currently have one.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
There's always the Brexit strategy.
It's not the Left's decision to make, however.
What are we leaving from and where are we going?
I guess, leaving the Democratic Party?
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
I respectfully disagree.
I don't think more than 10% of America, tops, has any idea who the Green Party is, much less what its baggage is.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
You are correct sir.
And then there's the other knowledge deficit -- people who log on to c99% with their opinions on the Green Party without really doing their research. I joined in 1992. Where were those people in 1992?
"A reminder: the US has the #1 most expensive healthcare system in the world, yet we rank roughly #42 in life expectancy." -- Luigi Mangione
Well, I too have occasionally been guilty of talking on the Net
without finding shit out first.
But while Why hasn't the Green Party succeeded? is an important question to ask, I'm distressed that our answers are so superficial and sound-byte-like. I mean, saying "Baggage!" or "It's a 3rd party, what do you expect!" or "Poor communication skills/bad message discipline!" seem pretty quick, facile answers, and we need actual analysis.
Hillary arguably has rotten communication skills and message discipline. She was practically accusing Sanders of supporting child murderers in NY because he wasn't anti-gun enough--and then, two days later, she crossed the state line into PA and started talking like Annie Oakley again. And for God's sakes don't let her into a real non-scripted interview.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
I was a Democrat
who was pissed off that Slick Willie beat Jerry Brown in the primary. I wasn't particularly politically active or a partisan Dem. It took 2 terms of Clinton's New Democratic party to do that. I did vote for Big Dog. I wrote in Jerry Brown in his second term election. Strangely I was requited by a Green in 2001 to join my local Democratic county party. She said the left needs to come together to stop this RW coup. Turns out both she and I were wrong it was a by partisan coup. I will do some homework here in Portland and see what shaking with the local Green party
Thank you!
May your search be fruitful!
"A reminder: the US has the #1 most expensive healthcare system in the world, yet we rank roughly #42 in life expectancy." -- Luigi Mangione
How Many Election Cycles Are We Talking About?
Ok. Assume we can organize and message better than The Greens. How many election cycles (4 years) are we talking about to get on the ballot in 30 states?
"They'll say we're disturbing the peace, but there is no peace. What really bothers them is that we are disturbing the war." Howard Zinn
The problem with the Greens' ballot status situation --
is that for the past sixteen years they haven't run anyone who would motivate people to get them on the ballot. When Ralph Nader ran for President in 2000, he was on the ballot in 43 states. The map is here.
So the answer to your question is "one."
"A reminder: the US has the #1 most expensive healthcare system in the world, yet we rank roughly #42 in life expectancy." -- Luigi Mangione
Sadly, people are motivated by personalities
Not by ideas. At least, not in the short term.
Too many people appear to think "do I like this person" rather than "do I like what this person stands for". In other words, they are looking for entertainers who will explain the world to them, however inaccurate. Cue Donald Trump.
Why do politicians need to "generate excitement"? Most of politics is boring but we need people who understand the issues and can make the proper trade-offs in a complex world. In that context, Jill Stein seems like a perfectly reasonable choice. Hell, she even played in a band!
I might piss some people off saying this--
but the Sanders campaign pretty much disproved that. I don't think anybody was motivated to support Bernie because of his big, exciting personality.
I love Bernie, but he's hardly a glad-handing charisma hound; nobody I knew was saying "I'd love to have a beer with that guy." (*I* would have liked to have had a beer--or maybe a shot--with him, but I'm a weirdo activist politics geek).
To the extent that the Bernie movement was about personality, it wasn't about liking him; it was about believing he was honest.
The Bernie movement was all about "do I like what this person stands for," as well as being about "I think this person actually DOES stand for the principles he advocates."
It seems to me that the most excited political movements we've had this cycle--both Bernie and Trump--have been all about the issues. Trump's folks are more personality-driven than Bernie's, but the reason people support Trump is not for his personality; it's because they see that the country is falling apart around them, and he offers a convenient, easy explanation that flatters them.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
No inspirational candidates
thats it in a nutshell.
FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.
I find Stein pretty inspirational
YMMV of course.
But she's the only one. Nader was a grumpy old man (it takes one to know one...) and the rest of the convention was pretty dull.
We can’t save the world by playing by the rules, because the rules have to be changed.
- Greta Thunberg
I can't take her seriously
Her anti-vaxxer nuttiness is too much for not only me, but a lot of other people.
I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it."
John Stuart Mill (1806 - 1873)
Jill is not an anti-vaxxer
Never was. And I'm not voting for Jill.
But you do need to be straightened out on that.
FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.
They are on 30 state ballots NOW.
Last I recall it was 22 states, and then --
when Sanders dropped out, eight more were picked up in accordance with the various petition-submission deadlines in each state.
In short, we're still recovering from the self-inflicted wounds of 2004.
