The Green Party and "deep organizing"
Generally, it's good to do strategic thinking in politics. If you have a political goal, you need a means of achieving it, and not just an idea. Of course, recognizing the need for strategic thinking does not mean that ideas are of no importance -- both good ideas and strategic thinking are necessary.
But strategic thinking needs to recognize historic circumstances, and this is where Kate Aronoff's "The Left Deserves Better Than Jill Stein," a piece put forth last week (September 26, 2016) in In These Times, needs to go forward. Unfortunately, in this piece Aronoff can do no better than to suggest "deep organizing" as a solution:
...the Green Party’s stumble toward the presidency falls into the same traps that plague conventional Democratic Party politics: putting too much emphasis on the presidency and the electoral process itself, while declining to undertake the kind of deep organizing necessary to alter the state of play in these arenas.
Now doesn't that sound profound? The quote from Antonio Gramsci no doubt makes it even more so. And indeed Aronoff is correct to say that "the Green Party does not have a plan to build power." The problems with the Green Party, however, are problems intimately related to the political history of the Green Party in the United States, considered in context.
The Green Party is composed of whomever was left after everyone else who was interested in American politics deserted it for the Democratic Party over the years, most especially in 1992 when Bill Clinton was running for President for the first time and the Green Party was just getting started in the US. I remember the enthusiasm back in 1992 -- we had a vibrant local with regular members, a candidate for Congress, and a candidate for the State Assembly. It was a happening that could have attracted effective activists. But it didn't, and it fell apart after 1992.
At any rate, if the Green Party is characterized by "ineffectiveness" and "infighting" today, as Aronoff suggests, it is because the Green Party is a small, sectarian party today, and because ineffective infighters are what you see in small, sectarian parties. Small, sectarian parties, moreover, are composed of those few people who have vowed, over the years, to continue the fight, rather than heading for the seeming safety of spending eight years pretending Obama was a leftist, which is what the nice political conformists did here in America.
If you want to blame the Green Party for being ineffective, then, the first place to begin is with the activists who should have joined it back in 1992 but who instead spent the past twenty-four years pretending that everything would be totally kewl if only America had some more and better Democrats in office. Was Democratic Party cheerleading really the most effective use of time for such people?
The clinging to the ruling-class party was so strong over those years that it even controlled the Green Party itself; a case in point was the disaster in Milwaukee in 2004, in which the national convention chose non-candidate David Cobb as its Presidential candidate despite the much greater popularity of another Ralph Nader run. So you do the math. If so many activists in the Green Party, an already tiny entity relative to the US as a whole, really only want more and better Democrats, should it be any great surprise that the party itself is characterized by "infighting"?
All that's significant about the Green Party in the United States, twenty-six years after its founding, is that it offers a ballot line. If the "Left" were really interested in the Green Party, it would have taken over the Green Party quite some time ago. But at this point in the game the Green Party has become a protest vote, and only a protest vote, for people who wanted, and who now want, just such a thing.
Perhaps at this point the "Left" wants a party of its own. One option is of course to attempt another takeover of the Democratic Party. You'd think that, after more than a century of trying this strategy, its proponents would notice the general lack of success. Another option is to transform the Green Party into something more than a sectarian party offering protest votes in places where the ballot access laws permit them. A third option is to start a new party. What's curious is that, after thirty-six years of neoliberal governance with more on the way, so incredibly few people want to examine all the options.
If you want to blame someone for this sad situation, blame the likes of Kate Aronoff, who tells us that:
The Left has never needed to be more interested in winning than it does in 2016, using every tool available—the Democratic Party included—as a means to that end.
without asking the most basic question about the Democrats: who is using whom as a tool? If the "Left" in America is going to get behind Bernie Sanders, and if Sanders is going to end up "losing" thanks to election "irregularities" and then endorsing the beneficiary of said "irregularities" without so much as demanding an investigation, who is using whom as a tool? Or, as Ted Rall put it:
So how is that in any way a "Left" strategy? You know, if you want to do "deep organizing" rather than just using profound-seeming phrases like "deep organizing," it helps to have something out there to MOTIVATE people to "organize deeply." That's what Bernie Sanders used to provide. It doesn't come with chastizing the Green Party for putting too much emphasis on Jill Stein.
Comments
Speaking of "using every tool available"
the timing of Aronoff's article is interesting. Hellery has a full court press on right now to draw millennials to her bosom. And Aronoff decides now is the time to expose Greens as ineffectual and a wasted vote. Hahahha. Not buying her bs.
Although, two thumbs up to more "deep organizing".
#JillNotHill
Donnie The #ShitHole Douchebag. Fake Friend to the Working Class. Real Asshole.
The Muscle In The Full Court Press
Does this bother you as much as it bothers me?
The Clinton Campaign Knows When You Stopped Filling Out Your Voter Registration Form
Is it much of a stretch, knowing what we do about election fraud, that she will also know if you voted - and who you voted for? I can't say no, especially if she wins with such heavy GOP support. The Election fraud mechanisms already in place could be abused in such a manner, and we already know Hillary's propensity for retaliation.
Big Mother Is Watching. Resistance Is Futile. She knows when you've been sleeping. She knows when you're awake. She knows when you've been bad or good, so be good for your own sake. You WILL be assimilated. And You WILL Vote For Her.
Vowing To Oppose Everything Trump Attempts.
Gubmint Has Its Nose Up Our Digital Sphincters
It will come in handy when the unrest starts and Hellery rounds up the dissidents and holds them in the stadiums.
Donnie The #ShitHole Douchebag. Fake Friend to the Working Class. Real Asshole.
I'll bet that makes a lot of
I'll bet that makes a lot of people think twice about voting for Her - it'd certainly stop me.
I know, it's OK that private parties can select the public's electoral choices and do whatever they please, including lying to and defrauding members of what they thought was a legitimate vote in the 'Greatest Democracy In The World' States of Americorp...
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
I wouldn't buy it either.
