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
I have no explanation why the Libertarian candidate is polling
near 10% and the Green candidate is polling at less than 5%. The Green Party seems to be the only party on the left that has any identity and 10+% of Americans say they are capital "S" socialists or communists. It would seem to me that the Greens would be the default party for those not in love with capitalism and also realize the existential danger to the planet posed by monopoly capital. The SEP? No, I didn't think many have heard of this small party. It seems it's the Greens or nothing and nothing is creeping up.
An environmental/non-capitalist party is much needed without the sectarian hassles you've laid out in your diary. There's a constituency ready and waiting but getting it off the ground is daunting.
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"
The Greens need to shorten their platform
To "Whoo, Pot".
If you do that you can stand for anything and get 10% of the vote.
" In the beginning, the universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry, and is generally considered to have been a bad move. -- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy "
lol
Let's leave Ron Paul out of this...
could be
Could be that the right-leaning voters who can slip-off their Repub or Teahadi garb to be born-again as Libertarians have had a LOT longer to accept the reality of the scumbag (Dump) on 'their side' than the progressive left have had to accept the reality of the scumbag ($$Hillary) on theirs.
Dump has been a done-deal for a good long while, while many Berners still haven't accepted the reality of $$Hillary as candidate of the *cough* 'left'.
Also, Fuck $$Hillary and the broken donkey she rode in on.
An example
When someone like Jill Stein uses the word Empire.... which I agree with her... "The American Empire" is a dog whistle for middle America. As soon as they hear that they turn off.
Yet these same people think we should cut military spending, we don't need all those military bases in other countries.... and we have wars for oil. Middle America should be an easy vote for Jill Stein, but they're not.... because of the way Jill communicates.
Plus the Green Party behaves like it wants to be niche, their social media strategies are a decade old. As soon as they start acting like a national party, they will expand quickly. Except then the current leadership will face challenges from new members.
FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.
Trump and Clinton seems the strongest explanations.
Trump is anathema to more normal Republican voters than Clinton is anathema to normal Democratic voters, so there are more "I want to vote Republican but can't vote for Trump" than the parallel with Clinton.
Now, you can well argue there should be more than 5% in that boat with Clinton, but I've seen lots of people voting Republican against their own personal interests, due to what they believe they know from the corporate sensorium that they inhabit, for enough decades to expect the similar to apply to the leader of a unified Whig wing of the Corporate Party.
The problem that Trump has is that he does not unify the Tory wing of the Corporate party. Some opinin leaders in the Tory wing who are not presently running for re-election and so who do not presently need the votes of the Brown Shirt brigade presently supporting Trump may defect to Clinton ... but after decades of indoctrination, actually voting for Clinton is a bridge too far for many long time Republican voters, leaving them looking for another "not Trump" vote to make.
-- Virtually, etc. B)
If Sec. Clinton was "anathema
If Sec. Clinton was "anathema" to normal Democrats, she wouldn't be the nominee.
The reality is we didn't do a very good job selling Sander's program.
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)
Quite ...
... while Sanders did not win, he gave a much stronger contest than the sad sacks and losers that Trump had to go up against, so Clinton had to work harder to appeal to party regulars in order to nail down the nomination.
Many Berniecrats supporting Bernie to place pressure on the "nominee presumptive before the first vote was cast" were susceptible to the argument that the platform is "enough better" to rationalize voting for Hillary. And the most likely resort for many Berniependants previously on the sidelines is to return to the sidelines.
I don't see time to do anything at the Presidential that might have some long term benefit other than working to bring out those disaffected Berniependants to vote Green and try to beat the 5% FEC threshold.
Since it's a national threshold, the best places to go looking for those votes are to seek out not just protest votes against the choices being presented, but also protest votes in "safe" states against the futility of casting a vote for either mainstream candidate.
-- Virtually, etc. B)
Well, there's also the argument
that we're never going to get anywhere as long as the 'New' Democrat establishment continues to hold sway, so the only way to break its grip is to weaken it and the only way to do that is to do everything we can to kick its elected members out of office (and I mean everything, up to and including voting Republican in any races that appear to be close - in other races it won't matter so voting one's conscience is a win-win).