"A reminder: the US has the #1 most expensive healthcare system in the world, yet we rank roughly #42 in life expectancy." -- Luigi Mangione
Check before you write.
The Green Party ballot access map. And the reality is usually better than this, as it can take them awhile to update it.
http://www.jill2016.com/ballot_access
Here's what it looked like as of April of this year.
https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_access_for_major_and_minor_party_candidates
'kay?
"A reminder: the US has the #1 most expensive healthcare system in the world, yet we rank roughly #42 in life expectancy." -- Luigi Mangione
OT ref Jill Stein 5%... RootsAction re opening up debates
A truth of the nuclear age/climate change: we can no longer have endless war and survive on this planet. Oh sh*t.
Thank you for a thought-provoking essay
I wonder, how deeply entrenched are the "gatekeepers" in the party apparatus? And what issues were/are they screening for?
I ask because during last week's CNN Town Hall I don't think that the environment came up once, or at least not very often. But what was discussed were economic issues, income inequality, student debt, and racism; the latter in Baraka's terms as a function of American capitalism-driven imperialistic foreign policy.
So, I thought that the Stein/Baraka Green ticket sounded a lot like a party based around criticism of capitalism.
I don't mean to contradict your observations, which obviously come from long experience with the Greens. What I do wonder, though, is whether the party is (slowly) evolving its critical orientations.
So--could today's Greens become tomorrow's Third Party? I realize that they are a third party already, but as you point out, they seem to have trouble gaining traction, and that trouble may well be tied to their "gatekeeping" tradition. Would it be possible, though, for Greens to evolve into a Bernie-merger, to become the sort of third party that Bernie would run on for his next Senate term?
Only speculation at this point. I am waiting to hear what message comes from the Bernie camp in Wednesday's live stream.
I doubt that he'll explicitly "endorse" Jill at that point, but we may hear something like a political program that the Greens in their present incarnation can latch on to (is that the right expression?).
Sanders is campaigning with Clinton.
"The Left," then, will be expected to prop up a campaign not expected to win despite obvious advantages in funding and organization.
"A reminder: the US has the #1 most expensive healthcare system in the world, yet we rank roughly #42 in life expectancy." -- Luigi Mangione
I must be missing your point,
are you saying that Clinton (having obvious advantages) is not expected to win?
Or are you saying that "the left" is expected to support a non-winner (Stein)?
Framing Stein as a "non-winner"
is part of why people have the perception that voting for her is pointless. You're not helping.
Framing Stein as a non-winner
Framing Stein as a non-winner is being realistic. You might want to start from that base when trying to convince people who already understand that to vote for her anyway. If polling results change dramatically in the coming months you'll have the pleasure of saying "I told you so"; if not, you'll have avoided sounding like someone not worth listening to in the first place and thereby perhaps successfully converted some who would otherwise simply have dismissed you.
I think we can all agree that Jill Stein won't be President
barring some incredibly crazy turn of events. But that doesn't make her a non-winner. To me, she wins because she's the only candidate currently running that brings a semblance of sanity. If she gets 5%, then she really has won this election as much is realistically possible. Taking the stance that we just can't support a non-winner means that we don't win even what we realistically can.
I believe that what 'non-winner' meant
was clear from the discussion: someone who would not win the presidency. And I explicitly pointed out that explaining why it could still be worth supporting her candidacy was a good approach.
Why is everything about winning, and not about progress?
To me it's much more important that her positions make sense to me. The people who are all about winning seem more readily willing to set their integrity aside, judging by the Clinton supporters. Winning is nice, but it's not everything. To me, it's much more important that progress is being made. And Stein getting even 5% of the vote is progress in my view. Moreover, I think the Greens have a winning platform - winning, for the people, for the planet. Who gives a shit about winning the election when it's likely rigged anyway, and thus by definition can't be won? I think by using that framing, you are playing into the hands of the people who want her to lose. Good luck with your realism.
No.
The Sanders assumption is that Clinton cannot win on her own and that she needs his support and the support of his followers if the evil Trump is to be vanquished.
"A reminder: the US has the #1 most expensive healthcare system in the world, yet we rank roughly #42 in life expectancy." -- Luigi Mangione
Sanders' assumption,
as I understand it, at least, is that Clinton cannot win if she has to run in a three-way (or 4-way) race AND Sanders is one of the other candidates. He thinks that in that kind of race he could pull enough votes against her that it would enable Trump to win. (I happen to think he could well have won in a 3-way race, but that's moot now.)
I'll leave it to theologians to decide whether Trump is "evil." I just think it would be horrible if he was the prez., not only particularly because of his erratic personality traits, but also because it's likely we'll get a Repub House and I really don't want to see a Ryan / Tea Party ("Freedom Caucus") agenda passed, which would happen like shit through a goose with the Donald nominally at the helm.