At any rate we are in a pickle, and it appears that the likes of Kate Aronoff are not really going to be all that helpful in getting out of it.
“The Democrats and Republicans want you to believe they are mortal enemies engaged in a desperate struggle when all the time, they are partners with a power-sharing agreement.” - Richard Moser
Why not?
Her characterization lines up well with other rumors and first hand reports I've seen. I've pretty much come to the conclusion we need to build a new party and we need to do so in alliance with other existing left parties/orgs. It won't change my vote this year. I'm liberal. My two choices, therefore, are Green or Democrat. In that solution set, it doesn't matter how dysfunctional Green is because the Democratic Party is no longer liberal.
The problem is we need a leader to emerge in order to get this new party going.
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
Well okay.
How are we going to recapture the magic of 1992, when the Green Party first started running candidates?
“The Democrats and Republicans want you to believe they are mortal enemies engaged in a desperate struggle when all the time, they are partners with a power-sharing agreement.” - Richard Moser
OK, you've caught me at a few disadvantages :)
First I'd like to comment on "magic". I'm not a huge believer in magic. I believe in picking up telephones, making calls, creating web sites, advertising, etc. In my opinion, the success of both Donald & Bernie demonstrate there's a market for that pitch.
Now, insofar as the details, I'm at a disadvantage being an expat. My natural inclination would be to get educated by people as a start. For instance, who should be coordinated with... groups like working families come to mind. After that it's pick up the phone time.
The other disadvantage is that at the age of 53, this is the first time I've ever delved into politics beyond a simple vote. Judging from pretty much every single one of your previous posts, you know an awful lot more about this than I do. So how would you go about building a viable national party for the 99%?
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 would attempt to unite the disaffected.
As for "magic," please try to understand.
All of your belief in those activities will only go so far without any sort of collective motivation to do them. Clinton and her friends believe in the magic of money, which only goes so far -- there is collective motivation when everyone is paid off but then beyond that you must either pay people or fool them to merit their votes, and it requires a separate sort of magic to fool people.
There needs to be a change in the social imaginary which will make social change possible, and no scheme will get around that truth.
“The Democrats and Republicans want you to believe they are mortal enemies engaged in a desperate struggle when all the time, they are partners with a power-sharing agreement.” - Richard Moser
Yeah, but unfortunately
most of the people I hear talking about it are focusing on the wrong change, IMO. We keep talking like we need to get a bunch of apathetic people on our side, or, alternatively, to convert a bunch of conservatives. We're supposed to do that by "getting the word out" and educating people out of their ignorance.
Now the flow of information and a free press are incredibly important right now, but not because we need to enlighten or convert the public. We don't need to educate them that we're in the shitter; they know that. We don't even need, in most cases, to enlighten them on who has put us in that shitter--even most working-class conservatives know it's a corrupt government serving the 1%, although they really really REALLY want to focus on the government part, and only briefly genuflect to the problems in the so-called "private" sector--thus ignoring one of the most basic truths of America: the guy making the payoff is usually calling the shots.
You can find one or two exceptions, but in most cases, we don't need to convince or convert the populace; we need to make them feel their power. Currently, most non-Trump supporters are in despair. I don't know of a single revolution that grew out of despair. That's one of the reasons Hillary and her machine rely so heavily on the talking point of inevitable victory--it's the only talking point she's got. She can't make a rational case for herself and her policies, because there isn't one; she can't tell a convincing enough lie, because even if she were any good at telling lies, the damage caused by the last 30 years is so extensive and obvious that nobody has a lie that can cover it; the best her machine and its paymasters can do is either distraction--which is what the race war is for--or convincing everyone that they will always inevitably win.
That's why Bernie got such a big reaction--he made people feel, briefly, that they had power, and that was all it took to start people acting like they were in a movement. Most of the cool stuff that happened in the Sanders movement came from below. Videos, events, art, door-knocking--there was a ton of activity generated, not by the Sanders campaign from on high, but from supporters. People were ready to move: they needed to believe change and improvement were possible, and they needed something to organize around--some semblance of a plan. And, I hate to say it, they needed, or thought they needed, leadership.
"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 Green Party is a party of leaders with too few followers.
Howie Hawkins? Howie Hawkins is a leader.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howie_Hawkins
What's special about Howie Hawkins? He works for UPS as a truck unloader. Of course, nearly everyone's deserted Hawkins' ecosocialist vision for some sort of right-wing crap posing as the remedy for "omigod Trump," and this is why the forces of Trumpism will inevitably win, if not in this election then in the next.
“The Democrats and Republicans want you to believe they are mortal enemies engaged in a desperate struggle when all the time, they are partners with a power-sharing agreement.” - Richard Moser
I'm not saying I'm totally on board with the
rah-rah-rah let's follow the leader mindset. The evidence seems to indicate to me that, most of the time, people do not take action without, at least, a leader standing somewhere making speeches.
I'm not happy about that, but it seems to be true. In all my life, I've only seen one American political movement succeed in any measure without leaders, or at least without visible, official leaders. Apparently somebody, somewhere, has to be visible and known and standing behind a podium making speeches. Then people can activate and do things on their own, without the leader telling them to do it--but interestingly, they don't activate until they see that guy (or gal) behind the podium talking.
"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
We Have The Power
The time for persuasion is over.
Getting a measly 5% of the vote gets The Greens matching federal funds. We also gain four years of organizing with the expectation of receiving matching federal funds.
Fundraising and getting to 15% in the polls both become far easier. Getting into the presidential debates gives us a seat at the table instead of a seat in the nosebleed bleacher seats.
"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
Wonderful, Insightful Essay
I favor
Both trying to transform the Green party and building a third party (though that's just another political log on the pile) simultaneously. If one's a failure, at least effort would already be underway to accomplish the other. If both are successful, the two could be merged. If both fail, then we may as well see if it's possible to purchase plots of land well above sea level in the arctic circle for farming.
Have you been to any Green plenary meetings?
what was the attitude toward "transforming the Green Party" there?