That's been my own strategy since early 2010, but this year enough more people might have awakened to what we're facing that they might get on board unless they freed themselves too recently from the chains of conventional lesser-evil voting to embrace it again in the other direction before tasting the joys of voting for what they actually want or at least taking a vacation from voting at all.
There are probably enough disaffected Bernie supporters to flip this election at the presidential level and many races in Congress as well, but it takes time to develop the kind of awareness and consequent disgust that would actually cause that to occur.
I'm sorry if this sounds like CT, but I don't think so. I think
the fix was in, I think the voting machines were hacked. Look at his giant rallies while she takes small meetings. Look at the paper trails report. Look at her unfavorables.
No, I think her people hacked the voting machines and they will do it again in November, unless Trump has better hackers.
Even so, I'll vote for Jill to register my protest.
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
It's not CT. There's more data supporting your position
than opposing it.
"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, the reality is NOT that the left doesn't do a very good
job communicating with Middle America. That's a talking point from the late 80s/90s, and is part of the New Democrats' arsenal of propaganda. It may have had a basis in evidence in 1988 or 1992, but it has none in 2016.
Sanders' campaign began at 3% name recognition, down by 60% to Clinton in the polls. He went from that to winning more than 20 states, with sold-out arenas from sea to shining sea, people standing in line for hours to hear him speak--all with one speech, repeated with a few tweaks, here and there, as the campaign went on. That's all it took to get Middle America on his side. He was also the only candidate, other than Kasich, to have a positive favorability. He also had a remarkable appeal across party lines and across many demographics. And he did all this in the face of a hostile press.
I say this not as a defense of Sanders, but in the interests of being reality-based: None of these data points suggests a problem with communication or framing. In fact, it suggests that it took very little to get people on his side. We're talking about an old, unknown, not particularly charismatic fellow who calls himself a socialist. A politician like that, if he has communication problems, sinks like Walter Mondale. He doesn't wind up in front of crowds like this: https://www.google.com/search?q=bernie+sanders+rally&espv=2&biw=1373&bih...
We really need to check our assumptions; to check that we're not simply repeating assumptions that we've been hearing repeated for the past 30 years. If there is to be a movement, then there needs to be a reality-based assessment of why those of us who participated in the Sanders campaign failed in our fight against Clinton. That analysis can't be based on assumptions and talking points past.
"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 agree with this
Bernie's message, especially when contrasted with Hillary's and Martin O'Malley's corporate placating messages, made him explode in popularity. Jill Stein now sits on a new ticking bomb of righteousness herself.
Beware the bullshit factories.
Those photos brought tears to my eyes.
O.k. When is the next meeting for the revolution?
-FuturePassed on Sunday, November 25, 2018 10:22 p.m.
I know what you mean.
but it's really worth remembering that Joe Schmoe is not against us. Not generally.
"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'm very liberal and voting for Gary Johnson.....
I'm a BernieOrBust girl, and despise both HRC and Dump. Here's the thing, I don't like Jill Stein. I like most of her Platform, but not all positions. She has anti-charisma and charm for me. If she had a real shot at winning, I'd vote for her in a heartbeat, but she doesn't. On the other hand, I like Gary Johnson. He is right on a couple of issues, and mostly I don't agree with his stances on the issues, but he's funny as shit and I like the guy. I think he's honest. I like that. So fuck it.... We have a shit salad and shit main dish to choose from, and then a couple of side dishes.... I'm choosing the side dish that has a good sense of humor. Seems like as good a criteria as any in this election of corruption, theft, and deceitful candidates and criminal gangs posing as national parties aka GOP, DNC. Maybe there are more folks like me....who knows!
Oh wow, um, wow
I'm cool with your choice, but don't agree with your description of Jill.
Reminds me of my step sister refusing to vote for #Killary because she stayed with Bill the Cheater.
Wow.
Have you considered the question --
of what you might possibly get from Libertarian government? I don't think I myself would ever base a vote on personality factors while ignoring the question of "what's in it for me?"
“When there's no fight over programme, the election becomes a casting exercise. Trump's win is the unstoppable consequence of this situation.” - Jean-Luc Melanchon
What we might get from a Libertarian govt.
if their website and public statements can be believed, is a non-interventionist foreign policy and closing of overseas military bases.