Meanwhile, my reading is that Bernie is campaigning for Clinton--if that's what he's doing--because 1) of deals that he made with the DNC before he started his primary campaign, and 2) rules of negotiation that he and every other Senator has to comply with in order to be able to continue making deals in the Senate. Bernie will be in a much better position to further the legislation he campaigned on and that he wants to see made into law (for ex., he's clearly opposing TPP--if that's still on the table after lame-duck--. he's clearly promoting single-payer Medicare, etc.) if he sticks to prior and existing agreements. That's what you have to do to make allies.
No matter what Sanders has said so far, I don't think he really believes he can rally his supporters around the Clinton-Kaine ticket, although he has to do his best, as per 1) and 2) above.
I really have to say --
that after eight years of Democrats pretending Obama was some kind of leftist, that terrifyingly Republican government looks like water already under the bridge at this point, and that the primary gain to be had by a Republican victory is the dramatic wake-up call it would provide to those who currently pay no attention to the real state of affairs, believing that since Obama is one of the good guys, he's got things well in hand.
"A reminder: the US has the #1 most expensive healthcare system in the world, yet we rank roughly #42 in life expectancy." -- Luigi Mangione
Republican government looks like water already under the bridge
Sorry, but I have to respectfully and very emphatically disagree!
Obama rule looks to me --
like a combination of Bush regime foreign policy and Contract with America domestic policy, with a bit of Heritage Foundation health plan and a sovereignty-shredding series of "free trade" agreements thrown in.
What does it look like to you?
"A reminder: the US has the #1 most expensive healthcare system in the world, yet we rank roughly #42 in life expectancy." -- Luigi Mangione
To me it looked like a lot of bullshit
I stopped listening to whatever he was saying long ago because Obama was great at dragging out that goofy smile and sounding all upbeat and cheerful as he stabbed me in the back.
A lot of wanderers in the U.S. political desert recognize that all the duopoly has to offer is a choice of mirages. Come, let us trudge towards empty expanse of sand #1, littered with the bleached bones of Deaniacs and Hope and Changers.
-- lotlizard
I think that Bernie
is not Obama.
Not Clinton.
And not a Democrat. His political party is Independent.
He is a Senator. Long and deeply experienced in the legislative process.
I wish we lived in the world you describe--
but there is no way that Sanders is going to "make allies," or keep them, after genuinely opposing Clinton and making her look vulnerable. After giving the voters a way to say publicly exactly how much they dislike her. After making her look bad in debates.
There is no coming back from that in Clinton-world. He was supposed to bow and withdraw after 3/15. The fact that he didn't, which meant that she had to resort to more and more blatant kinds of fraud, while looking more unpopular all the time, will not be forgiven.
The Clintons keep lists of goodies and baddies, people to reward and people to punish. They are vindictive as hell. And they run the party.
Sanders will get exactly nothing out of the party now that he's pissed her off. Nobody is going to have the guts to associate themselves with him, and perhaps also get put on the Clinton baddies list.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
No, that's just the talking points.
The real reason Sanders is now Clinton's latest surrogate is to spread despair and a sense of inevitability, which are the only ideological legs Clinton and the interests she represents have to stand on, at this point.
She needs, deeply, to engrave the idea that there are no other viable options into the skulls of the American people.
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyhGtKAkNTo]
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
And meanwhile, those of us left (!) are foot-shooting.
It is not time to navel-gaze, mutter 'what-ifs' . Keep going, if it's Stein, it's Stein. Her polling numbers may be artfully adjusted anyway. Many polls now are, freeped, fake, hard to tell now. Keep moving, please.
Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.
@ CStS, HRC's engraving attempts are doomed to only limited
success. "There are no other (practical) options" is not the same thing, by a long shot, as "There are no other (possible) options."
I think, though, that in Congress all kinds of "alliances" are indeed always being made between people who are ideologically bitter enemies. I guess I mean the hated word "compromise" as the chief way that legislation comes about. It's true that Clinton's hatred for Bernie will know no boundaries, but Clinton will have to keep a lot of different pokers hot in the fire if she wants to win the election and thereafter if she wants any of her backers' legislative desires actually to be realized.
They can't afford to be purists. Tea Party purism shut down the entire government and basically everybody (including the business community) lost. The Tea Party then began to fade and has now morphed into the "Freedom Caucus." Worst things have happened when purists held sway in the government--witness the Civil War.
Ideological purism sets you up to be used by somebody else to further their aims, not yours. Knowing how to balance between your principals and what-you-have-to-do-to-advance-them in the government has got to be a tricky matter.
I think that Bernie has knocked the wind out of a lot of people's sails, and understandably so. But I'm also awaiting his message on Wednesday--if I can find how to live stream it--to be able to make my own assessment of where he's going with respect to making a good, strong, viable third party here in the US.