“The Democrats and Republicans want you to believe they are mortal enemies engaged in a desperate struggle when all the time, they are partners with a power-sharing agreement.” - Richard Moser
I haven't been
I'm sure they're resistant and stubborn as a mule, but as far as i know, they don't have the same level of control over the direction their party heads as the duopoly. I also don't know if there's been a focused effort to change it in the past. You could say i'm still more politically naive than I'd like to be. For instance, would becoming the local level Green party be an effective way to try changing the party, or is it complex to do even that much?
What's happening at your local level?
That's the first thing to find out.
“The Democrats and Republicans want you to believe they are mortal enemies engaged in a desperate struggle when all the time, they are partners with a power-sharing agreement.” - Richard Moser
Trying to force the Green
Trying to force the Green Party to change when they don't want to somehow doesn't sound very progressive or democratic...
To alter the lyrics to an old song: It's their party and they'll do what they want to.
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
Becoming The Green Party
Nobody is forcing The Greens to change. By joining the Greens we become the voice of The Greens
"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
Not sure I follow
It's not like it'd be a process of holding people hostage or offing members until the party agrees to change.
As far as I know, the only way to change a party is if the people leading the party decide to change things, or you have new people in charge with a goal of changing things. It's only undemocratic if the party runs itself like a monarchy or a plutocracy or something. If the party leaders choose amongst themselves who leads the party, it's undemocratic. If the party members choose the direction of the party, it's democratic.
#opdeny270 , check it out people. Get involved.
eom
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho
Presidential emphasis
A small bit of data: the reason the greens and others put so much emphasis on the presidential elections is that the current legal environment around ballot access kind of requires it. Many states will only list party candidates for parties that participate in the presidential election. Given limited resources, it makes a lot of sense to run a national campaign every four years and get the economies of scale that result.
We can’t save the world by playing by the rules, because the rules have to be changed.
- Greta Thunberg
Thank you.
Puts that argument to rest.
"I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.” —Malcolm X
That's an important piece of information.
When did all these disgusting ballot access rules get put into law? I'm guessing sometime between 1984 and 1996.
"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
Local elections are generally non-partisan
...and the Green Party has mostly walked away from local elections.
So OK how do you explain this?
http://www.gp.org/officeholders
Does this look like "walk(ing) away from local elections" to you?
“The Democrats and Republicans want you to believe they are mortal enemies engaged in a desperate struggle when all the time, they are partners with a power-sharing agreement.” - Richard Moser
Yes it does. Look again.
Most are in California, and nearly all of those are in Northern California, and nearly all of those are in the Bay Area. Yeah, there's a few outliers in Arcata (college town) and the Green Triangle (pot country, not the party). In Berkeley, which at one point had more Greens than Republicans, we've got 2 rent board commissioners. Whoopee. Oh, and one (1) guy on the AC Transit board. Double whoopee.
Oakland? Zip. San Francisco (which nearly elected a Green mayor some years back)? Zilch. Zero. Nada.
Do we EVER see Green candidates out organizing, walking precincts, talking to voters? Nope. Or doing, actually, anything whatsoever? Uh uh. Dream on.
And this at a time when San Francisco, Oakland and Berkeley are all under assault by corporate real estate developers (supported by corporate Democrats), who are tearing down everything in sight so they can throw up more instant high rise luxury apartment blocks for techies. We're talking major housing affordability crisis here, but the Greens are nowhere to be found.
Now look at that list again. See the links for each name? Try going there. "The page you were looking for was not found." Yes, they don't even bother to put any info on their website, and how much effort does that take? Lame. Beyond lame.
So how do you explain all that?
As I've suggested in a diary you might have seen --
You know, the one posted at the top of this page by me -- there really aren't that many Greens in the US, and the fact of who the Greens in the US are is to be blamed not on the Greens themselves but rather upon the preponderance of activists who deserted them for an idea of taking over the Democratic Party which hasn't worked out.
The Greens, then, are the people who stuck with the concept when everyone else deserted it, and they, which is to say the damned few who haven't deserted the Green ideal of governing according to values (ten of them, as I recall), haven't walked away from local elections. There just simply aren't enough of them to run in the vast majority of places, or for that matter to spend any time updating their websites.
You are simply assuming Greens who don't exist.
“The Democrats and Republicans want you to believe they are mortal enemies engaged in a desperate struggle when all the time, they are partners with a power-sharing agreement.” - Richard Moser
Time and money
One of the things I've taken away from this my first election cycle is that if I can afford to give a few bucks a month to Bernie, then maybe I can give the same amount to a national and/or state party every month when things are less "exciting". The duopoly parties have full time employees doing the everyday work required of politics, so to provide a credible opposition, we need to do the same thing.
Also, it's a kind of job creation that does something socially useful!
We can’t save the world by playing by the rules, because the rules have to be changed.
- Greta Thunberg
This is very, very important
and it's the main thing I learned from Bernie's campaign too. I didn't know we still had that much buying power.
I hope we still do after the next crash.
"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
my analysis
Th Greens were murdered by the Nader 2000 propaganda campaign. The Reform Party, which could have been a path for "good government conservatives" failed when Perot ran again in 1996, turning the Reforms into a vanity project. The Bernie movement is failing because he refused to revolt totally a la Hiram Johnson / TR. Right now it looks like game over, but if Hillary really destroys the Democrats that'll leave a vacuum for the Berniecrats like the Know Nothings left for the Republicans.
On to Biden since 1973
No incumbents
If we can't beat em, lets at least bankrupt them. Never vote for any incumbent. No matter who they are. Term limits grassroots style. Force the Billionaire class to buy off a whole new set of politicians every 2 years.
They're bound to get hives from coughing up more and more money every election.
Campaign finance reform grassroots style.t
And while we're at it, divide and conquer the TBTF banks by isolating each and directing our vengence on only one, such as the one bank who took the largest bailout first.
Disinvest. Bankrupt. Then move to the next one.
Banking reform grassroots style.
Of course, the American people will have to unite before any of this can happen.
