Democrat or Green?

**"Mad" Miles** · 06-03-2006 01:10 PM

Most of the endorsements on this thread have been for Democratic Party nominees. I wrote something back in 2003 about why I long ago gave up on the Dems and currently am a Green. Reply privately if you would like to read a copy. It's dated to that time but still relevant.

Suffice it to say that I think the Dems sold out long ago to the same forces that run the Republicans. Mainstream electoral politics is primarily a shell game. We need a viable alternative to the same old, same old and I see the Green Party as offering that hope. And yes, I've heard all the raving about how Nader spoiled Gore and Kerry's chances to beat Bush.

Balderdash. Just research the numbers and they will put pay to that myth. Plus how do you spoil what's already rotten?

Those clinging to the hope that the Democratic Party will find its backbone have not been paying attention. That or they are living in a collective fantasy world that has no connection to the last thirty years of American (U.S.) electoral history.

New birth and rebirth are painful, but if you don't affirm the values and goals that you care about, and you continue to vote for the "evil of two lessers" (Nader? Hightower? Can't recall the proper attribution.) you'll keep getting what we've got, a show of democracy in which the choices are so pre-ordained and constricted that they are not real choices at all.

I do support local Dems like Noreen Evans, Lynn Woolsey, Mike Reilly and Debra (sp?) Fudge. Local politics allows a level of connection and scrutiny that permits real choices. We are lucky to live in a place like Sonoma County where the electorate, and some of the people running for office, are so well educated, sympathetic to everday people and are not blinded by our national myths.

Once you get to the State and National levels, it's the money, PAC's, handlers, spin doctors and "lowest common denominator statistical polling strategy politics" that continue to replicate this system riding towards a monstrous fall. (Peak Oil? Ecosystem Collapse? Global Warming? Toxics in the food chain? Immiseration leading to societal chaos and collapse, 6/6/06? All of the above? Pick your poison!!!)

If you want elected officials who care about more than serving their corporate masters and are answerable to their constituents, not just their major donors, then please consider the Green Party. Websites for the county, state and national levels of the Party are easy to find with any search engine.

I hope everyone's having fun at the picnic! Apologies for the dour notes.

"Mad" Miles

**Dixon** · 06-04-2006 04:45 AM

No need to apologize for the dour notes, Miles; you were layin' down some important truths.

The ruling one-party-disguised-as-two-party system, the Replublicrats, are suckering most folks with a classic "good cop, bad cop", or "Mutt and Jeff" game. One "party" plays the scary bad cop, the other one plays the marginally nicer "good" cop, and together they manipulate the public to keep the crooked system chugging along lucratively.

So many times I've had to laugh (through my tears) at seeing "progressive" voters support corrupt planet-raping crooks and then wonder why things don't get better. It was sadly hilarious to see John "Let's stay in Iraq and send 40,000 more troops" Kerry being seen as some kind of peace candidate! Both the Democratic bigwigs and their buddies, the Republican bigwigs, must have been laughing their asses off at that one!

I can still remember so many of my starry-eyed friends saying "When we get Clinton in office things will be so much better!" Haw haw! What a corrupt political hack! And his wife is just as bad. How sad to see so many people treat Hilary as some kind of progressive hope. I swear, some women will vote for anything with a clitty instead of a weewee--and they don't even think of themselves as sexist! I guess they were real impressed with Margaret Thatcher.

And now people are getting worked up over Al "Electoral fraud? What electoral fraud?" Gore. Too bad his history shows another corrupt hack who flip-flops in whatever direction is politically expedient. Do you all remember the wonderful improvements this crusader sparked in his 8 years as Vice President? Me neither! Haw haw haw! Stop, you're killin' me!

Wake up and smell the stench, liberals! The system is not going to present us with any progressive candidates among the front-runners, at least not at the state and federal levels. People like Kerry, Gore and both Clintons would never have achieved their positions if they weren't solidly on board with the ruling class agenda. The Democratic Party, at least at those high levels, is NOT OUR FRIEND--they're just the "good cop" in the con game. As long as we continue to vote for the (slightly) lesser of 2 evils, we guarantee that evil will always be in power.

Cheers;
Dixon

Posted in reply to the post by "Mad" Miles:

Most of the endorsements on this thread have been for Democratic Party nominees. I wrote something back in 2003 about why I long ago gave up on the Dems and currently am a Green. Reply privately if you would like to read a copy. It's dated to that time but still relevant.

Suffice it to say that I think the Dems sold out long ago to the same forces that run the Republicans. {snip}

I hope everyone's having fun at the picnic! Apologies for the dour notes.

**"Mad" Miles** · 06-04-2006 01:05 PM

Thanks Helen S., Dixon and Nicole for your public comments and also those of you who have privately requested my 2004 (not 2003, my bad) piece on "Why I Won't Vote Democratic in 2004",

Nicole,

Your project, to reform the Democratic Party from within, has been tried, and has failed, time and time again.

I observed Tom Hayden and Jane Fonda's efforts in the seventies and early - mid-eighties in California; Campaign for Economic Democracy (CED). It got a few progressives and liberal-lefties elected in ripe districts. Wes Chesbro, Tom Hayden and others are some of the beneficiaries.

But overall it didn't accomplish its goals, which were to retake the Democratic Party of California for working people, women and those excluded due to their race or ethnicity. Strides were made, but we still got what we've got.

My sister and brother-in-law were very active in CED, they are still active in the CA Democratic Party and I have had many a good talk with my sister about The Dem's vs. The Green Party.

One of her views is that the reason the Democratic Party cannot stick to a specific set of principles is that there is no accountability for whoever calls the shots. Due to the lack of structure in the state party, no one has to keep their promises and people just let the prevailing winds take them wherever... Not having been the Democratic Party activist that she has been, I defer to her experience.

Your logic, that a party must be organizationally and electorally viable before you will invest your time and effort in it, is an argument for inertia.

Current electoral law; winner take all elections, closed primaries, lead to a "don't throw your vote away" calculation which means there will NEVER be a third party challenge to the Demoblicans/Republocrats. And that's the way those with a lock on political power like it and and want it to stay.

Most vote with their feet, by not voting. They know the game is rigged.

Until we break with this logic and vote for what we want, not just what we can get, we'll be trapped forever in the electoral margins.

I have no great faith in electoral politics in this country. I spend most of my political energy on issue organizing and working in the "demonstration culture". (When I have the time and money, which as a new public school teacher I have had little or none for the last three years) So, of course I have a critique of that arena of public life as well. I didn't read radical political and social theory AND ORGANIZE for the last thirty years to end up without any opinions on these matters!

Do What You Can. It's better to have tried and failed than never to have tried at all. Of course trying and WINNING is better.

A few of the movements I've invested effort in have made marginal gains. Sometimes the gains have been astonishingly positive. The movements are/were Anti-Nuclear Power and Weapons campaigns in the late seventies and early eighties, anti-Apartheid in South Africa Divestment campus groups in the late seventies and mid-eighties, anti-intervention in Central America efforts in the early to mid-eighties, environmental campaigns for Forest Defense, No Forced Pesticide Spraying in Sonoma County for the Glassy Winged Sharpshooter, etc. the list goes on.

None of these have resulted in clear victories, compromises were made, but so was progress or at the least the prevention of something worse that was being threatened. There are movements that I'm still sympathetic to that have lost ground, such as worker's organizing, Living Wage, the Equal Rights Amendment, Affirmative Action, environmental defense of wilderness, etc., etc..

I think of my activism as a tiny drop in the ocean of history. There have always been a few cranks like me around (a pretty high concentration in this area) and we are like society's spice. Sometimes enough of us get together to make a real difference, usually we just remind everyone else of what is wrong and how intractable the real problems are. That's why we're both respected and irritating!

I've long thought that there was a race between human consciousness/intelligence/love vs. the forces of habit/greed/stupidity-ignorance/the irrational. It's still going on, the second array appears to be winning and how it comes out is anyone's call. I'm hoping for a win by a nose for "the good guys." But I wouldn't be surprised by much of anything. And like most matters in life whatever happens will probably be an absurd gumbo of all of the above.

Politics is agonistic by nature. That's why so many reject it. Yet history is made by those who show up. If there is any hope for real political change through elections, at least we agree that a party representing the interests of: most people, the environment, social justice and peace, needs to exist, be viable and win elections.

I don't see that coming from the Democratic Party. It is what the Green Party stands for. Hence I'm in the Green Party.

Does that mean being in the Green Party is easy and that I get along with everyone in it? Yeah, right! But I walk in the direction that I want to go.

Time for me to skim the Sunday papers and get some grading done, this week is final's week and I've got to post end-of-semester grades by Friday!

Cheers,

"Mad" Miles

(The "Mad" because of all the political email that I forward every day, i.e. I'm a "mad" sharer of info. Anyone reading this who is not on the lists that I use is welcome to reply privately and I'll forward you something about those lists and how to get on, and off, them.)

sf_nicole · 06-04-2006 04:10 PM

Hi Miles,

As I mentioned before many of my views are more like the green party and I understand how people have become discouraged with the Democratic party or for that matter the political system in general.