I note your quotation marks and approve.
Sick to death of people calling this shit left, when it's barely liberal.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
They could
But they need to work more at the local/state level.
There are a number of positions that are uncontested.
Although, I think the very best thing they could do is change the name of the Party.
I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it."
John Stuart Mill (1806 - 1873)
Green party forum 2016
I found this interesting forum of the green party on Real News. I liked what I heard and saw.
Also this very nice interview on BLM with a veteran Green party member: https://youtu.be/fIh0a8_xi2o
I'll be voting Green this time,
but it seems that the Green Party has too much baggage to become a viable contender. I think that a new party, (perhaps a Labor Party?), could succeed with an intelligent, articulate, popular candidate with some charisma. Think John Kennedy, Jr., if he were still alive. Perhaps a Ben Affleck or someone similar. American politics are definitely about personality.
As I said, I'll vote Green this time, but I do believe that the Greens have too many negative connotations in the minds of many to be taken seriously as a full-throated political party.
"Stand Up! Keep Fighting!" - Paul Wellstone
I don't know about any "negative connotations" --
but you may just want to, well, join the Green Party and find out what's really going on...
"A reminder: the US has the #1 most expensive healthcare system in the world, yet we rank roughly #42 in life expectancy." -- Luigi Mangione
What baggage?
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Activists are not typical voters
Unlike you, I have only recently joined the Green party, so I appreciate your historical perspective. My own reasons for joining are simply that their platform is the closest to what I personally support, and I find Jill Stein to be both plausible and trustworthy. It is frustrating that there isn't a bench to support her, but its the best shot I've got right now for making my voice heard in this campaign.
Your comments about the Left generally in this country are things I've been saying for a long time now. During the "Battle for Seattle" I was in the march with my union (CWA) and we were surrounded by many colourful groups, one of which was dressed up as sea turtles. I love sea turtles, and I appreciate those who want to help them, but they are not the top priority even for me - let alone for most of the people in the country who could benefit from a change in the power structure.
This is one of the (many) lessons that Bernie has for the Left this year. He managed to figure out exactly what it was that the largest number of people wanted from Left policies and stuck to them. The Green party - judging from the convention footage I watched - is full of lots of single issue folks who are motivated to come to meetings and be very passionate about that issue. They "raise awareness" and use all those activist buzzwords, and while their issues are generally important ones on some level, they gain no traction with the average disenfranchised voter because most people don't care enough about that single issue to spend their extremely limted time on them.
What issues did Bernie talk about? Mostly economics and access to power. Those are issues that people are willing to devote time to because they may actually help them personally. That is what any Left party (Green or otherwise) needs to speak to in order to gain any traction. Heck, that is what the Libertarians speak to - and they do better than any other third party, despite their platform being an economic disaster area!
Bernie's other lesson was that if you are going to speak to these issues of money and power, you have to be sneaky because the powerful don't want you to be heard. This is why he ran inside the DNC. They sabotaged him, but that is part of the lesson. They also won't make that mistake again, so his organisation techniques and fund raising model will have to be developed without the benefit of ActBlue and other DNC infrastructure.
We can’t save the world by playing by the rules, because the rules have to be changed.
- Greta Thunberg
Some great lessons there
If I could advise Stein, I'd tell her to do what Sanders did: a single, coherent, economic message about power. Repeat at nauseum. Currently she seems to be all over the map in terms of the issues she's discussing. It would be better if she emulated Sanders and stuck to a fairly narrow message with broad appeal. The details can come later.
Green parties everywhere have some core policy positions
The Green Party of US shares policy and philosophy with other Green Parties across the world. One has to subscribe to the Four Pillars and 10 Key Values to belong/support the Green Party of US. Although I agree that initially Jill Stein appears to be all over the map, but I think there is a 'method to the madness'. She is trying to state these policies of the Green Party to the extent possible on the corporate controlled media as best as she can. I haven't found anything that I disagree with the tenets of the GP of US as of today but I will continue to scrutinize their policy positions.
The Preamble for 2016 for the Green Party of US is reproduced below and may shed light on why Jill Stein may give the impression she does to some folks.
Here are some other useful links.
http://www.gp.org
http://www.gp.org/120591/the_real_difference
Yes
I call it poor message discipline.
FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.
Run for Prez for show
Run for senator to change the landscape.
Jill is a great spokesperson for growing the party, but running for president isn't the way to get power.
As finely balanced as the Senate is, getting one senator for the greens could change the political landscape of the entire country.
Maybe pick a state like Oregon and focus every Green and progressive in the country on winning that seat.