If I still lived out west, I would be voting for them. In NY, I think the Greens are a better choice if the goal is to deny Clinton a substantial victory.
Mary Bennett
Jill's pretty funny, pro-legalization and does have charisma
Listen to her sing. I'd rather have a beer with Jill than with Gary Johnson.
Beware the bullshit factories.
Really? I think Jill has a lot of charm and charisma! But then,
I've been watching a lot of Hillary, so ya know, the bar is quite low there. By comparison Jill shines! I don't know why Jill isn't doing better, I would have thought a whole lot more Bernie folks would be interested in her now.
My biggest beef with Gary Johnson is that he is for eliminating income tax, installing a national consumption tax, and making it revenue neutral. So 76% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck. That means the tax will fall on 76% of us the hardest, we'll pay the tax on every dollar we earn; while the wealthy who are hoarding rather than spending their money will pay a minuscule percentage. Our tax burden increases and their falls, worsening income inequality.
I think his foreign policy is decent, and that makes him better than the D and the R. But if you like most of Jill's positions then please reconsider. Charisma or not. (I still find that odd - if not her, who do you think has charisma and charm?)
If you insist, well yes, anyone is better than D or R.
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
The Libertarian Party does have certain real advantages
1. Money. A section of the oligarchy supports their ideas and is willing to throw some bucks their way, even if they know it won't do much good. After all, they have plenty to go around.
2. Media support. Certain well-funded "think tanks" (I prefer the more accurate "propaganda mills") have been pumping right-wing libertarian perspectives on just about whatever into the public sphere for decades, and their "scholars" regularly crop up as newsroom "experts."
3. A base. The right is by no means homogeneous, and some have very libertarian ideas. When faced with an across-the-board authoritarian like Trump, they have someplace to go.
Is it Democrats who are polling for Johnson? If so, then
war has to be the issue. Seems likelier that it's the right that is polling for Johnson, though. The right that is too sane to vote for Donald, but is also Never Hillary.
there is a lot of libertarian propaganda out there
The libertarians in this country started as an astroturf movement by Milton Friedman and has always gotten a lot of money.
http://www.alternet.org/visions/true-history-libertarianism-america-phon...
Their ideas are simplistic but they at first appear simple and appealing. "Freedom", "you know what's best for you money", "we're anti-war" etc. They have an on-line quiz where any reasonable answers get you results that show you're really a libertarian at heart. It's only when you look at them closer that you realize they don't really oppose any of the war mongering or police state excesses. They'll say it, but not actually do anything actively to oppose any of it. It takes a little work of looking into them to realize all they care about is the rights owners to control workers and everything else.
I went to a 3rd parties conference in the nineties fully expecting to leave a libertarian. There I saw them up close and they were immature and just greedy with no really interest in problems forced upon people by our government and by ill-behaving institutions. They just blame government without admitting government is most often working directly for the people they want most to free from the burdens of government. I was most impressed by the Greens I met there, and some others.
Could the Green Party just be a decoy that is actually
meant to siphon off any opposition on the left while remaining ineffectual? Its existence, then, just illustrates the ultimate futility of a third party, solidifying the two party system even further.
"The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"
meh
Accusations of 'siphoning' or 'sheepdogging' or whatever else are just the results of some Rorschach test of political biases.
It says something about the level of distrust in our politics that everyone suspects everyone else of being a sellout or a dupe.
The only reason I considered this was after learning that
there were Hillary people within the Sanders campaign.
On the other hand, the problem could just be that long term Greens could just consider that they're much smarter than the masses and don't want all those stupid people to pollute their ranks, keeping the party tiny.
"The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"
Well you know.
"The people" are a bunch of homophobic racist sexists who will bring in big money and run phony Greens. To a certain extent the gatekeepers' fears are legitimate. But at some point they get in the way.
“When there's no fight over programme, the election becomes a casting exercise. Trump's win is the unstoppable consequence of this situation.” - Jean-Luc Melanchon
Isn't a newer party also likely to birth gatekeepers,
for the same kinds of reasons as gatekeepers came about in the Green Party?
I suppose it depends upon how the party is structured.