But I am viewing this on a prioritized "Big Picture" scale. Right now the worst threat to the United States (In my opinion) is Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld or for those of you who can appreciate the religious irony - The Three Horsemen of the apocalypse.

I am only one person, so I am looking for a way to best use my talents to address the primary threat (and perhaps some other threats on the way there).

I agree that there needs to be run-off elections. I have believed that for more than 15 years. Without it we will never be more than a two party system and are dangerously close to being a one party Monarchy.

I have looked at the abundance of evidence posted on the internet about the 2000 and 2004 election and I am 100% convinced that the Republicans (and some conservative Democrats) now control the election system. They are beyond voter fraud and are working on a "Conspiracy to overthrow the United States Government" plan. If we do not take back our ability to choose our own representatives this country could very well experience a 2nd Civil War.

Right now (again in my opinion) The Green Party, which I like and respect, is in no position to act on the primary threats. The movement started by Howard Dean in the Democratic Party is. So that is where I am applying my effort - the place where I think it can do the most good.

I realize there is a long list of efforts to try and change both of the two parties. I do not think they have failed as much as they have become subject to Newton's third law. As the liberal's apply pressure, the conservatives become active and push back. But there are differences now, The Republican Party is being guided by the PNAC, a disturbing trend because they state that their ends justifies their means, also proving that a sub group within the big party can ultimately control the party. While at the same time we are loosing more and more voters (for any party) due to voter apathy.

The key here is for Progressive People (regardless of party) need to act. If you do not like the war, Protest it, I was two anti-war protest in Crescent City last year, one in a driving rain storm. How many have you ("you" here means anyone who is reading this) been in. (By the way, to all reading this, Keep me posted of your war protests, in Guerneville in particular, I would love to attend). If you think everyone should have health care take some type of action. If you think the President and his cronies should be evicted, protest that too.

As long as they have jobs and food most of the country sleeps, impervious to their impending doom. Without change your grandchildren (who will have no education, because their parents don't have one) will be the ones crossing the border at night to find jobs in another country. We are paying for a war with our future. I am really surprised that the streets are not full of angry people looking for politicians to string up.

Nicole Cook

Posted in reply to the post by "Mad" Miles:

Thanks Helen S., Dixon and Nicole for your public comments and also those of you who have privately requested my 2004 (not 2003, my bad) piece on "Why I Won't Vote Democratic in 2004",

Nicole,

Your project, to reform the Democratic Party from within, has been tried, and has failed, time and time again.

{snip}

soulange · 06-04-2006 07:00 PM

perhaps the biggest reason to vote democratic right now is al gore. with his new movie, he is showing that democrats do care.

other reasons, which nicole may have mentioned, but i will reiterate, is that the democratic party is the only party which has a pro-choice plank, the only party which is for civil unions (personally, i think all unions should be civil and leave marriage for religion), and, nominally for the little guy.

i don't disagree that on the national level, there's little difference between the parties, but on the local level, we do make a difference. someone mentioned that they're happy with noreen evans and lynn woolsey. who do you think helped elect those women? the local democratic central committees; by having a headquarters in which these women have offices, by registering voters and by getting out the vote.

**Sonomamark** · 06-04-2006 10:15 PM

Dixon, Miles, I strenuously disagree. A lot.

For one thing, Miles, I've looked at the 2000 numbers from Florida in painstaking detail, and you are simply flat wrong. If TWO PERCENT of Nader's support had voted for Gore, Gore would have been President. Nader's arrogance in refusing to bow out when it became clear that he would not reach the 5% threshold to qualify the Green Party for the 2004 national ballot has led to a great disaster for our nation, and the responsibility rests squarely on his shoulders and on those of everyone who touted the preposterous lie that "the Democrats and Republicans are the same." And there is actual polling available of Nader voters in Florida--a large chunk of them say they would have voted for Gore if Nader had dropped out. Enough to swing the election with plenty of room to spare. Nader supporters made a terrible, terrible mistake. It would be a lot more productive if you would own up to the fact that you never imagined Bush could be as far to the right as he turned out to be than to keep denying the undeniable. All that does is hurt your credibility.

Take a look at where the K Street Project money went, and you'll see a radical difference between the parties. Take a look at the Bush Administration's process for developing policy (allowing corporate lobbyists to write it), and you will see something that has never happened before in American history with this scope and at this level. It is the height of absurdity to suggest that a Gore administration would have done the things that the Bush Administration has done. To say this flies in the face of all available evidence.

It is true that the Democrats grew fat, lazy and entwined with interests of money and power over the many years they dominated the national political landscape. There's no doubt that courage and vision were lost. But even in the worst years of this decline, right before the Gingrich crowd swept out the old order in Congress, the Democratic Party voted far better for workers, for the environment, for women, for minorities, and for a sensible foreign policy than the Republican Party EVER did. And you can take that to the bank.

A third party is a non-starter in this country. All a third party can do is split the end of the political spectrum it hopes to represent. We don't have to like it, but the fact is that the system is rigged to maintain a two-party monopoly on power, and the only powers that can change that rigging are those two parties--and they're not going to.

Often, Americans like to indulge in a fantasy that they can wipe the slate clean and reinvent the country in a whole new way. But that's only a fantasy. It's not reality. Other than by Constitutional amendment, which cannot happen without the collusion of the very parties that will suffer by it, you cannot change the way the government works in a fundamental structural way.

Politics is the art of the possible. A successful third party in the United States is IMpossible. It has never happened in the modern era, and there have been many, many attempts.

So please: enough with the condescending lumping of the Democratic Party with the Republican Party. Enough with thinking that somehow there is a way that there can be a viable party entirely made up of the far left that doesn't soil itself with support by economic interests. Enough with the unrealistic and self-congratulatory absolutism and unreasonable expectations of "purity". A truly successful democracy would mean that sometimes you would get some of what you want...and the far, far right wing would get some of what it wants. But more often, people much more moderate would get what they want, because they are in the majority.

The "liberals" you condescend to, Dixon, are your best hope. There is no revolution. There is no radical transformation--at least, you'd better hope so, because if there were, people like you and me will be the first ones before the firing squad.

The exercise is not to talk up an imaginary America that you would have invented if it had been up to you. I can do that, too: there are a lot of things in the Constitution I would change. But that's beyond our power, and feeling good about ourselves because we think our imaginary Americas would be far better than this one is an indulgence we can't afford.

The exercise is to work within the constraints of current reality, in the name of advancing progress. Trashing the only party that has a chance of being a vehicle for that advance, instead of working to strengthen its power, its courage and its principles, is beyond counterproductive. I say it's politically suicidal.

I've worked in and run campaigns for nearly 20 years. Nobody knows more than me how disappointing some Democrats can be. But wholesale dismissal of the party of Roosevelt and Truman is just flat wrong. Torpedo the Democratic party, and you will find yourself floating in a hostile and barren sea, hoping that the Republicans will have enough altruism to fish you out. As if.

Mark Green

**Helen Shane** · 06-04-2006 11:05 PM

Differences between dems and repubs are mighty

I agree with Mark Green and would add that Supreme Court and federal judgeship appointments are a critical area in which presidential nominations consented to (or not) by a majority of partisan congresspeople have far reaching, overarching impact on our society.

It is easy for third party candidates to offer ideal policies and platforms they know they will never be called upon to implement. Best, IMO, to join democratic acitivists and try to make change from within, to move us further left. Helen Shane

Free Mind Media · 06-05-2006 10:21 AM

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." - Margaret Mead

I don't think they've ever made much of a difference by doing the same thing over and over. Remember that old definition of Insanity; doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results.

Upfront apologies for my condescendingly, dour notes which follow. This is intentionally both hyper-critical and and self reflective. I hope it doesn't piss anybody off too bad. I just couldn't read anymore defensive positions of the Democrats and the system in general without a little virtual tongue lashing.

The current electoral system in this country is failing, as usual, the under-represented members of our society. It is well on it's way to failing the vast majority as well. Corporate fascism has a firm grip on the "two party" system, the ballot boxes, the candidates, the houses, the courts, the executive office, the learning institutions at all levels, the media, the means of production, the food supply, the water supply, etc. It throws us a little bit of the bone each day, relinquishing just enough control and material wealth to the middle class to keep us at bay and guarantee our complacency and continued participation in the lie. It divides the people economically, geographically, socially and idealogically. It perpetuates the illusion that the middle class is more closely akin to the paymasters than to people that sweat to eke out their living.

The workers have the unrealized power in numbers to shut down the system, retake it and remake it. Meanwhile the middle is slowly, but increasingly faster, disappearing. The rich keep getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. We sit on our asses here in comfort in our west county "energy vortex" fantasy, debating the lesser of two evils but not willing to actually stop participating in a failed system because it is currently serving our personal interests fairly well. We make the conscious choice to ally ourselves with that system, instead of with the people, for fear of falling out of our swine country comfort.