And there lies our problem.
Neither Russia nor China is our enemy.
Neither Iran nor Venezuela are threatening America.
Cuba is a dead horse, stop beating it.
I love Kate Aronoff!
A truly brave, original, outside the box thinker. America's punditocracy could definitely use more like her.
We are so incredibly fortunate to have gutsy millennial writers like Kate who are courageous enough to commit such incendiary and seditious thoughts to paper (or hard drive), that lesser mainstream hacks are too timid to entertain even within the privacy of their own skulls.
inactive account
What If:
What if we want to end perpetual war and the militarization of police? What if we want to end the hollowing out of government? What if we want fair trade agreements instead of cheap labor agreements?
And what, exactly, is Hillary going to do about Global Warming? Depend on the placebo effect?
Sorry. Not buying what Kate is selling. What she says sounds nice, but it's not true.
Hillary's ideology feeds the root problems that Drumpf would to bring to fruition.
“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu
Agree With You Completely
The above comments about Aronoff were intended strictly as snark, although I realize that doesn't always come through clearly in Internet communications. Personally, I think it is a highly dubious and debatable proposition that, when you tally up all the pros and cons, Clinton would be any less of a disaster as president than Trump. Moreover, the argument that you can make important headway in the fight against corrupt and malevolent oligarchs by aligning yourself with the (supposedly) less evil faction is getting pretty threadbare after decades in which the alleged lesser evil inexorably seems to give way to progressively more destructive and malignant evil. The way to defeat evil is to fight evil, not reinforce it. Thankfully there seems to be a growing number of millennials who fully understand this, even if Ms. Aronoff does not.
inactive account
Sat, 10/01/2016 - 8:15pm —
Sat, 10/01/2016 - 8:15pm — mouselander
The reason why corporate hacks/writers desperate to keep their jobs promote 'Vote Evil' - people aren't falling for it anymore.
You can fool enough of the people enough of the time only so many times before they start going 'Hey, this ain't working!'
And all the Queen's soldiers and all the Queen's pens
Are fin'ly unable to con them again.
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
Hillary ain't gonna do shit about global warming.
"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
Hillary has air conditioning
Hillary has air conditioning - Hillary shits on the very idea of global warming.
Anyway, she plans to make enough really big bucks off the Presidency to have the slave-wage peasants of the nation knit her a new globe, one that breathes nicely, even when right up against the skin.
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
Linky-poo
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/20/clinton-hasnt-won-...
“The Democrats and Republicans want you to believe they are mortal enemies engaged in a desperate struggle when all the time, they are partners with a power-sharing agreement.” - Richard Moser
Jill Stein is our best choice in 2016
I will NOT vote for lesser of 2 evils, and Jill Stein is the only candidate running who fairly represents me in 2016. She has my vote.
In terms of longer range planning for the Left, my experience with the local Green Party has been very disheartening. They are doing nothing to support Jill Stein and seem interested only in working for candidates for school board or county commissioner in areas dominated by the Tea Party. Trying to discuss with them suggestions for building alliances with other progressives and for thinking tactically and strategically about growth leads nowhere.
I think that the Left has to push for a new 3rd Party after this Presidential election. This effort should attempt to unite a broad base of progressive left forces. Trying to transform the Green Party will probably yield no greater success than trying to build a revolution inside the counterrevolutionary Democratic Party.
The number of independents, Millennials and those disaffected from the 2-party system is probably at a 100-year high. We have to build on this common ground in order to create a viable 3rd party force going forward.
It's true we need a leader. For my part, if Jill Stein were to be that leader I would support her (but not within the existing Green framework which is a pathetic non-party).
I'm also interested in other Bernie-crats. I know that Nina Turner contemplated a switch and then stayed with the Dems, but perhaps this is not a forever-after position on her part. Zephyr Teachout will have the same experience as Obama if she wins on this round and then makes a national run.
It will be key to form a strategy and a set of principles around which these forces can unite. Strategic leadership during this formative period does not require those with national political experience. If successful in forming this type of unity, a leader will emerge.
So for me the question of strategic leadership in building grounds for unity requires bold and clear thought leaders (there are a few on this page) and those with strong tactical experience -- from Occupy and the Bernie movement We can do this!
When Jill Stein says that the only thing stopping a lot of people from voting for her is fear of not being strong enough, she argues that if all of us who felt that way voted, we could win. She is right -- we have nothing to lose but our chains -- including those that are self-imposed.
MsDidi, what gives you reason to believe --
this:
It would be impressive if we were to have an activist of Nina Turner's caliber on our side.
“The Democrats and Republicans want you to believe they are mortal enemies engaged in a desperate struggle when all the time, they are partners with a power-sharing agreement.” - Richard Moser
Yes but
When Jill uses the phrase American Empire to describe the MIC... and I agree with her... if every voter heard her speak on American Empire, at least 70% would tune out as soon as the words American Empire were uttered.
As a sometime campaign manager, its that kind of message discipline that makes me cringe.
And yet the majority of voters think we should not be the worlds policeman. They think we could easily close a few military bases. And do we really need 10 aircraft carriers? When 8 would do.....or 6?
FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.
Green much better than many believe
My experience with brief volunteering for the Greens: I went to volunteer at a local Green party meeting. We were trying to sort out petitions for Jill Stein and correct the data base (my first ever volunteering effort- previously only gave campaign contributions to progressives including Bernie's run). At the time of the volunteer meet up Jill needed another 10k signatures and the deadline for submission was just 2 days away. The local organizer/coordinator was quite upbeat that it could be done. I was able to get a handful of people to sign a petition. They even had someone come in and notarize the petition. And the optimism was not misplaced and the Greens have done it not only in my state but also many other states. It appears that the Green party is on the ballot in over 45 states. That requires some organizing capacity.
I left my contact info with them. I was contacted regularly when important events happened (CNN town hall meeting for a watch party, Jill coming to visit the city, etc).