I've seen the gatekeepers. Frustrating, but they could be overwhelmed with a concerted effort by folks who are Berning Green
Dig within. There lies the wellspring of all good. Ever dig and it will ever flow
Marcus Aurelius
An excellent, and repeated
topic for discussion. Here is my 2 cents worth of opinion:
My greatest concern is the decline in voter participation at the local and state level. This is where policies and laws most impact my life, if not the majority of citizens. I have come to a personal conclusion that too much time and money are spent on National Elections.
Across the pond, most countries are smaller than California, there are many party options, not all of them focused on the best interests of some portion of their population. If we take a look at all the models, perhaps we can find one that is best for each state?
Our current two party system is outdated. It is one of the reasons that the US has become so divided. Organizing and creating new parties at the local and state level allows all citizens the opportunity to have some impact on making real "change" happen.
It really is "Our Revolution". Only we can make it happen. I will be tuned in for Senator Sanders' conference call on 7/24.
Look up at the stars and not down at your feet. Try to make sense of what you see, and wonder about what makes the universe exist. Be curious. Stephen Hawking
We need to change the voting system for that to happen
Slogan: "First past the post is toast!"
as others say, we need higher profile candidates
we need some courageous politicians, already in office or not, to break from the Democrats and join the Greens...or start another party.
When Gene McCarthy and Bobby Kennedy opposed the Vietnam War, opposed the President, opposed their party leaders, we had some real spirit in Congress. Now? It's all "ok, boss".
Bernie could have done it but he gave up. Which is sad.
Sad it is, Shahryar
We share the same natural hair coloring as Senator Sanders. We need courageous and dedicated younger ones to start a process that will take fewer decades to correct than it has to create the dystopian world of today.
Look up at the stars and not down at your feet. Try to make sense of what you see, and wonder about what makes the universe exist. Be curious. Stephen Hawking
Given the time constraints and lack of alternatives
I'll be going Green again this time around, but the development and growth of something new would be good also.
Gëzuar!!
from a reasonably stable genius.
"Third Parties" are like "Constitutional Amendments"
…in the United States.
They are Entrenched. That means the legal barriers are too high for a new Amendment or a new Party to come into existence.
Look it up. Entrenchment, here, is an established fact.
So why are conversations about Third Parties, here, unmoored from any and all reality? I don't know why. Wishful thinking? I only know that a problem can be solved only when all people describe it in the same way.
Problem: The Legal Barriers to establishing a Third Party are impossible to overcome in the 21st century.
Why?
Like most "operating system" problems (including religions), the two-party system includes structural flaws embedded by the guys who wrote it. (The authors are usually long dead.) Entrenched systems often have language or protocols that mean, essentially, "Thou shalt have no other Operating System before you."
Solution?
Stop trying to directly form a Third Party (which is legally-structurally impossible and deliberately designed to waste your resources). Instead put your resources into one of the following:
1. change the underlying laws,
2. topple and replace the current bosses, change the system from the inside,
3. use a new paradigm to circumvent the laws from the outside,
4. surrender and pass the problem on to the next generation.
There are fast, clear, realistic pathways to most of these structural solutions.
There is no pathway to wishing the Green Party into existence in this universe.
Pluto, I voted for the comment.
I disagree on two points.
1. Nothing is impossible: progress requires planning, resources and execution of a strategy.
2. The Green Party does exist, but is not focused on leadership, and see above.
I am already putting my resorces into promoting your first 3 suggestions.
Look up at the stars and not down at your feet. Try to make sense of what you see, and wonder about what makes the universe exist. Be curious. Stephen Hawking
Have any of the first three
…turned your vote into a strategic one?
Hey, Hawk, thanks. I can only call them like I see them. I know in advance it is sometimes disruptive.
EDIT: I agree with you about "impossible." It is an illogical term. I hate it when I do that.
Are the barriers really "legal" ones
or just rules made by the political parties? Referring to your 1) above.
One of the things I've learned this campaign season is that our political parties are "private" not public institutions.
The rule saying that a candidate has to have a 15% polling approval in order to be included in presidential debates is pretty arbitrary. Why 15%? Whose polls? Will the big media corp's continue to abide by this rule? I mean, one thing media corps try really hard to know is where people are putting their eyes. Open this one up by using the intertubes.
Get Jill in the debates. She'd crush HRC and Trump (and that Libertarian guy).
All the right questions. You have them.
I tried to impress this on people before the primaries.
But I know folks don't get it because they are now complaining about the voting irregularities; looking for a legal remedy in the wrong courts. It's a civil matter and there are no damages. It would not even be heard in small claims court. They could bounce around in that box for eternity. That's entrenchment.
Of course, it's hard to wrap one's mind around because it is tax dollars that pay for both Party's primaries. So how is that possible?
That is the very definition of entrenchment — and it is bad news for the people trying to form a third party, directly. Bad news for everyone, really.
I am somewhat disturbed by how adamantly you are
against the idea of starting a party, which is one of the few positive gestures available to us at the moment.