Going to the ballot box once a year to choose between candidates who are backed by billionaires or vote on initiatives and proposals that they've put on the ballot isn't going to change anything. When the balance shifts, the middle realizes it is far closer to the bottom, and the people are fed up with "reform" then we will see a change. Power shifts when the people rise up en masse and demonstrate meaningfully different ways of living. Meaningful, to me, means more than shopping at Whole Foods, wearing organic cotton and driving a Bio Mercedes, although I am guilty of all of the above.

Power doesn't shift by debating the finer points of a one-sided argument, voting on it and saying, "oh well better luck next time " and then going back to living the same failed model. The people should be developing and participating in small scale, functioning models of self-governance. These models can work in affinity to become what replaces the current system in the imminent and long overdue event of it's failure. Empires must fall, they always have. They just need a little push sometimes.

**Merrilyn** · 06-05-2006 12:08 PM

Dear Dixon, Miles, Mark and Helen,

In this finger pointing exercise to place blame for who put Bush in the White House there's been an overlook.

Katherine Harris' "Grass Fire" campaign for U.S. Senate (Florida) is in full swing against incumbent Bill Nelson. She writes:

"The liberals still "blame" ME for President Bush's victory over Al Gore in 2000 . . . although I simply followed the letter of the law! . . . . I know I can do more for President Bush. . . . . And I will fight for President Bush’s judicial nominations and other appointments.....

So there you have it straight from the horse's mouth. Not voters, not Greens, not Nader, not the Dems, not the Supreme court, not Bush, not corporate power, not the collective unconscious, not even dirty politics and voting machines - but merely a principled public servant following the letter of the law that did it. Now would she lie?

BTW Ms. Harris has hired the same Tarrance Group (pollsters for Bush-Cheney and the NRSC) that are working overtime to re-elect PAUL KELLEY to the 4th district. Big guns in corporate-wine/gravel country folks. Wow! Debora Fudge is THAT dangerous to so-called concervative values.

Hoping those who can, vote for Fudge tomorrow - and those who can't cross your fingers and/or volunteer to get out the vote. Call: 837-9690 or send money to www.FudgeforSonomaCounty.com or to PO Box 896, Windsor 95492.

Merrilyn

**Barry** · 06-05-2006 01:32 PM

Seems to me this debate boils down to:

The Green Party offers policies that are more closely aligned with the values of how we think a society should run but in most cases they don't stand a chance of winning
The Democrats are only slightly better than the Republicans, but are not going to make any real change. However they have a real chance of winning and making an incremental improvement to the status quo. And voting Green, in effect, is a vote for the Republicans, given our very un-democratic winner-take-all system.

So what's a progressive voter to do? Vote strategically!

I am a registered Democrat and I just mailed my absentee ballot (the most convenient and sustainable way to vote!). There were lots of choices for each of the elected positions. Some of them seemed better than others (thanks to your input!), and all of them are better than the Republicans, even if it only by a little bit!

Then a friend dropped by her ballot and asked me to vote for her! Turns out she is a registered Green party and her ballot had mostly just one candidate, the green candidate, for each office! Talk about wasting your vote!

(So either only one person for each position decided it was worthwhile to run as Green, or the Green party conveniently worked out who was going to be their candidate before the primary election to save us the trouble of having to pick one! But that's a different issue.)

So here's what I recommend:

1) Register Democratic and vote for the best Democrat in the Democratic Primary since there's nothing to vote for in the Green Party primary election.

2) In the general election, if the vote seems like its going to be close, Vote for the Democrat! Even if it is seems like only a hair's width of difference between them and the Republican, its still a hair's width better! If its not close, either the Democrat has it locked up, like Feinstein?, or they don't have a chance of winning, Vote Green!

That way, you are doing what you can to shift the country in the right direction in real terms, if only an inch or two, when your help is needed, and then registering you true feelings for the sake of authenticity and as a message to the Democrats to continue to move to the left.

**"Mad" Miles** · 06-05-2006 11:26 PM

Mark,

Your vituperation against the Green Party and Nader is the same now as it was in 2000. If Nader hadn't been on the ballot there is no guarantee those who voted for him would have voted for Gore. He was on the ballot because of the disgust with the repeated sellouts of the Democrats. That's an impetus that gave rise to the GP. Before the nascence of the GP in the early eighties there were, Anderson, Commoner, and Jesse Jackson.

Who's to say that your missing two percent would have voted at all, or wouldn't have cast a different protest vote?

By the way, while I supported Nader in 2000, I did not in 2004. I thought it was time for the GPUS to have a new face. So I backed David Cobb. This was by no means a popular position in the party. The argument has left wounds on both side that last to today.

The real crime in the Democratic debacle of 2000 was the flawed strategy of only contesting the three counties instead of demanding a recount for the entire state. That's what gave the Supreme Court its slimy wiggle room. (Such as it was, how many rulings state that they only apply to the case in point?) Why do the diehard partisans of the Democratic Party feel the need to keep pointing fingers outside, instead of taking a good look in the mirror? Don't even get me started about Kerry.

Actually the one state that Greens have copped to as possibly having been "spoiled" by Nader for Gore is Ohio. I haven't crunched the numbers as you have but my vague recollection is the Ohio Electoral College votes would not have given it to Gore. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

For more on this I refer everyone to the archived article by Daniel Solnit which can be found on the Green Party of Sonoma County's website at:

https://www.sonomagreenparty.org/pages/positions/stillblaming.shtml

FreeMindMedia (Robert?),

Simone Cabron!!!! You da' man! I try to mask my calls for world revolution in more specific commentary, because the project has been so frustrating, demonized and marginalized. But I've always thought that a system as irrational, unjust and destructive as this one has to go and inherently builds the means for its own destruction. Something's gotta give and someday it will, just as it has before. It won't be a pretty picture.

Back in the late eighties I reconsidered my distaste for the copitalist market. It works to give people a sense of control and autonomy (illusory as that is) so, as long as we socialize basic needs (housing, food, clothing, education, culture) let the rest be open for the highest bidders and most competitive producers, distributors and consumers. Let a luxury market bloom and flourish! Combining basic needs socialism with a market economy for everything else? A dream? Scandinavia is real. Decentralization, local community markets, etc. Fine by me. On the other hand scales of production/distribution efficiency mean some industries are gonna have to be big enough to operate world wide, not just in the West County. (Swine Country? Good one!)

I also find it sobering that those of us who dream of radical, fundamental economic, social and cultural change (decentralized and democratic of course, I ain't no cop, master or dictator and I don't want to help anyone else be one either!) haven't come up with a plan which accomplishes the things this system does, yet replaces it with something better. Say we do create workplace democracies in which the people who do the work control their own lives while finding a way to decide on how to do the work and what to do it for? What about all of the people dependent on the current state of things? Pensioners, the sick, elderly, disabled, everyone on SSI. Do we have a plan to take care of them? If so, I haven't heard it.

I once lived in a squat in the southern suburbs of Paris. (An abandoned Air Force complex of eight buildings in the winter of '81-'82.) The last four days I was there a Tunisian guy was experiencing a schizophrenic break. It turned out he had a history and was off his meds. He also cooked a mean holiday seafood cous cous and had been the life of the party. In the middle of winter he was walking around shoeless, in a thin shirt and pants. He was wailing and crying at night. He threw a full propane tank out of a third story window onto a small house trailer that was occupied. Luckily no sparks combined with a leak. The people minding him tried to care for him, but he wasn't sent to the hospital because we were "building the new society within the shell of the old". After he cut his wrists, severing a tendon, they finally called the ambulance.

That was a very sobering experience and leavened my enthusiasm for radical change with a strengthened sense of practicality. People stick with what they know and understand and only try what is different when they're left with few other options. Any historian of revolutions, or simply of human society, has seen that time and time again.

******

Barry,

You wrote:

The Green Party offers policies that are more closely aligned with the values of how we think a society should run but in most cases they don't stand a chance of winning

The GP is a new baby. Imperfect and tiny. If it is going to win elections it has to grow exponentially and massively. Urging people to give up on it before it has a chance to show its potential is, as I wrote the other day, "A recipe for inertia." Be the change you dream, that's true for political parties as much as it is for individuals.

The Democrats are only slightly better than the Republicans, but are not going to make any real change.

Agreed

However they have a real chance of winning and making an incremental improvement to the status quo.

What is the recent evidence for this? When Clinton won, what were the "incremental improvement(s) to the status quo" that he made?

And voting Green, in effect, is a vote for the Republicans, given our very un-democratic winner-take-all system.

Voting green is not a vote for Republicans, nor is it a vote against Democrats, it is a vote FOR the Green Party. Or more exactly, it is a vote for Greens and against the other parties. To accuse someone of being a spoiler assumes that votes are owned and owed to some party. I thought we were supposed to be free vote as we choose. Since when did voting become an act of betrayal?

Mark (back to you dude!)