If Jill and Ajamu get some traction during this election, the future of the party will get much brighter both locally and nationally. The platform and policies are universal and has commonality with Greens in other countries too. All true progressives should be able to support them IMO.
Go Green!
The Greens have always been strong in ballot access drives.
And hopefully you are in an area where the Greens are strong politically as well, and if you are, guard it like it was the Fountain of Youth.
“The Democrats and Republicans want you to believe they are mortal enemies engaged in a desperate struggle when all the time, they are partners with a power-sharing agreement.” - Richard Moser
A very large problem
for the Green Party in trying to attain political relevance, is embedded in its very name, and all the associative baggage it entails. The vast majority of Americans are not now, and are not likely soon to be, particularly attracted to or primarily interested in environmentally-focused issues. To attain a broader-based constituency, the focus of a future movement needs to be elsewhere. MsDidi is absolutely right:
But this force must encompass a much wider array of political opinion than a purely "green" philosophy can possibly encompass. I think it would need to also attract, and to address the concerns of many culturally "conservative" citizens, as well as those of cultural "progressives". Bernie Sanders' campaign provided a provisional template for how this might be accomplished. It focused on economics, not on environmentalism. It was inclusive rather than dogmatic, tolerant rather than doctrinaire.
It was not primarily about gay rights, or women's rights, or black rights, or animal rights, or any other divisive issue - it was primarily about economic justice - and about how the US government has been systematically eroding it for the past forty years.
I plan to vote for Jill Stein, for lack of a better alternative. I also agree with nearly all of her proposals. But I hold very little hope for the future of the Green Party. Its foundations may be philosophically sound, but they are rather too abstract, and too open to debate. Its goal of becoming widely accepted as a practical alternative to the D/R establishment is not IMO, realistic.
native
It's not "environmenatally-focused issues."
There's nothing about the Green Party that is "particularly attracted to or primarily interested in environmentally-focused issues." Please find out about Donna Warren:
http://www.greens.org/s-r/39/39-11.html
(I know this is ten years old but my experience with the GP is all old. Hopefully Donna is OK and she's got her weight situation under control...)
No, what's wrong with the Green Party is that it's a reaction to having been deserted by all the other activists, who somehow continue in the great faith that someday and somehow they're going to take over the Democratic Party. Yo, if the Populists couldn't do it with William Jennings Bryan in 1908, what makes you all think you'll do it in 2020?
“The Democrats and Republicans want you to believe they are mortal enemies engaged in a desperate struggle when all the time, they are partners with a power-sharing agreement.” - Richard Moser
Maybe so, but the name "Green"
is not well-chosen. It is culturally restrictive, and it alienates a large pool of potential allies... including many "fundie/christiian" rednecks who, in spite of their previously misguided loyalties, are beginning to see the light.
And using the word "Green" as the primary identifier for a hopefully inclusive, and organized new political Party would be a fatal error. It has worked somewhat in Germany and Scandanavia, but it won't work in the USA. Au contraire.
"Green" is a pejorative term for so many millions of potential anti-war, anti-corporatist allies... Green is a politically deleterious word in the USA, a divisive and self-limiting word, and IMO the "Green Party" would need a fundamental transformation in order to expand much beyond its current ranks.
native
Wow, that's kinda weird!
Wow, that's kinda weird! Around here, (in Canada) the Green movement and the Green Party has been/is a very positive thing for virtually everyone I knew/know (don't get out much anymore) or encounter where either is mentioned, essential for any hope of our survival. You'd think those fighting the warmongers and corporations in America would be into both...
Edit: somehow lost, and replaced, a letter.
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
Canada ain't the USA.
Not by a long shot.
native
You have a parliamentary system.
We don't.
"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
Pejorative Is In The Eye Of The Beholder
"Green" is only pejorative to climate change deniers and Ditto heads. We can define how The Greens are defined and portrayed by becoming The Greens.
"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
So says the dogmatist.
The "eye of the beholder" is what politics is all about. You want to try to focus attention on "Emergency Emergency! Climate Climate!" well good luck with that. Casting aspersions on "climate change deniers" gets us exactly nowhere.
It doesn't matter whether someone "believes" in climate change or not. It doesn't matter whether someone "believes"' in Jesus or not. Or guns, or whatever, ad infinitum. These kinds of disagreements are exactly what the PTB use to drive otherwise amicable Americans apart. We need to find and focus on what we, the 99%, do agree on.
native
So, if it were the Workingman's Lunchpail Party
would you have a problem because it sounds too red? And thus, should we also abandon economic issues? Or is it only a problem because environmental issues are unpopular? And is that even true?
I guess what I'm saying is: what big "center" are you chasing? Is it real? and if so, should we even be chasing it? And if so, what does that even mean? What specific concessions do we need to make to be part of the big majority? And what data is all this based on?
Too often, people have this argument as if there's two choices: "Abandon your silly ideas, you purist dogmatist, and join hands with Joe and Jenny Sixpack in a really big, huge majority, and then you'll succeed." Or else, "Stick to your ideas because they're sacred, and exclude everyone who disagrees with even one of them, because those people are evil!" Neither side of that argument sounds like functional politics to me.
If we stick to only the people who follow every jot and tittle of the Leftist's Code of Social, Economic, and Environmental Goodness, we probably won't succeed, because sooner or later someone will disagree about the code and go off in a huff. Even if we could get large numbers of people in at first, it's an unstable model, which will inevitably focus on endless internal disagreements. It's very easy to sabotage such a movement by starting said disagreements, too.
However, Reagan-era assumptions about what the big part of the bell curve wants are useless. Not a lot of really good work is done finding out what those people want, so one generally has to proceed by looking at what they hate (though an interesting nugget came up this year, in that 47% of the people are apparently willing to vote for a socialist president, and only 50% are unwilling). What 55-60% of Americans hate is--Hillary and Trump, and the system that produced them. They hate the corruption, the lies, and the lack of political representation. They hate the divisive, crazy-sounding ranting and hateful attacks on specific groups. Trust of the candidates, both political parties, and the media, is in the toilet.