I agree it's not a be-all end-all, and it puzzles me that so many seem to see it as THE solution to our problems; it puzzles me, actually that people see the question of whether to start a 3rd party as THE question. But clearly, we can either abandon the current political structures and build our own replacements, or we can surrender, get some tequila, and party on the beach till the world finishes burning. There's certainly no point in participating in the current structures.
When illusion spin her net
I'm never where I want to be
And liberty she pirouette
When I think that I am free
Watched by empty silhouettes
Who close their eyes but still can see
No one taught them etiquette
So I will show another me
Today I don't need a replacement
I'll tell them what the smile on my face meant
My heart going boom, boom, boom
Hey, I said, you can keep my things they've come to take me home
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGaqmvIEyaI]
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
The entrenchment is indeed legal.
Not just laws regarding ballot access, but also the outlawing of fusion voting, which was one of the principle means of building Progressive, Populist and Granger parties in the latter part of the 1800's.
-- Virtually, etc. B)
Don't know why fusion voting
has been outlawed in so many states, and would appreciate any information you may have on that question.
Here in NY fusion voting is allowed. The Working Families Party has just endorsed HRC, so I don't see any immediate progress on that score at present.
Third parties can get on ballots in all the states. Their presence on ballots is not illegal. But the requirements for ballot access may be unreasonable, I don't know. Committees that review petition signatures and the like often operate corruptly to ensure the duopoly, and it does seem that they have some kind of legal sanction to act corruptly.
Beyond that, Pluto has raised an interesting question, and you have my thanks for your edification!
Fusion voting allowed ...
... the third party to focus on running against the most objectionable mainstream candidates while offering the mainstream politicians most likely to be endorsed as fusion candidates the incentive to support the rights of the third parties. So you attract protest votes against the mainstream candidates that your party membership most want to protest against, and votes that are part of winning pluralities to elect representatives to office, to be sure that your interests are represented.
Outlawing fusion voting eliminated any substantial incentive inside the "out" mainstream party to try to cultivate support from within the third parties, and switched the dominant play to a unified front from the two mainstream parties against any measure that would allow third parties opportunities to grow.
This is from the Wikipedia machine, but it is sourced to "Spoiling for a Fight", page 227-8:
According to the Wikipedia Machine, fusion is only still legal across the board in seven states: NY, CT, DE, ID, MS, NY, OR, SC & VT, and for Presidential elections in CA.
-- Virtually, etc. B)
Wow
what a nefarious statement in that quote!
Thank you Bruce McF for edifying me on this aspect of US political parties. I took a look at the Wiki article and have to admit I'm a bit confused still--wouldn't a big-party candidate simply throw a few words to the smaller third party in order to be listed on both the major party ballot line and the third party ballot line, then ignore the third-party agenda once s/he was in office? That's pretty clearly what's up with HRC and Working Families in 2016, isn't it?
I guess it appears to me that the only way to "nudge" a major party candidate to represent any policy that the major party doesn't agree with is to threaten the candidate or the party with election losses.
That said, over time the various states seem to have made fusion ballots illegal, except for the ones you've listed.
Why?
If I think about what that "Republican Minnesota state legislator" in your quote had in mind, I get that he wanted to make the Democratic party in his state into a single-issue party or close to it. Traditionally the Repubs have been "the party of business" meaning of businessmen and/or business owners. In other words, Repubs became a single-issue party. That leaves everybody else--people who are not mentally aligned with business and/or business ownership. Employees, for instance. The Minnesota Repub did not want the Dems to be the party of "everyone else," because that would mean that the Repubs would never get elected dog catcher or anything else. So don't allow the Dem party to represent a wide range of POV's through third party alliances, but hold them to a single-issue constituency.
Ah, but if they do that ...
... then they get a challenger on the same ballot line the next time they run. So if they were your margin of victory, you want to hold to your agreed compromise and hope that they don't demand more the next time around.
It's both carrot and stick.
It's not that he wanted the Democrats to be a single issue party, it's that he wanted to fight JUST the Democrats, and whatever mix of issues they stood for. He didn't want to be up against three or four or five parties, each of them drawing away different bases of support based on a different mix of positions they stood for.
At the time the Republicans were the plurality party in much of the North, but take an anti-Prohibition stance, you drive Prohibitionists into the arms of the Progressives ... take a Prohibitionist stance, you drive anti-Prohibitionists into the arms of the Democrats. Take a low tariff policy stance, you drive manufacturing interests in towns and cities into the arms of the Progressives, take a high tariff policy stance, you drive farming interests into the arms of the Democrats, or the Populist. There's no stand you can take where some other party cannot benefit by standing up and taking the opposite side.
Even if you have a majority in the Legislature and the Governor's mansion, it makes the majority far more perilous. Safer to undermine the Progressives and the Populists and the Grangers and the rest.