Optimistically, we can hope that in future discussions we might see either 1) a design for a new party and a plan for realizing the design or 2) commenters who have joined the Green Party and participated in its proceedings and who therefore know what they are talking about.
“When there's no fight over programme, the election becomes a casting exercise. Trump's win is the unstoppable consequence of this situation.” - Jean-Luc Melanchon
thats been going on for over a 100 years.
FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.
longer then that
I wrote an OT about the history of factions in American electoral politics and I learned that this occurs even within the two parties that may morph into new parties or go the way of the Whigs but the power brokers always try to capture and ride any populace or reform movement that gets traction and votes. Hey a pol is a pol and all of them are weasels, it's an occupational requirement . Victories for compromise that's the ticket.
The Mischief's of Factions
http://www.caucus99percent.com/content/open-thread-mischiefs-faction
Being a weasel should be an automatic disqualification
Too bad there isn't some sort of weasel hoop that politicians would have to jump through, if they wanted to run.
Beware the bullshit factories.
This isn't the case.
The Green Party doesn't siphon off enough of anything to merit such a judgment.
“When there's no fight over programme, the election becomes a casting exercise. Trump's win is the unstoppable consequence of this situation.” - Jean-Luc Melanchon
...
NADER...!!!!!!!!!
They couldn't even swing the race in Florida in 2000 ...
... the GOP was forced to use the Republican Secretary of State actually steal the race, avoiding getting over-ruled in a recount by the Supreme Court.
-- Virtually, etc. B)
Not to mention the
300,000 Democrat's in Florida that voted for Bush.
It has occasionally been used to run decoys ...
.. but not very often.
It mostly is what it is, a small third party trying to survive and grow in a system designed to keep third parties weak and struggling.
-- Virtually, etc. B)
Doubt it. I think Jill's been caught a bit by surprise. The
perpetual candidate who suddenly is more popular than she has ever been! How do you ride that wave? She's gaining ground. If only the MSM would pay her some attention.
Anyway, I like the Greens because I'd like to see us address climate change. But like her or not, effective or not, there really isn't anyone else on the left. She's better known than any of the other progressive candidates. Bernie really is the one who siphoned off the opposition, and I don't think he meant to. But he sucked up all the oxygen. Still, it took him about a year to get well known, and Jill's trying to cover the same ground in just a few months.
Let's shock the heck out of the mainstream candidates and all vote for Jill! I'd pay good money to see Hill's face if they did put her up to it and she ended up winning!
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
Hmmm...
The way I look at it is that Bernie actually created most of the opposition (which certainly had potential before he came along but virtually all of that potential was latent) rather than siphoned it off - i.e., that had he not run Hillary would have simply walked away with the Democratic nomination and the presidency (unless the Republicans had nominated someone other than Trump) and the Greens would have received their usual minuscule percentage of the vote.
And Jill, while wonderful in many ways, sometimes seems to have a really tin ear for politics. Nina Turner would have been an electrifying VP partner (perfect attempted move on Jill's part) and Bernie supporters would have flocked to her candidacy by the millions, but then turning around after that didn't pan out and picking a sometimes very anti-Bernie candidate is all too typical of Green party gaffes over the years (asking voters in swing states to vote for Kerry rather than Cobb in 2004 being another real biggie).
You may be right. I hope that regardless, there would have been
stiff opposition to Clinton even without Bernie, but that would have required an early and loud challenge from someone like the Greens. But maybe you're right and it wouldn't have happened.
I read Ajamu's statements, though, and in context he's not anti-Bernie nor anti-Bern supporters. He's anti-policy regarding war, as is Jill, and he pointed out that Bernie was still a warmonger. If you look back at Bern's statements, you'll see that's correct. While not nearly as bad as Her Heinous or the Hairball, he offered nothing like Jill's peace initiative. Yet Bern was never criticized for his stance that didn't go nearly far enough. That's what Ajamu was getting at. As a Bern supporter, I have to admit, it never occurred to me that we should get out of the Middle East entirely until I watched Jill and verified her claims. We created the ME mess, we can fix a lot of it with a weapons embargo. She's absolutely correct. So that was a blind spot on my part, and I can see where someone who sees all this clearly would call that racist. So ouch, Ajamu hit me, but he's right.