Really, the best thing to do would be to do more research on what people actually want, but failing the resources to do that, you could do worse than to have an anti-corruption party. The hatred of corruption is so great that Americans for Prosperity is now running attack ads on Patrick Murphy that focus on his cozy ties with special interests--they're talking to conservative-leaning FL swing voters, and they're running attack ads on corruption. That is telling.
Or you could take a risk and have a full platform, but understand that you're not going to have absolute agreement on every issue, and that's OK. Either way would be good, but above all, if you're working off 20th-century assumptions about what you need to get people on board, ditch them now. Bernie had no problem talking about the environment, and he drew tens of millions.
"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
These people must have another Earth tucked away somewhere
First off, I don't get why focusing on economics is inclusive
while focusing on environmentalism is "doctrinaire." The American Mothers' Clean Water party could be very inclusive, while the Communist Workingman's Anti-Exploitation Party could be very doctrinaire. You're very certain about which issues are Bad for Majorities and which good.
However, even if I assume you're right about that, you're drawing some very weird lessons from Bernie's campaign. If anything, Bernie proved, as Cornel West said, that you can get large numbers of white West Virginians cheering in support of Black Lives Matter, as long as they know that you are fighting for them where it counts.
So, where does it count?
I'd argue that Bernie's campaign was not focused first on economics, but on corruption: he built his campaign on the fact that "the millionaires and billionaires" have bought our government and get whatever they want, while the little guy is left helpless; his constant phrase "this campaign is listening to...." implied that he and his campaign offered representation to the little guy. And he was sincere enough that people believed him. Economics was, of course, explicitly involved in the discussion of corruption, and also in the discussion of what a system that actually represented people would provide--but the core of the message was "This system is corrupt. It only represents the very wealthy. My campaign listens to you."
"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 think there will be new parties.
The DSCC and the DCCC managed to sideline a number of very capable and ambitious people this season. Does anyone think that Alan Greyson is going to go away and dry in a corner somewhere? What about Donna Edwards? These people and others have national reputations and national followings.
I think the days when a group of committed activists could take over someone else's org will soon be over; non-profits are getting very nervous about and very aware of "entryism". There has even been a big discussion of this phenomenon among permaculturalists, of all people.
Mary Bennett
The two-party spell has become so powerful --
that it's entirely imaginable that everyone excluded by Clinton's web of connections and quid-pro-quo arrangements would just disappear, forever, simply because the orders went out.
Has any attempt been made to organize the disaffected just yet?
“The Democrats and Republicans want you to believe they are mortal enemies engaged in a desperate struggle when all the time, they are partners with a power-sharing agreement.” - Richard Moser
There were plenty of dirty tricks in the down ballot
primaries, not just at presidential level.
It would not surprise me at all if information documenting those tricks were not right now making its' subterranean way to the desks of the relevant congressional committees and to federal prosecutors--watch to see if President H moves to quickly fire certain prosecutors.
Mary Bennett
Oh jeez. Permaculturists?
Of all the places where you should want people, lots of people, to join your movement!
"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
Not really
Organic gardening and farming organizations have been under sustained attack from corporate, especially biotech, interests for at least the last two decades. A known biotech provocateur showed up at the big heirloom vegetable festival in Sonoma this summer, for example, and, for the first time in the festival's six years, Sonoma Cty. health inspectors were there too, handing out fines to farmers who gave away tastes of tomatoes and apples. Amazing coincidence, right?
I am not a permaculturist--requires too much initial investment for a rented yard--but I am an organic gardener who has learned a lot from the permies. I don't think the permies want to be a mass movement. Rather, I think they hope to be a kind of teaching minority, showing the chemically addicted world another path to abundance.
Mary Bennett
I have said this before, but-
If enough Demexiters, Berniecrats, Independent Bernie supporters, et al, jumped to the Greens, we would vastly outnumber the "Establishment Greens" and essentially become a new Green Party. At that point, any deficiencies in the Greens' approach could be directly attributable to whether or not we got off our asses and corrected them.
Any and all arguments about whether the Greens are worthy or not have got to be making them smile over there at TOS. Great waste of time for us, plenty of divisive arguments to be had, and no actual strategic planning to help us push the Greens forward. I find it sad how many of us have already decided the Greens have no chance, but it sounds as though years of marginalization may have left many pre-existing Greens with the same opinion. The Doctrine of Inevitability apparently not only covers Her Royal Clinton, but the Great Donkey as well. Are we truly incapable of push-back on more than one bullshit "inevitability" at a time?
The Greens need help with strategy and tactics, but most of all they need help. If they were more focused on the message of forgiving student debt, they really could win a plurality.
And I personally don't believe any of the carefully edited polls, either. Would that be the same polls that always had Bernie down by many points, just before he won? -Except now they've decided to start cutting Millenials right out of the respondents, especially on polls including the Greens. Easier to keep the poll numbers where our Betters want them, that way.
Seriously, people. We are still wallowing in the disappointment of seeing Bernie get openly robbed, and the Dem establishment getting away with it. The Greens are in most states our best bet for sending a message, even if not a mandate. It is a message that needs to be sent.
This primary has been not so much a loss, as a cowardly attack from behind. Yeah it hurts. But it doesn't make us slaves to the Pharoahs of Donkeyland. Get up. Walk it off. Rub some dirt in it. Now get angry if it helps. -But get determined again.
Get yourself a list of Green talking points, and call everyone in your phone book. Email your address-book. Post about it on Social Media until the Hillbots get TIRED of "correcting" you. Talk to strangers, face-to-face, calmly and respectfully. BE the media balance that we lack.
We are nearly to the general. AFTER the polls close would be the time to collapse, regroup, reflect and rethink the long-term. Yeah, and cry if you want. NOW would be the time to put one foot in front of the other, and slip your game-face back on. Almost there. Imagine the surprise of the Great Donkey, when we get back up, and hurt them.
"Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men for the nastiest of motives will somehow work for the benefit of all."