In the end, that led to the Democrats and Republicans playing ping pong with the Progressive vote in the early 20th century ... and part of vying for the Progressive vote was how Prohibition got passed, of course ... until Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal nailed it down in the Democratic Party for a generation.
-- Virtually, etc. B)
You've given me lots to think about, BMcF,
and I'm glad. So thank you!
Still, at this point I'm not convinced that fusion voting would help to get a viable third party off the ground. It might be good for presenting issues that one or the other of the 2 major parties would adopt in order to win an election.
It might also be good for encouraging people to organize politically around certain agenda items, encouraging them to make a third (or fourth, etc.) party, so that the party can appear on the ballot.
But does fusion voting not also ensure an "always the bridesmaid, never the bride" situation once the people form up an organized political party?
Don't we need, today, a stronger, more powerful political force when we're forming a third party? One that can also make it into the government as its own voice, with its own agenda?
Another entrenchment barrier for Parties
…is that the US does not have a Federal Election System.
The state powers decide if people can vote in a Federal election, or whether they can vote at all. The states decide how, when, and where they can vote, how the votes will be counted, which votes will be shredded, instead.
All of this happens now without Federal oversight, as per the Supreme Court, last year.
The people have no constitutional right to vote in a Federal election. By design.
That sabotage tool is available to those in power. It is used with frequency in these latter days of so-called "voter corruption."
And Breyer was in Majority of Timmons vs Twin Cities Area ...
... the fusion voting case that went down 6-3. In the current court, 3 were in the majority (Kennedy, Thomas, Breyer) and only 1 (RBG) in the minority. And the dissent was divided, with Souter willing to contemplete maintenance of the two-party system as a legitimate state interest.
If we can presume that Alito and Roberts would line up on a positoin that saw Kennedy, Thomas and Breyer in agreement, that's at best 4-5, even if Sotomayor, Kagan and the next appointed Justice all lined up to support the first amendment rights of members of third parties.
-- Virtually, etc. B)
Damn states' rights!
Just kidding.
It's late and I think the topic may be heading back into the Civil War!
Well, there is the 14th amendment--
but actually all of this (quite good) legal analysis and info is kind of beside the point, since our legal system is so corrupt it will never side against the billionaire class and its corrupt frontmen, the Bushes and Clintons, the RNC and the DNC, no matter what the law says.
You might get a few judges brave enough to stand against corruption, but on the occasions that happens, it just gets appealed and moved up the judicial ladder.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Pluto, nothing you've said here
has convinced me that the effort of party-building is not worth the trouble. Sure, we change the rules, but that can happen while the other things are happening at the same time. There needs to be another party that is not Democratic nor Republican. The ship of neoliberal state is sinking. Are you going to grab a bucket, or not?
"A reminder: the US has the #1 most expensive healthcare system in the world, yet we rank roughly #42 in life expectancy." -- Luigi Mangione
I'd go further than that.
Unless there are enough votes sitting out there under the heading of some other party, there is very little incentive for either of the mainstream parties to consider changing any of the rules that entrench their own position.
-- Virtually, etc. B)
Cas, the people can win control through coalition voting only.
A Third Party, if it were even possible, could take decades. IMO, if the people lose the current election to Hillary (the Establishment), the laws that currently sabotage Third Party attempts will be strengthened right away. The Establishment is well aware of what we are trying to do here. The Establishment have never been so vulnerable, with one of the duopoly in complete shambles. We have a one-time chance to take both parties out at the same time.
Meanwhile, a people's coalition should form with clear voting strategies. Our numbers alone can throw anyone out of office any time we want. With a coalition, the people will immediately control the democracy. Somertimes the voting strategy may seem destructive, but there are sacrifices in all strategies. This is a young man's game. It's time for bold thinking and generational sovereignty over the brittle dead men's laws that limit our possibilities and fulfillment as humans.
Unless there really is no democracy, as many suspect.
The two party platforms that were approved this year make it perfectly clear the people are being disenfranchised from the US legislative process at the brisk pace of a dictatorship.
I didn't understand any of that.
Here's what I understand:
1) Neither the Democratic nor the Republican Parties can become what Jodi Dean calls "the party of the people in the crowd."
2) We therefore need another party, to avoid the endless cycle of a) Progressive Democrat runs and "loses" (see election fraud) to a neoliberal and b) Progressive Democrat endorses the neoliberal, thereby weakening the "Left" further.
"A reminder: the US has the #1 most expensive healthcare system in the world, yet we rank roughly #42 in life expectancy." -- Luigi Mangione
That may be close to what I've thought since early 2010
but since I don't want to risk putting words in your mouth I'd rather hear you expand upon it yourself.
I'm confused. Are you assuming the votes will be
counted accurately?
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Oh shoot. I responded to the diary.