As for the eternal futility of Third Party efforts in the U.S. Are you saying that the Know Nothings, the Progressives, the Socialists, etc. while never winning the Presidency, had NO INFLUENCE on government policy? Surely you know your history better than that. (I admit that inserting the Know Nothings is a rhetorical "fly in the ointment." Plus I'm curious to see who knows "something" about them!)

Nobody is saying the Democrats are exactly the same as the Republicans. We say that their similarities, when it comes to funding sources, policies and approaches to the problems we all face, are greater than those differences.

Who bombed Kosovo? A Democrat (A policy condemned by many on the left, I supported it. I think the Serbs, for the most part, made their own beds. Let's hope they continue to try and pull it together instead of wallowing in the resentments of history.)

Who cut welfare for poor mothers and children?

Who was so amateurish as to try and negotiate socialized medicine in private while cutting out the major players (the AMA and the Insurance companies) guaranteeing a major backlash and sinking hopes for universal health insurance for who knows how many generations to come?

Who pushed trade globalization at real costs to the planet's environment, domestic manufacturing jobs that paid a living wage, union organizing and international human rights?

Who stood by and let Rwandan Hutus slaughter Tutsi's and Hutu sympathizers and relatives of Tutsi's while the world watched on TV?

Who stood by and let Yugoslavia descend into ethnic cleansing and one of the most brutal inter-ethnic wars in Europe for at least three decades? (Not to privilege Europeans. What the world has stood aside and allowed to happen in West, East and Central Africa is a horrendous crime against humanity. Most of that happened recently under Bush II's watch, but not all of it.)

Yes the Democrats do good things now and then. I'm blanking but I know there's something to put on that list. So do the Republicans, they've been far more supportive of the democracy movement in Burma. Something about Christians being persecuted by an ostensibly Buddhist military dictatorship. (Now that's an oxymoron!)

Here's my bad metaphor for the difference. Which enemy would you rather face? The one who calls you names, spits in your face and comes at you head on? Or the one who pretends to be on your side, pats you on the back and says nice things, all the while poisoning your tea or readying the dagger to slip between your ribs as their arm is around your shoulder. Hyperbole? Perhaps but it sure seems that way.

The party of FDR and Truman? You have to go back fifty or sixty years for the model? (Why not Kennedy and LBJ?) That's almost as lame as Republicans talking about the party of Lincoln. And what was so great about Truman?

How about the party of Nixon, Reagan and Bush I vs. the party of Carter (at least he cut off arms to the Argentine junta, I'll give him that, and he did try to talk straight about economic and energy policy for all the good it did him, and us) and Slick Willy. The party of Gore and Kerry.

Some of my professors, coming out of the New Left, in the mid-seventies at U.C. Irvine liked to say, "Notice that every war we (the U.S.) fought this century was started by a Democratic president." Well now we're in one that is the exception to the rule. Hooray, let's hear it for progress.

"Polytricks and de Shitstem." Best succinct political statement I've ever heard. From a Rasta on KPFK Los Angeles in the early eighties.

So we have the politics of hope and values vs. the politics of practicality and probability. And never the twain shall meet?

Some of the people I've run with over the years reject voting altogether. "Don't vote, it only encourages the bastards!" I vote, but I always do so with the knowledge that it is only a small gesture and I'm participating in a hypocritical, corrupt system that betrays its own promises and values at almost every turn. I leave the polling place feeling a bit soiled, an accessory to fraud.

It's been this way quite a long time. Used to be you won by buying the most drinks. Now it's about manipulating people's hopes while covering for the big money boys (and girls). I guess not much has changed. The only exercises in democracy that I've ever felt completely comfortable with were in small groups, and also the most painful experiences of democracy I've had have taken place in those same small groups.

Electoral politics is how power, at least on a superficial symbolic level, is distributed in this country. That's better than dictatorship. (Although some argue we've already morphed into one.) It may be the only game in town, but that doesn't mean I have to play it by someone else's rules.

I'm all for doing what is possible rather than what is impractical. But when the limits of possibility only allow the unacceptable, it's time to expand them.

(cliche alert!)

By hook or by crook. By any means necessary. "Some may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

Are utopian projects all doomed by the limits of human possibility? Is it better to have tried and failed than to never have tried at all? Is dis a system?

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Well, it's broke and no one is proposing any kind of a fix that appears to me fit the conventional molds of either the possible or the desirable. I'm not prepared to rack it up to the eternal human dilemma; I guess I'm stubborn that way. Or just too arrogant to accept the unacceptable.

Time to get to bed so I can vote in the Green primary before work tomorrow. The lack of competition in the Green Party has everything to do with our small size and nothing to do with a fixed slate ordained by the leadership. The more people involved the more there will be competition for the nomination.

Cheers,

"M"M

:sleep:

lunatunz · 06-06-2006 11:33 AM

Please do not advise people to vote for candidates, or parties, whose platforms, or, more importantly, accomplishments, do not agree with their own on the basis that the other party is even more repugnant. The idea is to vote FOR someone you can support, not against someone you hate. Yes, the system is set up for two parties to monopolize it, and, yes, there is major opposition to adding additional parties, but the system was originally set up to exclude women and African Americans at one point, too, and we "liberals" managed to over come that.

Kerry and Gore both lost an election to Bush because a) they failed to garner enough support and b) there was more than likely illegal and/or deceptive voting practices going on. I voted for Gore but didn't for Kerry for a large number of well thought out and researched reasons. To have this decision dismissed simplistically, or blamed for Bush's wholesale destruction of the country, is inaccurate at best. I was registered, and voted, Democratic for almost 30 years. They have, in general, Woolsey being a marked exception, moved much too far to the right of progressive for my taste and ethics.

We should be encouraging people to analyze candidates on an individual basis, not to vote strictly along party lines for whatever flotsom the party presents. Encourage people to work TOWARDS something positive, however that manifests for them personally. Running away from something you hate without a clear picture of where you're going only leads to more chaos.

Sincerely,

June

sf_nicole · 06-08-2006 12:00 PM

Hi All,

This has been a great thread to read. Lot's of interesting points of view. I just want to add a few. I will resist the urge to go into to much detail since I have my views posted here:

https://www.nicoleanddebbie.com/who/...cc/member.html

or actually, this would be a more appropriate link since it dates back to before I made the decision to serve in the Democratic Resistance Movement:

https://www.nicoleanddebbie.com/who/...president.html

As you can see in this one I made up my own party called the " Coalition of Non Republican Parties or CNRP".

If I take a big picture view at this, my perspective paints the following picture. If our society continues on it's present course allowing the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer, we will, without a doubt see another civil was in this country. Society will only indulge the upper classes quest for money and power to a point, beyond that the structure collapses.

In a society that claims to be civilized, one would expect to find a few basic principals. These principals should be focused around meeting the needs of the society - Shelter, Medical, Education, etc. Right now I am not even sure this country meets the basic definition of "A Civilized Nation".

There are easy ways to know if you society, local or national are up to the challenge:
1) Do you have homeless people? - If so you are failing, no excuses, no "They want to be there, bullshit (sorry)", the society is failing.
2) Do ALL the members of your society (or Community) have access to medical care that they can afford? - If the answer is no (which it is by the way) your society is failing.
3) Does every citizen have an equal chance at getting the education they want? If the answer is no (again, it is no) then the society is failing.

There are even ways to measure how far away from passing your society or community is. For example: If the average price of an average home is more than the average worker can afford, then your system is failing and it is failing by the ratio of [What the Average Worker Can Afford] to [What the Average Home Price is]. And I do not mean average middle class worker, you must include everyone, even the people who have dropped off the unemployment rolls to get your number.

So if you reach the conclusion that the society is failing and is heading for a civil war, what do you do? Well my answer was to find the group (regardless of political parties) that has the best chance of making a change and help them.

Howard Dean and the Democracy for America movement resonated with me. I am sure some can find fault with it but if DFA could be it's own party, I think we would have chance at avoiding the train wreck ahead. When the Democrats chose Kerry over Dean, I saw this as just another good ol boy let's keep the right people in power move. (see the comments on my web site about a representative government by profession and education - i.e. The percent of lawyers in governement should match the percent of lawyers in the society.)

As we watch the local fields of Sonoma convert from family owned and run farms and ranches to wineries staffed by the men and women who wait on the side of main street in Guerneville each morning for work, you have to ask yourself how good of a job we are doing here. I have heard many say this is a "Blue" county, if it is blue it is only so by cutting off the oxygen supply to the poor in the county.

We have a whole new class of people here the "Almost poor". Check out some of the RV parks along the Russian River, not the rich expensive parks, the smaller parks. Wow it looks like some of those old trailers never move. They don't, people live in them full time. Yes today, here, in this county, we have citizens living in trailers, some less than 20 feet long and 10 feet wide. But I guess this is a matter of perspective, since the family of 3 I spoke to yesterday would love to get a little trailer so they would not have to keep all their stuff in their car, and their little girl would have a bed, and they would not have had to give up their dog to the animal shelter.

So the question is really not so much of which party, as it is, what will you do?