- John Maynard Keynes
Were you in Houston this August?
And, if so, how did it go?
Is your record of running for public office as a Green anywhere near as interesting as that of, say, Howie Hawkins?
If the answer to both of these questions is "no," then perhaps this response will help.
Doing this "correction" actually requires some sort of showing up for meetings and running them. The sectarians probably still have the power to pull off nonsense like 2004 in Milwaukee. Don't be surprised if your friends become exasperated by the nonsense the Greens call "procedure."
There are too few Greens to convey any message at all at this point. Did you really call everyone in the phone book, and if so, how many of them actually knew who Jill Stein was?
“The Democrats and Republicans want you to believe they are mortal enemies engaged in a desperate struggle when all the time, they are partners with a power-sharing agreement.” - Richard Moser
Let's see, where to start?
No I was not in Houston in August, I was still a Berniecrat, I suppose. I have never run for public office of any sort. I have been a foot-soldier for a few campaigns over the years.
I didn't say call everyone in THE phone book, I said in YOUR phone book. Networking, not cold-calling. Important distinction.
Do I think the Greens are an ultimate solution? Maybe not. I just finished reading about that nonsense with Cobb gaming the rules. So maybe that Green cottage would take too much work to put right. But RIGHT NOW, do you have a better alternative? I find myself in agreement with their platform more than 95% of the time. Clinton and Trump and Johnson drop that to only about 2% agreement, and that's only if we assume that the first two are telling the truth about ANYTHING.
Seriously, Cassiodorus, if you have a drop-in replacement party revved up and ready to go, on the ballot in almost all states THIS YEAR, with wall-to-wall, superior propaganda to the Majors, blaring from every media outlet, then sure, count me in, but I am forced to play the hand I'm dealt. Stein is the only vote I can imagine casting without being forced to amputate my hand afterwards from shame.
I agree completely with you that strategy is needed long-term, and I am down with that, but the Left is also in a shambles, tactically, and has been for years. Here's where I think we are strategically, this election season. We are like the crossbowmen at Crecy, that were ridden down by their own side, so that impatient French knights could go crush the numerically inferior, exhausted English. That didn't work out so well, but there we are. The grunts, ridden down by our Betters, for being in their glorious and noble path, and keeping those important people from their destined victory.
If there is anything about being in that position that seems strategically, or tactically well-thought-out and perfect, please enlighten me. I regard this election cycle as a complete cock-up. We were ready to give battle in good order, and then the backstabbing.
At this point, until we are DONE with this election cycle, I'm left with only one imperative: hurt the haughty, arrogant, elite swine in any way that I legally can, with whatever broken weapons are to hand. And the best weapon I see presently is the Green Party. I could post a pamphlet's worth of critique on the Greens, past and future, but it wouldn't help strike at the Democrats, NOW.
We are out of time. The perfect is the enemy of the good. Talk to me this winter about forging something new and superior. We should start planning for the mid-terms this December. -And thanks for bringing this subject up. It has been on my mind a LOT lately. But it's late, and sleep beckons. Maybe I'll post an essay.
"Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men for the nastiest of motives will somehow work for the benefit of all."
- John Maynard Keynes
I'm not saying you're wrong on this --
but I am saying that it's a pretty steep climb upward from the hole America has dug itself.
“The Democrats and Republicans want you to believe they are mortal enemies engaged in a desperate struggle when all the time, they are partners with a power-sharing agreement.” - Richard Moser
We Can Give The Greens All The Help They Need
Nothing here that 25-50 c99%ers in each state can't fix.
"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
Unless we've got a huge silent majority
Almost everyone at C99 already has decided to vote for Stein. There's no job of persuasion to be done on that point.
And I'm sure we're talking to our family and friends, at least I am.
However, the idea that we're supposed to mount a full-on campaign effort right now: door-knocking, phonebanking, etc-- while good in theory, is completely impractical. You have exhausted, demoralized, and broken troops who have lived under the doctrine of "Get up. Walk it off. Rub some dirt in it" for the past 35 years, and have had nothing but further exhausting, demoralizing, heartbreaking losses for their trouble. We have no Houses of Healing for our people when they're wounded. Hell, we don't even have field medics. And we have no record of gritty successes from our Spartan-like fighting attitude.
I get what you want to do, but it's not gonna happen. People are focusing on the mid- and long-term because they have basically given up on any electoral goal other than trying to get Stein to 5%.
"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
Which is a worthwhile goal.
"I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.” —Malcolm X
Completely in agreement.
That's why I'm trying to convince people in my personal circle to vote for Stein.
"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
asdf
If enough Demexiters, Berniecrats, Independent Bernie supporters, et al, jumped to the Greens, we would vastly outnumber the "Establishment Greens" and essentially become a new Green Party.
Possibly, but then we'd be fighting for control of an existing fiefdom, which involves massively alienating whoever has been there since the late 80s, or even since last year, probably. If we won, those people would leave in bitterness and not come back.
Fighting to take control of an effort which has consistently failed is another problem: difficult to rally people behind something which has already been proven not to work. Your idea that we could remake it and make it work is a good one, if true--but since I don't know why the Greens have failed, apart from being comparatively poor and having an entire media and all the resources of the Democratic party against them (which would be true of us too) I don't know if we could.
And I'm not sure that going back to yet another 20th-century party is a great idea, for all that I am voting for Stein and encouraging others to do so. What we've been trying to figure out, in the discussion of Cass' diaries, is whether it's worth the effort to take over this fiefdom.
"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
Why the Greens have failed
Because their focus is the environment and military spending which are marginal issues to most voters. People are primarily concerned with bread and butter issues which the Greens do not address. The greens are an upper middle class party.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
So what's the reason the other 39 third parties have failed?
Perhaps it has less to do with messaging and more to do with not possessing any significant means of dissemination.
Which is not to say that the Green's messaging is kickass, wonderful, spot-on messaging--just, I doubt that's the main reason they've failed. If we took over the Greens, renamed them, reinvented their messaging, would we suddenly see success? I doubt it. We're facing some fundamental structural problems.