Wanted to respond to Pluto's comment. Pfui, said Wolfe.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Personally I'll be voting green, or
I'll just write myself in. Heck, I could do better than Clinton or Trump, and I'm an ignorant fool. (total snark)
The greens have a perception problem among the broader voting public, 1) they are not viable as a 3rd political party and 2) many view the green party as eco-terrorists, putting trees above people and progress, which I admit is mainly a conservative / republican frame, which they have done a good job of keeping alive and displays the greens failure to counter that narrative.
But these type people that dress as sea turtles and shit, are just fucking ridiculous. Don't get me wrong, I like sea turtles but hey, our country is out of control and heading for a thermonuclear blast via either Ukraine or China. And besides, sea turtles have survived on this planet a hell of a lot longer that humans and stand a much better chance of survival, being in the sea, than we do living on the land. I'm sorry but I would much prefer that we save the people in Flint before we save the sea turtles.
Personally I'm completely turned off by "political parties". I am sick to death of "party loyalists", who put party above principal. It's these party loyalists that kill a good buzz. I'm still pissed at Senator Sanders for backing Hillary.
#NeverHillaryOrTrump
#JillStien2016
My proposed solution, is TOTAL, PEACEFUL REVOLUTION! A complete rejection of the current prevailing neoliberal economic world order. We need to start first with pulling out what little money we have in the banks. 2) Stop buying shit we don't need. and 3) stock up for a month supply of food and necessities and 4) a national, month long walk out. Everyone, except emergency services, walk off the job, all at once. and 5) we need to coordinate this civic action, all across the planet.
[video:https://youtu.be/OH4onCfRtYc]
(apologies, I'm getting more and more militant in my denunciations of the 1% and their cronies that are waging economic and political war on all of us, across the planet.)
However, in answer to the essayist question, should the Green Party be replaced? Ah, hell, I don't know! They sure need a swift kick in the ass to get focused on the real issues, like humanity's survival, instead of making a big deal about fucking sea turtles or other, less pressing issues. Gate keepers, vote those bastards out or expose them for the harm they actually do to their intended goals, like getting on the ballot in all 50 states or overcoming the eco-terrorist label conservatives have tagged them with.
C99, my refuge from an insane world. #ForceTheVote
I was surprised to hear Green Party rep Bruce Dixon declare
that the Green Party currently lacked what was necessary to absorb thousands of new members and function as a party nationwide. IIRC ("If I recall correctly"), he figured that they needed to set up a dues system, like the major parties. In any event, he appeared to be suggesting that the Green Party wasn't fully ready for prime time.
That suggests to me that building an alternative progressive political party isn't out of the question -- except for 2016.
"All Life is Problem Solving" - Karl Popper
Yes and no
It certainly isn't "out of the question". But we can take a look at our own beloved c99 for a current example.
c99 was "not ready for prime time" when it got dumped on by the refugees from GOS. Could I, at that time, have gone and built my own? Sure, in theory. But plumbing aside, JtC had done an awful lot of groundwork that goes beyond technical and becomes more "social". c99 provided a port in the storm where you didn't need to dredge the harbour before bringing the ship in. Sure, that harbour had some scraggly features to it (and still does). But at the same time, the influx of people also brought in motivation and money. The site got better (and still is). People have no self-organized a fundraising committee to make both the site and JtC's life better
I'm willing to pour some money and energy into the Green party and see if they can adapt... not in time frames like "this election" since that's a lost cause anyway. But I'd want to see more organization and focus as a serious nationwide contender by mid 2017.
That doesn't preclude me from also supporting a new party and watching to see who gets their act together faster.
A lot of wanderers in the U.S. political desert recognize that all the duopoly has to offer is a choice of mirages. Come, let us trudge towards empty expanse of sand #1, littered with the bleached bones of Deaniacs and Hope and Changers.
-- lotlizard
FWIW, I searched for existing Progressive parties in the USA,
and the American Progressive Party, founded in 2009, speaks to me.
Perhaps they could incorporate existing state progressive parties, such as those of Vermont and Oregon. They currently have a banner supporting Jill Stein for President. I'll try to get more info from them and report back.
UPDATE: it appears that the American Progressive Party also has a presence on Reddit.
"All Life is Problem Solving" - Karl Popper
One way or the other
We are going to need to coalesce/coordinate these various "parties". I'm not particularly attached to the Greens. I just read their platform some time ago and I agreed with it slightly more than Bernie's. So they became my "go to" place. I know of other such entities but they aren't in my mind enough to weigh them all out and, as I said, they all need to somehow merge(ish) anyway.
A lot of wanderers in the U.S. political desert recognize that all the duopoly has to offer is a choice of mirages. Come, let us trudge towards empty expanse of sand #1, littered with the bleached bones of Deaniacs and Hope and Changers.
-- lotlizard
Pages