Nicole Cook

**"Mad" Miles** · 06-11-2006 09:29 AM

Dear Equally Concerned Political People,

Given that this discussion has not only focused on local elections, I post the following interview. Fred Halliday has quite a few opinions that I think are very important when it comes to thinking about the world, particularly in relation to the current wars, U.S. foreign policy and international social justice work. I think this guy is a great thinker (I was vaguely familiar with his name but have not read him) and I wanted to share it with those of you who might be interested. It is a moderately long read but bear with it and you will be rewarded by the content! Just click on the link below and it should open for you. The interviewer is a friend of mine from my years in Chicago.

"Mad" Miles

https://www.waccobb.net/forums/attac...ntid=671&stc=1

**"Mad" Miles** · 06-14-2006 10:07 PM

To all the participants on this thread,

I would like to repost our discussion from a couple of weeks ago to the Green Party discussion lists for the North Bay and Sonoma County. I've excerpted all forwarding text and have come up with the attached file. If there is anything in it you do not want me to share with Green Party activists from the region, please email me back, either privately or publicly (on this thread) and let me know.

This is not an urgent matter so I'll give it until early next week to await your reply. If you have no problem with me sharing our discussion just remain silent and by Monday, 6/19, I'll assume you're giving your passive consent.

If you have no problem with the content but want your screen name or name deleted, I'll be happy to do that, just let me know.

And, in spite of any differences we may have, thanks for weighing in!

Miles Mendenhall
aka "Mad" Miles (because I'm a mad forwarder of political emails)

**"Mad" Miles** · 06-15-2006 09:24 AM

Dear Democrat or Green? Thread Participants,

Apparently the email generated by this board does not come with my attachment of the text I am proposing that I forward. But it is attached to my previous message to this board. So if you haven't emailed me privately yet to let me know the attachment didn't arrive, and I haven't replied saying what I just did above, just go to the website and look at the bottom of the message I sent last night to find the attachment. That attachment is just the text of the messages in this thread, with the public and private reply text removed. And thank you to those who pointed out the lack of attachment, it's nice to know somebody is reading!

Miles

aka "M"M

sf_nicole · 06-15-2006 01:21 PM

The 1% verification count is still happening at the registrar of voters office. If you are voting green, I strongly suggest you go down and observe the process as a member of the public. It will give you a better understanding for the power of your vote and how using your vote strategically makes a difference.

Nicole Cook

The Registrar of Voters Office is open Monday through Friday,
8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. and is located at:
435 Fiscal Drive
Santa Rosa, California
For General Information: (707) 565-6800

**"Mad" Miles** · 09-13-2012 03:06 PM

I'm adding this link to this thread, since I came across this information after SonomaMark and I went around on the "Nader was a spoiler for Gore in 2000" tussle. It's definitive as far as I'm concerned.

Although when I brought it up last fall on FB, Mark continued to deny all evidence contrary to his DNC/DLP "thesis". The one dginned up in the fall of 2000 to distract from, and deny, the Gore campaign and the DP's responsibility for their own failure to fight for the victory that they actually won.

Once the full recount in Florida was completed by a consortium of newspaper companies, in 2001, that became obvious. Funny, the DP partisans never seem to mention that fact, while they're excoriating the Greens for their own inadequacies...

https://www.disinfo.com/2010/11/debu...2000-election/

P.S. I can still make my, "Why I won't Vote Democratic in 2004", piece available to anyone interested. It's in the context of the Kerry campaign, but the issues are still relevant.

**Valley Oak** · 09-21-2012 10:03 PM

I think that voting local Green candidates into power is a good idea. But voting Green on the bigger races, such as for the President's office is dangerous and unproductive. I would like to see the Green Party swell its ranks with many, many more officeholders in local and state governments across the country before seriously tackling the national races, such as the US Senate and the White House. The House of Representatives offers much better possibilities for the Green Party in capturing nationwide political leadership than the Senate and the White House.

As Green Party presence continues to grow in local and state governments, eventually an ambitious but realistic goal of capturing national offices will begin to present itself. But until then it is only folly to chase after the White House.

Edward

**"Mad" Miles** · 09-21-2012 11:13 PM

We disagree. And I do not see you addressing the arguments contained in this thread, that specifically address your points. (Even before you made them. Yours is a familiar litany of rejectionism about the Green Party. It's been going on since our founding in 1984, and before that with regard to other alternative electoral efforts.) Nor have you done so in any kind of an attentive manner on the, "Da Prez", thread.

Repeating an assertion, "I do not think voting Green in major elections is a good idea.", is not contributing to the discussion. Especially when the discussion is about why voting just that way, has value. Address the argument. I won't repeat it, it's in my previous posts on this thread.

"But voting Green on the bigger races, such as for the President's office is dangerous and unproductive."

That's just generalized scare language. How is it, "dangerous"? How is it, "unproductive"?

I've already demonstrated, clearly, that voting for Stein in California, in the numbers that are in the remotest realm of possibility, is not an obstacle in ANY WAY to The Obamanator getting all of the Electoral College votes. So what is Jill Stein's and our campaign a danger to? Democratic Party Partisan pride?

"Unproductive", of what? As opposed to endorsing the status quo and continuing business as usual. That kind of production?
You seem to think this election could, at this juncture, be won by someone other than The Obamanator. That has not been much of a likelihood all along, but in recent weeks, days, it's even far, far less likely. Clearly you need to catch up on the news. Cause your nay-saying about the Green Party, is detached from current events, and any discussion that addresses the reasons why we exist and continue to organize and campaign.

Have you read Nate Silver's "FiveThirtyEight" blog? Both the charts and his most recent articles? If not, you are not informed about what is really going on in this current phase of The Ball Game.

You're not trolling for a reaction here, by just asserting and not conversing, are you? Edward?

Jill will be at the Person Theater at SSU on Tuesday at 1:00 p.m., it's free. 9/25/12

I encourage everyone, supporters, opposers, Democrats, Anarchists, skeptics, Independents and undecideds, come hear her, if you don't have other obligations. You might be surprised. You might be inspired. You won't be bored!

-

**Moon** · 09-22-2012 10:57 PM

Can some Green explain to me how Greens figure we can meet the goals of the Green Party
under capitalism? The only second party with ballot status (I refuse to refer to the Demican/Republicrat
Party as two distinct entities.) that offers a realistic precondition to egalitarianism, lasting peace
and stable ecosystems is the Peace and Freedom Party. Any of those things that we work
to gain will only be squashed--again!--by the ultra-rich capitalists; since capitalism came
into existence, there's never been an exception anywhere. Former Secretary of State
Ramsey Clark has said, "The US has only one [major] party, though it may use [either of two]
different names at different times, and it is a war party." Instead of putting out one fire after another,
how about we just take the box of matches away from the toddlers?

**"Mad" Miles** · 09-23-2012 01:09 PM

That's a very familiar criticism of Third Party efforts, Moon. From our founding, one of the first major internal debates inside the Green Party, was whether or not to declare as a Left/Socialist Party, or to set aside the eternal debate about Socialism vs. Capitalism and propose pragmatic Ecological and Peace centered ideas. That discussion was long, contentious and basically never resolved. It was also an obstacle to doing some actual organizing.

Der Groenen, formed in the mid-seventies, in an even more fragmented, and intensely politicized scene in West Germany. It was in part a response to the eternal doctrinal bickering on the Left. Their approach was encapsulated in the slogan, "Neither Left, nor Right, but Forward!" It was also referred to as The Middle Way. The specifics of the context of why and how Petra Kelly and others organized their party, are complex. A fascinating history that I was an active participant in, here in Southern California in the Social Justice and Anti-Nuclear Arms and Power movements. '77-'84.

The Green Party in the U.S., and all the other Green Parties around the world, was inspired by the German Partei Der Grünen. In the development of the Green Party here, an even larger controversy was the Electoral Party (with all the restrictions that exist here in electoral law) vs. an emphasis on Social Movement Organizing. And in that discussion, all of the concerns and criticisms expressed by those who knock us, were thoroughly, and often repetitively discussed. Sometimes, even if the discussion is unresolved, it's better to take action, than just spin your wheels in vexatious disputation.

The biggest error I see critics of the Green Party making, is to treat us solely as a political party, and not recognize that we are one form of organization that expresses a political view, that is a sincere attempt to advance values, to educate and communicate and to be a part of a broader movement for social change.

If you treat every collective effort, in a totalizing and reductive manner, basing your conceptualization of it on binary oppositional terms (good/bad, either/or) any criticism can serve as a devastating reason to dismiss it. That is a recipe for passivity. It is Reactive Force, which does nothing but stop Active Force from carrying out its potential.

As for the Peace & Freedom Party, I try not to speak ill of allies in the struggle. I've voted P&J many times in my 24 years total living in California (couldn't in my 13 year in Chicago, everybody knows why, right?) but from what I've seen, it's only a Northern California phenomenon. And fairly small, in the last two decades. A few years back, your ballot status was in peril. It seems some of the stalwart P&J partisans clawed their way back from that abyss. Good for you!