The only third party since 1992 that has attained any notice at all is the Libertarians, and it's sporadic at best; I tend to assume they can achieve visibility (at least sporadically) because they have some billionaires that agree with them. After all, Charles and David Koch were libertarians before they successfully took over half the Republican party.
And even the Libertarian's visibility ain't all that:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/194162/third-party-candidates-johnson-stein-l...
When over 60% of America doesn't know who you are, your enemies needn't worry about the content of your messaging.
"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 a solution to being unknown.
Third parties like to run for President or Senator. That takes big bucks and name recognition.
Here in IL, the Green's have candidates for Pres and Senate but not for Congress (at least not in my district) nor for state Senate or State rep. They do have candidates for the Cook County water district but are doomed to failure because 80% of the vote is in Chicago and hence in the Machine's pocket. It's as if they like to tout running for high office on their resumes but not so interested in actually winning or party building. At the lower level you don't need TV advertising and politics are more retail. But it's hard work. Once you have a record in the State Assembly or as village Mayorthen you aim for Congress. Once you have a record in Congress then you aim for the Senate or for Governor and become a credible Presidential candidate.
I'm voting for Jill Stein, but it's a protest vote because she is NOT any more qualified to run the government than Trump or me. In fact, because I worked in the Federal Government for 13 years, I am MORE qualified than she is to deal with Defense procurement issues.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
Actually, I think she is more qualified than Trump.
Both the major party candidates look like sociopaths to me, so that makes them automatically less qualified than anyone with basic good intentions toward this country and its people.
I think you're right in your focus on the local, but simply running candidates is likely not to cut it. Building infrastructure is necessary. Campaigning can be part of that, but there must be other simultaneous community-building and public service going on. This may sound weird, but I think the Black Panthers are a good role model for that, even though they didn't focus primarily on getting elected (there were a few instances, but I don't think that was the main focus).
Apparently they called their efforts "Survival till Revolution." I like that. I think it's a good place to start.
"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
Pretty much the same reason
Being a single issue party.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
i dissagree
The Greens have failed because they have planned and executed a strategy to stay a niche party.
FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.
Please expand on this.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
** yawn **
Step 1: abandon the Greens
Step 2: blame the Greens for being small
“The Democrats and Republicans want you to believe they are mortal enemies engaged in a desperate struggle when all the time, they are partners with a power-sharing agreement.” - Richard Moser
Have you ever run a campaign?
Have you ever attended a political campaign training, such as Camp Wellstone, DFA Training of the Working Families Party one day training?
Have you ever worked for a non profit concentrating on a single issue?
Do you know GPUS member Ted Glick who ran for the US Senate in NJ?
Have you ever used campaign database platforms like Tailblazer? Or NGP VAN?
FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.
Whatev.
I do know Ted Glick, though. Feel free at any point to actually share your fund of knowledge with members of the Green Party, 'kay?
“The Democrats and Republicans want you to believe they are mortal enemies engaged in a desperate struggle when all the time, they are partners with a power-sharing agreement.” - Richard Moser
Yeah, I do too. Chesapeake Climate Action Network.
I unsubscribed from his list when he wrote a disgusting, finger-shaking, "You nasty little Berniecrats, you'd DAMN WELL VOTE FOR HILLARY" article.
Apparently he didn't really mean what he said in all those anti-fracking protests.
"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
Same guy?
"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 have to imagine.
As I've suggested above, the Democratic Party is the most divisive issue within the Green Party. NB: My understanding of a fair number of these people is OLD, having been somewhat disillusioned by the whole scene after 2004 for reasons I've gone over here as well.
“The Democrats and Republicans want you to believe they are mortal enemies engaged in a desperate struggle when all the time, they are partners with a power-sharing agreement.” - Richard Moser
"the effort to take over this fiefdom" inside outside
That has been Bernie's game from the start, attack outside agitate inside. I love that guy. The talk about organizing reminds me again of Wellstone's triad: Paul Wellstone @ 3m54s
Marginalized, yeah. The entire electoral side has been consumed by money I think. Bernie's Our Revolution has a teaching element I like, better teachers than bankers representing. Good luck everyone trying to hang on above poverty while the elections play out. I got so much nothin' it ain't funny. Peace
Today is Gandhi's birthday. who inspired King, and Mandela, and Biko.
Hey USA thirty years later who matters? Democrats have FAILED to protect their own constituents.
I'm out.
And now he's on Hillary's team.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
If they were more focused on the message of
decent jobs for ALL Americans, they really could win a plurality.
Forgiving student debt falls cold on blue collar workers who shift their allegiance to Trump because he talks about bringing jobs back from China and reducing immigration to cut the pool of unemployed. You know, the real unemployed, that pool of 40% who "voluntarily" removed themselves from the job market.
When the best your children can hope for is a minimum wage part-time job without benefits and Social Security at age 80 if they live so long, people aren't going to be excited about LBGT rights or Global Warming or forgiving student debt.
It takes a coalition and sadly only the crazy Republican candidate even pretends to care about jobs.
Bernie Sanders did, but even he focused on middle class jobs.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
Your point is well-taken, but premature.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/194162/third-party-candidates-johnson-stein-l...
If over 65% of America doesn't know who you are, they aren't going to give a damn what your message is, because they won't know it. There's no widespread alienation from Stein and the Green Party due to their bad priorities, because 68% of the people don't know what those priorities even are.
"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
Exactly!
And here I'd like to put in another plug for my diary, conveniently located at the top of this page...
“The Democrats and Republicans want you to believe they are mortal enemies engaged in a desperate struggle when all the time, they are partners with a power-sharing agreement.” - Richard Moser
I read it!
(confused?)
"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
That was mostly meant for TVitW
Sorry.
“The Democrats and Republicans want you to believe they are mortal enemies engaged in a desperate struggle when all the time, they are partners with a power-sharing agreement.” - Richard Moser
Pages