The environmental movement has been accused of white privilege, so appointing a civil rights activist as her VP is brilliant as far as encouraging minorities to vote for her.
I think the characterization of Ajamu's words as anti-Bernie is the same as the characterization of Jill as an anti-vaxxer. It comes from the Clinton smear camp. Not saying that you're one of them, but that you've read and absorbed what they've written.
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
Probably the end result
Although I doubt that there is a nefarious plan to make it that way; it's just the way the cards bounced.
I'll take the Greens seriously when they start to pay more attention to down ballot races.
They need to be running for local offices & build a bench. Right now, all they do is come out of hibernation every 4 years.
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)
WAY too early
Way too early to assume anything about what specific percentage the green party will get.
They haven't really begun to spend the Berner loot they're getting on ads and paraphernalia, because they're primarily engaged in fighting for ballot access.
Like the Bernie campaign, it's going to be an exercise in momentum building. There are certainly millions of people who are refusing to vote for the 2 assholes, so it's possible that come October, the numbers could grow substantially, especially if there is a perception that voting Green is 'safe' because $$Hill has the election all locked-up.
(Heh, I said $$Hill and locked-up...)
Right --
but we ought to begin discussing it now. We need a real party, not Sanders' half-baked promise to "take back the Senate," and not a Green Party that Sanders people aren't going to engage.
“When there's no fight over programme, the election becomes a casting exercise. Trump's win is the unstoppable consequence of this situation.” - Jean-Luc Melanchon
This smells like sabotage on the left
Right now, the Greens are the only remotely viable alternative. Am I wrong?
If I'm not wrong, what's with all the "the Greens aren't good enough" talk? What else are we going to do right now? Are we going to give this election up, with some vague promise of "we'll get it right next time"? This is exactly the kind of infighting we don't need. I'm not saying the Greens don't have problems, but desperate times call for desperate measures.
Well there is in fact a history.
And I do think the current process should play itself out until November at least. But I do have to ask: have you joined a Green local yet? Been to a plenary meeting (or at least a retreat) yet?
“When there's no fight over programme, the election becomes a casting exercise. Trump's win is the unstoppable consequence of this situation.” - Jean-Luc Melanchon
I'll bite. What is the "History"?
I agree with Josb. Green is the only logical play in this cycle. The only way to end the madness (rule by the corrupt Ds and Rs) is to stop voting for them.
And I think the "Our Revolution" org (Bernie's org) is a distraction. A way to keep to funding the Dems and sucker Bernistas to not go Green.
Donnie The #ShitHole Douchebag. Fake Friend to the Working Class. Real Asshole.
Well I joined in '92 --
and campaigned in '96 for Ralph Nader. Some of the history is in my diary here. What's your history of the Green Party?
“When there's no fight over programme, the election becomes a casting exercise. Trump's win is the unstoppable consequence of this situation.” - Jean-Luc Melanchon
Ah Ok.
You were inferring that you have a personal history working within the GP.
I thought you meant there is a history of the Green Party f**king up. And I honestly don't know that much about the GP except they are the only logical progressive vote for this cycle.
Donnie The #ShitHole Douchebag. Fake Friend to the Working Class. Real Asshole.
They're a good party.
And we should all vote for them.
But are they a useful party? That's the question at stake here.
“When there's no fight over programme, the election becomes a casting exercise. Trump's win is the unstoppable consequence of this situation.” - Jean-Luc Melanchon
if they are not ultimately useful ...
... is it better to start from scratch somewhere else, or to form a bloc in the Green Party that walks out in a fight with the gate-keepers, to do a merger with someone else?
Which seems like it boils down to, is there a single other party to rally around?
As far as I understand, under the Greens confederal organization, an influx of Berniecrats and Berniependants could well overwhelm a number of the weaker state parties, so that if it came down to a split, that split could entail a number of the Green state parties going along in the walk out.
-- Virtually, etc. B)
Good point Bruce
Too many seem to assume that we are powerless to make the Green party into what we want it to be. It is a small party. We can have influence. The left has a horrible history of fracturing so we don't want to make this tiny party into two even tinier parties. Right now it needs a strong dose of hard headed practicality--keeping the web site up to date, better fund raising, investing in a few TV adds stressing the fact that Greens will not only work for a better environment but also a fairer and better deal for everyone including minorities and American workers. A good add will bring in more money in contributions than it costs.