The Green Party of The U.S.A. is on the ballot in 42 states, with another 6 where that is being sought/litigated. Apparently we're locked out of Nevada and Oklahoma.

Instead of treating the Green Party as the end, the goal, of all political action, how about treating us as one means, to express political views, and goals, along with other meaningful efforts, single issue campaigns, local extra-electoral organizing, building Social Movement, etc.. Why do purists insist we put all of our eggs in one basket?

Playing, "gotcha", because something does not meet the exact criteria for the perfect political organization or effort, is a recipe for sterility. And it's a very, very popular game, especially on the Left.

Read the Green Party's 10 Key Values, look at our actions, decide if you want to join or not. Everybody reading this has the chance to vote for a party and candidates, which confronts and exposes the Corporatocracy at every opportunity, and not for the "parties" and candidates that are flacks and willing servants to the Corporatocracy.

Will that bring it down, by voting Stein/Honkala? Of course not! But it will send the message that you know what's up, and aren't buying it.

The Obamanator will definitely win ALL of the Electoral College in Cali, and even if Romnification were to pull off a miracle which is extremely unlikely at this juncture. Who really thinks he can pull it out at the debates and eat The Obamanators lunch? Anyone?

Cause anyone who thinks that, has not been paying attention. Remember the Repub primary debates? Bishop Mittens' performances? The Great Orator of our time, is going to pwn him! That's another sure bet. The overwhelming evidence that Romnification is an empty suit no longer able to conceal the fact that he is an elitist Carnival Barker for privilege and the impoverishment of the vast majority, is all over the internets.

Only the Democratic Party Apparat who are paid to djin up anxiety and excitement, to keep the troops in line and put a boot up the ass of the stragglers, talk as if it's a contest. Even some of them, in candid moments have admitted it's all over but for the shouting.

Sniping from the sidelines? Herding people back into the mainstream fold? What exactly is going to be affirmed and/or created by that? Based on my experience for 38 years on/in The Left, that approach has a consistent result, absolutely NADA.

We Greens are doing something, imperfect as it is, it's something. All that is accomplished by staying within the Pragmatic Liberal Incrementalist Camp, is to endorse what already is. Lots of people have realized what a waste of effort that is. More and more.

(These things go in waves, so it's not impossible that a crisis won't drive most back into the fold of business as usual. Except that the structural limits on the global system are straining and cracking daily, so this is one of those periods of crisis: danger and opportunity. The old ways don't work. Whether we find new ways that do, or just remain victims of devolution, remains to be seen. To some extent, that depends on us and what we do.

Stuff's complicated, so my use of "old/new" is too blunt an instrument for real description and understanding. It's just inadequate shorthand to try and do so. Of course whatever happens will be a complex mix of old, new, as yet unimagined, with plenty of gray areas and confusion! And for sure, lots of finger pointing and dismissive totalizing.)

There's a call to Boycott this election, as any vote endorses a corrupt and destructive system. And there's no chance for a positive alternative, within it. While I understand that argument, and its appeal. I do not think it's the best course. It accomplishes nothing. Not even the critique that its proponents claim it will communicate. I've seen such efforts (or lack of any) come and go. At this juncture, I don't see the critical mass there, for an effective boycott.

Whereas, if the Green Party can get somewhere around 5% of the votes, we will demonstrate that the lies of the Democratic Party Apparat have not worked. And that we have a message and an organization that can grow, and spread. That's my goal as a Green Party Partisan. From my perspective, it's as good as any.

`

**Chris Dec** · 09-23-2012 01:27 PM

I registered Green back when Ralph Nader ran under that party, for the purpose of giving the Green Party more actual support. I wanted with all my political soul to break out of the two-party system. But unlike many who voted for Nader, I LISTENED to what Ralph HIMSELF said about voting for him... and it is on record in a video... and that was: watch your state's position, and if you think you can vote Green, do so. However, if the race seems to be close in your state, by all means, vote for the lesser of two evils. He won my respect when he guided his followers to do that; I voted Democrat anyway, sad and sorry I couldn't yet risk a Green presidential vote. Mad Miles, I am even sorrier to have to disagree with you... but Ralphie himself said it. Yes, Scare Language is correct... but we should be appropriately scared when it comes to splitting the Democratic vote that way to end up with, well, what we ended up with (shiver). You are wonderfully optimistic of the Green Movement, but unless a youngster, like the Green Party still is in the US, takes small steps, not huge leaps, he will fall. I vote Green for most of the other offices in the election, hoping for the time when I can go all the way up on the ticket.

If I am understanding 538.com correctly (and it is a challenge with all that probability math!) there are voter simulations that have Obama winning the electoral college vote in certain states by 55%. Miles, in my book, that is still a close result, one based on a poll, and polls, although often accurate, are not even the election. Also, polls are not considering the potentially devastating effect of the rise of voter suppression laws in effect in many states (remember Florida? It's even worse there.) And although these Republican backed laws are being challenged, we are, what seven weeks away from Election Day.

I would like to hope that we are within three presidential elections of being able to consider a Green candidate for president. During my lifetime. I want to thank you for your Green passion.

Posted in reply to the post by "Mad" Miles:

We disagree. And I do not see you addressing the arguments contained in this thread, that specifically address your points. (Even before you made them. Yours is a familiar litany of rejectionism about the Green Party. .......

.......I encourage everyone, supporters, opposers, Democrats, Anarchists, skeptics, Independents and undecideds, come hear her, if you don't have other obligations. You might be surprised. You might be inspired. You won't be bored!

**"Mad" Miles** · 09-23-2012 02:09 PM

`
Winks, Are you voting in California? Have you read my previous posts about Safe States vs Swing States?

Ralph did say that, and I marked it at the time. I have repeatedly said in recent weeks/months, mostly on Facebook, that if I lived in a Swing State, I would have a far more difficult choice to make. That I'm not sure what it would be.

In the last major election, I checked the polling for Brown just before I went to vote on election day. Because if Whitman had had any chance, I might have voted for Jerry, even though, in 1982, he clearly demonstrated to me and thousands of other Anti-Nuclear activists that he is a stone liar and opportunistic panderer.

He was far enough ahead, but only by four points or so, that knowing the patterns in California that favor Democratic Party candidates, I could safely vote for Laura Wells, GPCA. Who's the guv?

The five point difference in polling, is typical for presidential elections, in recent years. Compare this race to those others. Here's a font of info on that tip:

https://www.gp.org/campaigns/occupy-america/join-us.php

For the main point, scroll down to near the end and look at this section:

"Number of Independents Continues to Grow"

That 5% spread is not as scary as it has been made out to be by the herders of the committed (and potentially convinced). If you read some of Nate Silver's articles on their "FiveThirtyEight" site, he gives a nuanced and persuasive explanation as to why.

This election will be decided by Independent voters in key urban areas in the seven to eight Swing States. Everywhere else is essentially predetermined. So, the question isn't how The Obamanator and Romnification are polling overall, it's how they're polling in those specific states, especially in those specific urban districts. (i.e. higher density areas, because Electoral College votes are decided by majority vote. In each state, other than Maine and Nebraska. Who allocate their EC votes proportionately. Sort of...)

The spread between the two has been growing steadily, in The Obamanators favor. Of course it's not a done deal. Of course the next 45 days matter. Of course what happens in the debates will influence who favors who. But after three days of psephology experts on both sides of the partisan "divide" saying this is worst Republican presidential campaign in recorded history, I think panic is not a reasonable item on the agenda of how to decide who to vote for in those states and districts.

Those of us in Red/Blue States, have the luxury of not having to worry about it. We can cast a vote for the best theoretical option, even if it is not the most feasible one, at this moment. Feasibility, like anything, is interpreted. I've argued that the distinction between rubber stamping business as usual, without any other functional effect, and endorsing positive values, even if it is symbolic (it also has the practical effect of maintaining GP ballot status, and is a poll of our popularity, minimal as that is) is important in the Safe States.

Those who want The Obamanator to win, or Romnification to lose, can still vote Stein/Honkala, everywhere other than the "battleground" areas. Doing so knowing their vote accomplishes two things: sending a good message/affirming positive goals AND in no way affecting the outcome for The Obamanator. Of course, if hundreds of thousand, millions did that, it would be different issue. But that's not on the agenda, yet.

Partisan Greens dream of that day, and do our best to work towards it, in spite of the massive and seemingly overwhelming obstacles that our critics like to belabor. But unless a Green is naive, or in cheerleading mode, or both, we recognize the reality around us!

`

**Moon** · 09-23-2012 02:44 PM

OK, this is the first time I’ve gotten a real explanation from a Green: The Greens don’t exclude the possibility
of socialism. That’s a relief. Back before everyone had computers, I wrote the Greens and Peace and Freedom
and asked whether, to stop splitting the left vote, they would consider combining tickets for each election—P&F
for some offices, Green for others—or alternating elections—Green two years, P&F the next two—and never got
any reply from either one. P&F is on the ballot in other states besides California, including Michigan. where its logo
is a hippopotamus (because the species is indigenous to Lake Michigan?)
What's pwn?
By the way, this is not a game of “gotcha.” If you re-read my post, you’ll see there’s no use of irony, hyperbole,
derogatory labeling or implicit accusation; I’ve been a leftist activist for 47 years, and I don’t dis activists whose
goals overlap mine by about 90%.

