Green Grievances

Everything John Murphy says is absolutely true — (including the falsity of Nader's endorsement of Edwards which was obscured by Alex Cockburn recently).

I differ with him on two minor (but I think important) details.

1) I have seen how the Demogreens have courted McKinney — but I trust that she is strong enough to wag the dirty dog.

She will have to use her great intellect and leadership skills and bring them to the fore — she should insist on democracy, transparency, and action in the party.

2) The media will be harder on Nader than on McKinney. It has promoted Cobb (the pay-off for his treachery is clear to me). Yes, McKinney is slandered in the media — but the media will watch her like a hawk if she gains independent exposure. Murphy is right — she is new to the GP internals — but she is smart and learns fast! Nader will be ridiculed and ignored by the media from day one — I fear that due to that alone his gains will be minor and issues will be marginalized.

I pray for Nader and McKinney to form a "smart alliance": reform the Green Party and run a strong coordinated issues campaign.

A united front with others is a good idea.

If Demogreens usurp McKinney, I will go with Nader. I love McKinney, and I believe she can ignite the Green Party and build it for those that the Demogreens in actuality have kept out: the voiceless, many who will never hear of Nader.

If an enlightened McKinney can join with Nader who is always issue driven the Green Party will carry on and make a difference.

I also hope Demogreens search their souls and hear the truth in Murphy's words. They remind me now of the professed mother that would have Solomon halve the child.

If the Green Party continues on as it has, those of us who really care about Green Values will walk away.

Very interesting show as usual George. I think your guest was bang on about the Green party being seen as some sort of sub-group of the Democratic Party umbrella, but I think it's part of a larger issue of the electoral system being assumed to be a two-party system. I suspect Libertarians would complain of similar tendencies with respect to the Republicans.

One point you might have raised is the success that Greens in Canada have been enjoying, and what examples, if any, they might provide for the US. I believe Linda McQuaig mentioned a couple of shows ago that in my province, Ontario, they recently won about 8% of the popular vote in our most recent election. While a conservative / Libertarian myself, it's been remarkable to see their success over the last few years; I wouldn't be surprised to see them overtake the NDP as our third party in Canada in the next couple of elections. I had originally dismissed the Greens here as being ultra left-wing; but after speaking with one, he actually came across as fairly fiscally conservative.

Keep up the excellent interviews, George !

Shawn

This concept of "DemoGreens" is as useful as "Islamofascists" and in some ways share the same MO: disrupt and disconnect.

That term serves no useful purpose. It is bandided about using a twisted logic by those who declare their reverence for Ralph Nader, a man due all respect for his life work and actions. Those attacking people as "Demogreens" conveniently forget that it was Ralph Nader who spoke to Kerry and tried many times unsuccessfully to talk with Gore in 2000. Ralph understands the nuances of politics and developing political leverage, while maintaining principles. These narrow-minded folks do not.

They think work in coalitions and negotiation is the same as capitulation or something done out of weakness. To the contrary, it is only out of building the party and its infrastructure and its wide-spread creditability that you can have political leverage.

They put everything into the "publicity" value of having the well-known Nader as the Green Presidential candidate. They seem not to be able to see beyond that limited focus objective.

Sadly it is a Green version of weapons of distraction, promulgated by those who through constant attacks on the Party prevent it from actually achieving its only purpose: changing the political landscape of America (and thus the world).

Standing on the OUTside, lobbing grenades at all Democrats, and not articulating instead the structural role that the Democratic leadership has on undermining our democracy, places us at odds with people who, too, want a way out of this mess.

They use the same tactic of sitting on the sidelines and lobbing verbal grenades at Greens who are actually doing the hard and dirty work of building something. The folks are not only alienated, they are alienating others.

It is their "strategy" of demean and attack that actually debilitates the Green Party from working cohesively and coherently.

As our nation approaches, in King's words, "spiritual death," and those who have hijacked the national structures put us all deeper into debt to fund a corporate war machine machine, as we shred our constitution, hold rigged elections in an already skewed electoral process, as the enablers in Congress do nothing to stop this nor enlighten the public of the very real threats to our nation (largely domestic), we more than ever need an effective Green Party voice which points the way towards a sustainable and inclusive society that is based upon real democratic principles and is respectful and mindful of our differences.

We have real issues around which to organize the frustration and outrage of millions of Americans today. The Green Party stands for a clear direction towards a world we want and need.

At this crucial time the party should be concentrating on taking our goals and values and honing plans and strategies to make our values and goals known as widely as possible. A coherent strategy that invites respect and confidence. One that is ready to answer at a moment's notice each and every attack coming from the Right (as supported by both the Republican and Democratic leadership).

Instead we see the party's efforts and resources spent on internecine vitriol.

It is high time for these armchair amateur politicos and email junkies such as John Murphy to either help build a Party that CAN talk to most of America, that CAN translate the values of a peoples movement born in the sixties and matured in the 90's, that CAN inspire trust and support from working people and the disenfranchised of our nation, or to move on and take their harsh words, disruptive tactics and venom with them.

Speaking from the perspective of an outsider (a Canadian citizen), I have to agree with "green advocate".

The conversation in the podcast reminded me of the half-dozen communist splinter groups around my university back in the day: each of them fighting amongst themselves as to which was truly carrying the flame of "socialist revolution". Amidst all the heat and noise, none of them realized that no one else cared about their petty squabbling or that their ideas were at least 50 years past their expiration date.

The shame of the green party is that their actual ideas are worth taking seriously. But I can't imagine how many people are going to be turned off of them because of this sectarian bickering which is only interesting to a few insiders with chips on their shoulders.

Some truly wise words:

Todd Chetien writes about the future of the Greens and the issues that matter to many of us in a way I find absolutely compelling. His historical description is very accurate and quite well balanced — and I think this recent essay of his is must reading for anyone interested in the topic of George Kenney's interview this week. For myself, this would be the last word.

Here is the link:

http://tinyurl.com/2sz9l5

The barrier to Green success remains the structure of electoral systems. The countries where Green parties have had most influence at a national/federal level are those with some form of STV or proportional voting — eg. Germany, Australia, NZ and the Nordics.

The Western nations who have effectively no Green representation in parliament tend to be those that operate "first-past-the-post" voting in national elections — places such as the US, France and the UK.

In NZ, the Greens made electoral reform their first priority, and formed coalitions with other small parties and democracy movements to campaign for proportional representation in the national parliament. This was achieved in a 1993 referendum. Six years later, the NZ Greens won 6% of the seats in parliament and held the balance of power... of course this rapid change won't be so easy to achieve in the US...

We have real issues around which to organize the frustration and outrage of millions of Americans today. The Green Party stands for a clear direction towards a world we want and need.

At this crucial time the party should be concentrating on taking our goals and values and honing plans and strategies to make our values and goals known as widely as possible. A coherent strategy that invites respect and confidence. One that is ready to answer at a moment's notice each and every attack coming from the Right (as supported by both the Republican leadership).

Instead we see the party's efforts and resources spent on internecine vitriol.

green advocate evades the core fact brought out by Murphy: under Demogreen leadership the Green Party is withering. (Here in Illinois they are virtually invisible.)

Instead of speaking to this undeniable truth, advocate strings together assertions that presume that support of the Democratic Party was successful and will continue to be successful . . . if only the "armchair amateur politicos" went away or fell in line.

The facts don't support this presumption.