Vote Green this election and immediately start working on a
'party' with an actual desire to fight for Progressive ideals and agendas. I really like Tulsi Gabbard and I think her and candidates like her are who we need to build a party around.
With climate change as a #1 priority.
I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are. - Bill Hicks
Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa
I think that's a fair question.
As someone who spent some years as a Green myself.
"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 wonderfully succinct way of putting it
Apropos of nothing, your avatar inspired me to update my own.
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
Oh man, I like your avatar better
Custom made. Nice translucent look. And combines the Bernie legacy with Green. Well done sir.
Donnie The #ShitHole Douchebag. Fake Friend to the Working Class. Real Asshole.
Thanks for the compliment
Well... I'd run into an interesting photoshop tutorial while I was researching fancy bullet points for a print ad I'm designing. It wasn't really appropriate for tiny little bullet point but it was a nice glass technique and so...
I'm debating bending the leftmost wing of the bird down a bit and then dragging the stars trailing off from it to the left (giving me more space to make the whole bird/star thing bigger). Happily, the bird (which started as an actual photo of a house finch) took a spin through illustrator so it's already in vector format.
I'm also debating subtly wrapping the lower-right part of the bird down a bit along the "curvature" of the glass face. Yup, it's Sunday and I have too much time on my hands.
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
Our Revolution is recruiting its own candiates
for municipal and county offices.
The Greens run almost no candidates at that level. SO how does that keep voters from going green?
Our Revolution is a 501C-4
FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.
Our Revolution uses ActBlue for donations
Isn't that a money funnel back to the Dem Party?
Donnie The #ShitHole Douchebag. Fake Friend to the Working Class. Real Asshole.
I believe its a direct contribution to Our Revolution
which is a 501-c4.
Did you think Act Blue gave a cut to the DNC? No, Act Blue is a candidate specific, or 501C4 specific platform. And that is the big selling point for Act Blue, it charges 3.95% otherwise the platform is the best in the bizz, your candidate or committee gets all the proceeds.
Think about it for a moment, 2 Dems for congress headed to a primary. One is the incumbent, the other is the challenger. The challenger puts up an Act Blue page for online fundraising, if part of the funds went to the DNC, they could then be spent on the incumbent.
Why would anyone raise money that a portion can be spent against their own campaign?
Thats just stupid.
FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.
I just sent a request to join their Facebook group
I'm going to try to see how I can help, put my money where my mouth is.
I've already given up this election
I recognize that I won't get any real wins this year. But that doesn't change reality. I still have a vote and I still need to spend it as wisely as I can figure. So for me I vote Green because it's the only game in town. Can the Green party be a long-term answer? I don't know. Happily, I'm more than content to have more than one strategy and wait to see which pans out. Perhaps we can take over the Democratic party from the inside. There was a fascinating video posted here by ??RantingRooster?? talking about how to do exactly that... produced for the Tea Party by the Koch brothers but it seemed like a pretty good playbook.
On the other hand, the Green party already exists and while it seems to have some structural flaws it is infinitely better than the Democratic party and I'm far from convinced that the flaws can't be fixed... particularly with an influx of new energy. Will some old stalwarts want to play the "get off my lawn" card? Sure. But any movement big enough to succeed anyway is certainly big enough to crush a few stodgy old voices in a relatively tiny party. The best part? Even if it turns out that the "gatekeepers" are insurmountable, the effort to do all this will still put the movement light years ahead in terms of internal organization.
I'm riding both those ponies.
I'm much less sanguine about things like BrandNewCongress. I think the federal government is an end-goal not a beginning goals. I grant I'm a political neophyte compared to some of you folks, but it seems true both in fact and in theory that you win from the ground up not the top down.
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 agree.
"true both in fact and in theory that you win from the ground up not the top down."
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
I like your method of having more than one method. :-)
But no, we can't take over the Democratic party from the inside.
"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
With the current Green leadership
no way they're viable. Leadership is protecting their turf. And until the greens get rebuilt there is n way they will compete on the national level.
FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.
What would you do --
to rebuild the Greens? Can you suggest a proposal?
“When there's no fight over programme, the election becomes a casting exercise. Trump's win is the unstoppable consequence of this situation.” - Jean-Luc Melanchon
Replace the national leadership
And if you want to go all out state leadership in key electoral states like NY & California.
FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.
OK so what are you doing --
to promote that goal?
“When there's no fight over programme, the election becomes a casting exercise. Trump's win is the unstoppable consequence of this situation.” - Jean-Luc Melanchon
I haven't decided its my goal
I would probably see how a "Progressive Party" could be started, within the national framework of DFA, Move on, Brand New Congress and #Our Revolution, cause that represents enough people to reach a critical threshold to possibly be ready for 2020.
And I have contacts at the national level in all but Move on.
OR I may work here in NY on taking over the greens, or build a state level party.
OR my career may take me to another state this winter. i'll be applying for Golf Course Superintendent positions, want to take that step up.
FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.
Well if you actually decide --
that you want to replace the "Green leadership," here are two questions you may wish to answer:
1) who, perchance, are the "Green leaders"?
2) how did they get to their positions of "leadership"?
“When there's no fight over programme, the election becomes a casting exercise. Trump's win is the unstoppable consequence of this situation.” - Jean-Luc Melanchon
It isn't infighting.
Burying our heads in the sand accomplishes nothing. Now is not the time for rose colored glasses and make believe. Barring some miracle, Hillary is it. Why is that given how awful she is?
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
Fine, fracturing, whatever
OK, so I get it, let's not support the Greens because they suck. Instead, let's start another party, and another, and another, and then the infighting among the left continues about goals, priorities and direction, and nothing ends up getting achieved beyond a bunch of folks playing "leader", because everybody has a different idea about what to do and how to go about it. I call people on the left not supporting the Greens a form of infighting, because we should all be working together - it's not the time to focus on petty differences. Please correct me if I got the terminology wrong.
Regarding Clinton, not sure I understand the question. Enough people voted for her, the DNC rigged the primary election, Trump isn't a real candidate, and third parties are irrelevant. What did I miss?
You are displaying what top indoctrinated into you.
Shhh, don't say A - what are you, right wing?
Shhh, don't say B - there is an election going on.
Shhhh, don't say C, what are you such a hater?
I can not like and/or approve of someone's A, B, or C and still do E, F or G. I cannot and will not buckle to single minded thinking. If someone on c99 is going to tank Jill and the Greens, she's should be winning then anyway. Not to mention if we know it, so does the rest of the world. So while you attempt to quiet her critics here, how do you propose to shut up everyone else? Whatever a person's faults, they'd better either change them or embrace them. Any other choice is a lose/lose.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
You misunderstand
I'm not trying to quiet anyone, and I do want the Greens to improve, but just bitching about them isn't helping. At any rate, good luck with your strategy, I'm done discussing it.
You know why.
We all know why--well, most of us anyway--yet for some reason we can't seem to incorporate that knowledge into our strategy.
She fixed it. Or, it was fixed for her, in a remarkable number of ways: kind of a Baskin Robbins of voter suppression and fraud. I stopped counting the flavors.
Knowing that, what should our strategy be? That's the question.
Why the Green party has not been more successful is another good question.
I'd start by looking at material concerns rather than ideological ones, if I were addressing it.
"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 aren't even remotely viable
That could change, if they are willing to fight at the local level and build a party from the ground up - the problem is they aren't willing to do it (although, in fairness, neither are the Democrats or Republicans - it's hard work).
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)
Oh for pete's sake.
It is mid August. The greens have already nominated stein. Only a few states haven't closed their ballot access, and ~ Labor Day is the last deadline.
For this cycle, what we see is what we get with the Green Party. If you want to see changes, 2016 & 2020 are the elections that can be effected.
The goals I see this cycle are better ballot access (achieved already), more votes than Nader (we'll see) which the money we've donated and the interviews etc that stein is getting should be helping, reach 5% for the FEC thing, and id how much of the left is mad as hell & not taking it anymore from the Democratic Party.