Posted in reply to the post by Mad" Miles;157422][SIZE=3][FONT=times new roman]
That's a very familiar criticism of Third Party efforts, Moon. From our founding, one of the first major internal debates inside the Green Party, was whether or not to declare as a Left/Socialist Party, or to set aside the eternal debate about Socialism vs. Capitalism and propose pragmatic Ecological and Peace centered ideas........

......Whereas, if the Green Party can get somewhere around 5% of the votes, we will demonstrate that the lies of the Democratic Party Apparat have not worked. [URL="https://www.gp.org/campaigns/occupy-america/join-us.php:

And that we have a message and an organization that can grow, and spread.[/URL] That's my goal as a Green Party Partisan. From my perspective, it's as good as any.
[/FONT][/SIZE]`

**"Mad" Miles** · 09-24-2012 12:08 PM

`
"Can some Green explain to me how Greens figure we can meet the goals of the Green Party
under capitalism? The only second party with ballot status (I refuse to refer to the Demican/Republicrat
Party as two distinct entities.) that offers a realistic precondition to egalitarianism, lasting peace
and stable ecosystems is the Peace and Freedom Party."

Moon, Your first sentence above read to me as a criticism of GP values and goals. There are tons of Socialists in the GP, as well as Pragmatic Liberals, and committed Environmentalists who stay away from theories of Political Economy and many who just don't involve themselves in the discussion, but like what the GP stands for. The GP doesn't enforce any kind of doctrinal orthodoxy among its members.

With the exception that if someone is advocating something that is a blatant contradiction of any of the 10 Key Values, they would probably be asked not to advocate such things in the name of the party. One of the internal issues Greens struggle with, is how to be open, inviting and tolerant, but not permit certain kinds of authoritarian types to dominate local groups. Not a problem solely in the GP, as any Leftie can attest who's been around long enough!

Your second sentence is demonstrably not true. Besides the Green Party, there is the Socialist Party and a few peripatetic Left parties. No one familiar with the Green Party 10 Key Values or Platform, could make the claim that the GP isn't all about egalitarianism, lasting peace and stable ecosystems.

So, to me, your post came off as contentious. And I responded in that light.I apologize if I overinterpreted the tone of your comment.

Also my,

- Instead of treating the Green Party as the end, the goal, of all political action, how about treating us as one means, to express political views, and goals, along with other meaningful efforts, single issue campaigns, local extra-electoral organizing, building Social Movement, etc.. Why do purists insist we put all of our eggs in one basket?

Playing, "gotcha", because something does not meet the exact criteria for the perfect political organization or effort, is a recipe for sterility. And it's a very, very popular game, especially on the Left. -

Was as much a general reply to the consistent slamming of the GP, that comes from many on the Liberal / Left. I was not just responding to you, individually. It could be a form of tunnel vision on my part, because I've been having similar arguments with critics of the GP, for decades. And in every major election cycle, the mill starts up again, with pretty much the same slams, that have been around since even before people started organizing the GP in the early eighties. I know, partly because I entertained some of those concerns myself. But stayed open enough, talked to organizers and did my homework.

Much of that criticism seems to be based on projections of limited information and the slams from Democratic Party Partisans, and other partisan camps. The Marxist-Leninists like to diss the GP for not having a "class analysis". Labor activists like to dismiss the GP as middle class and without any commitment to collective bargaining rights. Neither claim is true.

The Left is a rich ecosystem. Efforts to not get weighed down in the sterile debates that contribute to self-marginalization, get interpreted as a rejection of meaningful content in those debates.

History is complex, the ins and outs of doctrinal disputes, while appreciated by some Greens like me, are something that many walked away from, were never part of, or have never been interested in. Not every political activist has to be a theorist. Although sometimes I think it would be nice if leaders had a better grounding in the tradition, without being invested or bogged down in, any one sub-camp.

As for coordination between the GP and P&F, I'm not privy to that entire history. I left California in '84 for grad school in Chicago, I only came back to visit, and didn't move back until '97. I was only privy to the broadest strokes of the news in Green Party circles, in that regard. I know some efforts were made. Since both parties are made up of activists who are volunteers, that's always a mixed bag. Coordination, even within such groups, regularly proves problematic.

pwned is online gamer slang for, owned. As in won, prevailed, dominated in a contest. It's been part of popular culture slang, online especially, for over a decade. Sorry to be cryptic!

Cheers,

**Moon** · 09-24-2012 07:59 PM

As i strongly implied, i'd never before heard of a Green in favor of socialism; in fact,
the only Greens to whom i'd used the s-word had reacted on the order of, "You mean
like Stalin?" and when i'd said he'd been neither socialist nor communist, said, "But
he was head of the Communist Party!"

Posted in reply to the post by "Mad" Miles:

`
"Can some Green explain to me how Greens figure we can meet the goals of the Green
Party under capitalism? The only second party with ballot status (I refuse to refer to the
Demican/Republicrat Party as two distinct entities.) that offers a realistic precondition
to egalitarianism, lasting peace and stable ecosystems is the Peace and Freedom Party."

Moon, Your first sentence above read to me as a criticism of GP values and goals. There are tons of Socialists in the GP, as well as Pragmatic Liberals, and committed Environmentalists who stay away from theories of Political Economy and many who just don't involve themselves in the discussion, but like what the GP stands for. The GP doesn't enforce any kind of doctrinal orthodoxy among its members.

Your second sentence is demonstrably not true.
So the Socialist Party has ballot status somewhere in the US?

Besides the Green Party, there is the Socialist Party and a few peripatetic Left parties. No one familiar with the Green Party 10 Key Values or Platform, could make the claim that the GP isn't all about egalitarianism, lasting peace and stable ecosystems.

I didn't say Greens aren't in favor of those things. (In fact, i mentioned 90% overlap.)
I said the party hasn't put forward a realistic precondition to those things, i.e. socialism
(or some other alternative to capitalism, if someone comes up with a better one.)

So, to me, your post came off as contentious. And I responded in that light.I apologize if I overinterpreted the tone of your comment.

The original point of my post--as i thought my addition to the title implied, but i guess
that was a bit subtle--was about the habitual exclusion of Peace and Freedom.

Also my,

- Instead of treating the Green Party as the end, the goal, of all political action, how about treating us as one means, to express political views, and goals, along with other meaningful efforts, single issue campaigns, local extra-electoral organizing, building Social Movement, etc.. Why do purists insist we put all of our eggs in one basket?

Playing, "gotcha", because something does not meet the exact criteria for the perfect political organization or effort, is a recipe for sterility. And it's a very, very popular game, especially on the Left. -

Was as much a general reply to the consistent slamming of the GP, that comes from many on the Liberal / Left. I was not just responding to you, individually. It could be a form of tunnel vision on my part, because I've been having similar arguments with critics of the GP, for decades. And in every major election cycle, the mill starts up again, with pretty much the same slams, that have been around since even before people started organizing the GP in the early eighties. I know, partly because I entertained some of those concerns myself. But stayed open enough, talked to organizers and did my homework.

Much of that criticism seems to be based on projections of limited information and the slams from Democratic Party Partisans, and other partisan camps. The Marxist-Leninists like to diss the GP for not having a "class analysis". Labor activists like to dismiss the GP as middle class and without any commitment to collective bargaining rights. Neither claim is true.

The Left is a rich ecosystem. Efforts to not get weighed down in the sterile debates that contribute to self-marginalization, get interpreted as a rejection of meaningful content in those debates.

History is complex, the ins and outs of doctrinal disputes, while appreciated by some Greens like me, are something that many walked away from, were never part of, or have never been interested in. Not every political activist has to be a theorist. Although sometimes I think it would be nice if leaders had a better grounding in the tradition, without being invested or bogged down in, any one sub-camp.

As for coordination between the GP and P&F, I'm not privy to that entire history. I left California in '84 for grad school in Chicago, I only came back to visit, and didn't move back until '97. I was only privy to the broadest strokes of the news in Green Party circles, in that regard. I know some efforts were made. Since both parties are made up of activists who are volunteers, that's always a mixed bag. Coordination, even within such groups, regularly proves problematic.

pwned is online gamer slang for, owned. As in won, prevailed, dominated in a contest. It's been part of popular culture slang, online especially, for over a decade. Sorry to be cryptic!

Cheers,

**Valley Oak** · 09-25-2012 09:02 PM

Obama has earned my vote. Not the Green Party. Obama has stood firmly in support of LGBT rights, declared himself publicly in favor of same-sex marriage, repealed DADT, and has refused to defend DOMA, etc, etc, etc.