Stein likely has access to 440 electoral votes to date
Assuming the existing filings are accepted (only GA was denied and they are suing)The other 50 votes are in process as we speak. They really seem more organized this year.
We can’t save the world by playing by the rules, because the rules have to be changed.
- Greta Thunberg
There's a point that most here ought to get
This year is not the same as last year or the year before. We've gone through the global economic meltdown and watched our leaders do nothing but pay the villains and excuse them for their crimes. We've watched Obama do a near 180 the instant he got in the office. We've watched occupy and it's well organized and sometimes brutal suppression. We've seen how unreliable mainstream media is.
What happened to the Green Party (or the Democratic Party) before now is hardly a relevant measuring stick for what will happen subsequently. Were that not true, Bernie would've been crushed in the Iowa and that would've been the end of that.
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
Yes, Green Party has way too much baggage.
The only reason that I can think of why the libertarians are polling at 10% and Green less than 5% is that the left is fractured as always. It just doesn't play well in a group.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
Okay so then what?
To form a new party you'd need to have some sort of design, a set of recruits for the movers-and-shakers cadre, and a ballot drive capable of getting the new party on the ballot in all fifty states. What did you have in mind?
“When there's no fight over programme, the election becomes a casting exercise. Trump's win is the unstoppable consequence of this situation.” - Jean-Luc Melanchon
Here is a starting place:
The Progressive Independent Party
The woman who does the regular videos is an amateur so some patience is needed. She explains part of her issues stem from having a brain tumor removed in her August 15th broadcast. (I would reword that but it gave me a chuckle when I re-read it, and everyone needs a chuckle now and again.)
Even so, she has some very good points and issues to talk about. The 8/15 broadcast is about paradigm shifts and was very interesting. Last week she talked about inverted totalitarianism.
Meanwhile, this party was formed in March and is planning to be in place significantly by 2018.
Edit to add: The person who started this party is not running for office herself.
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.--Aristotle
If there is no struggle there is no progress.--Frederick Douglass
Maybe that's the way to go, then.
I really couldn't say at this point.
“When there's no fight over programme, the election becomes a casting exercise. Trump's win is the unstoppable consequence of this situation.” - Jean-Luc Melanchon
The Progressive Independent Party
is an excellent start. I would prefer that the focus was on local and state organization. Then it would be possible to consider forming alliances in a Presidential election year.
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
Moving to Canada
And giving the Birkenstock wearing, Whole Food shopping liberals the government they deserve.
Let's be realistic. Teachers have lost pay, benefits, jobs, autonomy and respect, and their dumb ducking unions backed Hillary with zero ramifications and accountability. All the unions with a few exceptions pledged devotion to their tormentors. The left is too stupid to even identify its enemy. And they mock Trump and the Tea Party. Ha!
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
The left is indeed too fractured and fragmented
If only we could solidify support for a single cause long enough to have a real impact. Look, for example, at the NRA. Its constituents consistently show up to vote for causes the NRA supports, which is why the NRA is so powerful. Politician going against the NRA? Gets voted out. Etcetera.
Instead, we infight and quibble, and form powerless group after group, all well-meaning but going nowhere.
Despite the baggage
What other choice do we have? In fact, this whole discussion is sucking energy out of what little thrust remains to promote the Greens, arguably the only potentially viable option we have right now. It's basically the whole "electability" discussion all over again. Didn't we learn something from Bernie here?
A good plan today is better than a perfect plan tomorrow. Why can't we just at least try to go for it? What do we have to lose? The alternative is clear.
We should try to go for it.
Is that what we're doing now?
“When there's no fight over programme, the election becomes a casting exercise. Trump's win is the unstoppable consequence of this situation.” - Jean-Luc Melanchon
Admittedly it's unclear
I'm not (yet) seeing the same crowd gathering around Stein as what Sanders got. But I do think it's possible. Meanwhile, I know what I'm doing, what little effect it may have. What about you?
I'm voting for Stein.
As far as I know, however, the Pomona Valley Greens are defunct. A lot of the movers and shakers around here have passed: Walt Sheasby, Woody Nance, Deirdre Lashgari...
“When there's no fight over programme, the election becomes a casting exercise. Trump's win is the unstoppable consequence of this situation.” - Jean-Luc Melanchon
Pages