These are the specifics of Obama's defense of the LGBT community. I will be voting for him again even though California will almost certainly go to him. I will not be "swapping my vote" in favor of the Green Party.

I ask everyone to vote for Obama, not the Green Party. Obama has done his job, he deserves your vote, and he can do more if Democrats get a majority again in the House of Representatives. It is extremely difficult to get important work done if either or both houses of Congress are in hands of the opposition. It is as if there were only half of a president when Congress is hostile.

The House holds the purse strings and Republicans have continually held billions of dollars hostage in order to block far too many of Obama's initiatives. Among the many services that Republicans have sabotaged while in control of the House is abortion rights and its funding (threats to defend Planned Parenthood, etc), Obama's health care overhaul, and so on.

Please support the President for the good work that he has done. We all deserve and need another 4 years. But please give Obama a majority in the House as well.

Edward

**"Mad" Miles** · 09-26-2012 05:11 PM

`
Edward,

So, basically you're declaring yourself a single issue voter. And Gay Rights are your single issue.

You keep using the term, "Vote Swapping", apparently referring to those who vote Green knowing the outcome will be the reelection of The Obamanator, while still sending the message that they like the Green Party and what it stands for. That's not vote swapping.

Vote swapping, refers to various scenarios in which two parties agree to vote for someone the other supports, but the voter doesn't, as a way to engage in strategic voting. The only instance I recall it coming up in recent years, is when some Nader supporters in 2004 (when he was not the candidate for the Green Party, he was running an independent campaign, David Cobb was the GP nominee) talked about agreeing to vote for Kerry in Red States, if some other party in a Blue State would vote for Nader. At least that's my vague recollection.

Vote Swapping also happens when elected officials vote for things, that when the final deciding vote comes along, they vote against. They mix and match their preliminary votes among their cohort on a representative body, to share the credit for "standing up", in the preliminaries (to put something on the agenda, or to order a study, etc.) only to have, "seen the harsh light of painful truth", on the final vote, and vote for the benefit of their business contributors and against the interests of the majority of their constituents.

I think there is a pattern of this on the Board of Supervisors of Sonoma County. But there is no way to find a "smoking gun" that confirms such suspicions.

Voting for Jill Stein and Cheri Honkala, because they have the best ideas for our future...

(Including the decades long commitment by the Green Party to Gay Rights. From the get-go, not just decades later. And not just for strategic purposes to solidify core constituencies and to engender campaign contributions. As The Obamanator has transparently done.)

...while knowing that in the Safe States, one can safely do so, without being concerned that Romnification has any chance of winning the election. Nor that a vote for Stein in any way gives Romnification any advantage, whatsoever. While more and more, it's palpably obvious, he doesn't stand a chance, no matter what a few conscious, inquisitive and critical thinkers may do, to express their views about what our government should be doing, and isn't. Is not vote swapping. It's one form of strategic voting.

The slogan is, vote your goals and values, not your fears.

I'd also like to note that at no point have you engaged with, commented upon or refuted any of the ample sources of information, that I have provided here. They demonstrate that your claims about the danger of The Obamanator losing, have no logical or factual basis.

Instead, you've just regurgitated campaign commercials for The Obamanator. Cheerleading, pure and simple, and nothing more.

As for your claim that The Obamanator is the "best choice", there's plenty of well documented evidence to the contrary, but this precis from one of my FB friends is a start. Not that the litany is unfamiliar to any engaged observers. He's writing from the perspective of us American Working People:

Obama is Wall Street's president; and Wall Street is our common enemy.

Obama is nothing but a warmonger.

What kind of sadistic moron, besides a mafia boss, keeps a "kill list" on their desk and then orders unmanned drone attacks killing innocent people in the process of "taking out the target?"

Obama has refused to enforce Affirmative Action thereby being an enabler himself of a racist Wall Street agenda from which these parasitic coupon clippers reap huge profits from racism. (He was responding to the claim that not supporting The Obamanator is tantamount to Racism.)

And let's not forget Obama's leading role in pushing the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) in secrecy from the American people while providing over 600 corporate lobbyists with all the specifics in one more scheme to drive down the standard of living of the American working class.

What about poverty? Obama has talked more about the NFL dispute over the refs than he has talked about eliminating poverty in over four years.

- Alan L. Maki, Union Organizer for Indian Casino Workers on Reservations in Northern Minnesota and Wisconsin. Midwest Casino Workers Organizing Council

**"Mad" Miles** · 09-26-2012 05:58 PM

`
Moon,

I'd never claim that every Green Party Member has a sophisticated knowledge of history, politics, political philosophy or a host of other related topics. The Greens are mixed bag, just like any other group. Some are better educated about politics, some are just attracted to the values and platform, while they are on par with the vast majority of Americans who are not particularly politicized.

The Green Party is not a Socialist party, per se. But if you know where to look and know the history, it is not an anti-Socialist party. Nor is it exclusively pro or anti Capitalism. The Greens decided not to decide, partly because the level of education regarding what Socialism and Capitalism mean, is so abysmal here.

And that's no accident, keeping a serious discussion of the nuances of both movements, and the vast and complicated differences within each, out of the mainstream. Some say it's a conspiracy to keep us from thinking too critically. I think it has a great deal to do with avoidance and denial, but it's not just among Greens, that these things aren't mentioned as part of the quotidian dialog.

Have you ever seen a serious discussion of the systemic flaws of globalized finance capitalism among any of our leaders? I certainly haven't. And don't expect one, anytime soon.

Unless you count the discussions within small circles and schools of competing opinion in the Sectarian ghetto of the Left. Partly because of the futility of that internecine warfare, people walk away from it as ineffective vexatious disputation. I think that's too bad. But not everyone is interested in the minutia of political theory, or has the patience for it.

Everybody, from every partisan camp, defends their actions as pragmatic and claims theirs is the most realistic approach that has some chance of working. It's the differences in assumptions, world views and doctrine, that create the diversity of competing claims about what is pragmatic/feasible and what isn't.

Most, when first exposed to the Kilkenny cat-fights in the Leftist Firing Circle, walk away in disgust. The Greens attempted to replace the constant bickering, with something that could be generally consensed to. While permitting those with varied views about political economy, to work together.

That doesn't stop some Greens from engaging in endemic infighting, over interpretation of general goals and practices, that lend themselves to such dispute. Partly because the consensed goals and practices are vague and loose enough to be open to interpretation.

That vagueness is there, to paper over differences over specifics, such as, "Can Capitalism be reformed and regulated enough to allow for Social Justice, or is it so inherently flawed, it must be replaced by Democratic Socialism. And if so, what is Democratic Socialism, how would it work, how would it be different than the efforts in the name of Socialism, that were disastrous? Would there be markets? And if so, wouldn't they be a form of Capitalism?" Huge range of opinion on those broad issues, alone.

Activists want action. Theorists want robust and nuanced theories. That becomes a source of contention. The Green Party is a voluntary organization. People come to it with many different agendas and levels of knowledge and organizational skills. That's fine, but it means that saying, "Greens think this. Greens do that." has to be looked at skeptically. Which Greens? Where? With regard to what specific issue? And what are their reasons for taking that action and advocating that goal or practice?

You want clear orthodoxy with clean lines and clear distinctions? Doctrinal claims such as, "All Capitalism must be abolished. Only Socialism provides the answer." If that is what you require, you'll probably not be comfortable in the Green Party.

The Green Party approach to political theory is, Problem A, needs to be addressed, by any means that have a reasonable chance to work, to mitigate, ideally resolve, the problem. We don't claim to have all of the answers. We claim that we have good starts to looking for answers and some ideas about what they are.

Read the platform. It doesn't read like a Sectarian political tract. That's not an accident. It's intensional.

https://www.gp.org/committees/platfo...CorporatePower

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Re: California Election questions, comments, opinions and recommendations

Re: California Election questions, comments, opinions and recommendations

Re: California Election questions, comments, opinions and recommendations

Re: California Election questions, comments, opinions and recommendations

Re: California Election questions, comments, opinions and recommendations

Re: California Election questions, comments, opinions and recommendations

Differences between dems and repubs are mighty

Re: California Election questions, comments, opinions and recommendations

Re: Differences between dems and repubs are mighty

Vote strategically!

Re: Vote strategically!

Re: California Election questions, comments, opinions and recommendations

Act strategically!

Tangential, But Important Issues

Permission to Repost?

Re: Permission to Repost?

Re: If You Vote Green may I suggest ...

Re: Democrat or Green?

Re: Democrat or Green?

Re: Democrat or Green?

Re: Democrat or Green?--or Peace and Freedom

Re: Democrat or Green?

Re: Democrat or Green?

Re: Democrat or Green?

Re: Democrat or Green?--or Peace and Freedom

Re: Democrat or Green?

Re: Democrat or Green?--or Peace and Freedom

Re: Democrat or Green?

Re: Democrat or Green?

Re: Democrat or Green?

Similar Threads

Democrat or Green? Moved to WaccoTalk

Bookmarks