Re: [pf] [GreenParty2001] The New Greens

by Betsy Barnum

07 December 2000 04:20 UTC

Bill,

I have to take strong issue with almost every one of your points. It's hard for
me to believe that we belong to the same Green Party.

You wrote:

> 1) THE NEW GREENS OR NADER GREENS (NGS) MADE THE OLD GREEN PARTIES
> FORGETABLE AND FORGOTTEN FOLLLIES OF THE PAST. Forget them.   We are
> starting over.

Follies of the past! If that weren't so false and ludicrous, it would be
insulting! You may have had bad experiences with the Green Party, but don't
forget that there wouldn't *be* any "Nader Greens" if it hadn't been for the
folks who started and have kept alive the Green Party/movement in the U.S. for
the past 15-20 years. Dumping the whole bunch in the trash would be so foolish,
I can't even find the words for it! They/we (I've only been involved for 4
years, but that makes me almost an elder in this infant movement) most
*definitely* aren't going to be forgotten! *We* *aren't* starting over; you go
ahead if you want to, but don't make any sweeping statements about "New Greens"
please. Too many people have been working far too hard to build this party and
movement, to just be tossed aside.

> 2) THERE ARE BOT ELECTORAL-POLITICAL AND MOVEMENT ASPECTS TO THE NGs.

This is nothing new, Bill. The Green Party has been the electoral face of a
grassroots international social justice movement for a number of decades now. It
wasn't invented by Ralph Nader and it didn't start in the U.S.

> 3) NGs NEED NOT WIN POLITICAL ELECTIONS TO HAVE POLITICAL POWER.
> We can learn that from the Christian Right.

The Green Party is a political party. To succeed, it needs to get candidates
elected. Otherwise, it is a social movement, but not a political party. This is
fundamental.

The Religious Right, while it is not a political party, has had a great deal of
success in winning elections. They've been doing it for quite some time,
starting with getting their candidates into local offices such as school boards.
As their movement gained electoral know-how they have succeeded in bringing
their agenda to the Republican Party to such an extent that Republican elected
officials on almost all levels are now significantly to the right of the average
Republican voter. The crop of New Repubs elected in 1994 were the inheritors of
the Christian Right's political success. This didn't happen without a very
deliberate push to get people elected to office.

> The Nader campaign also proved
> it.  All of the bellyaching that Nader helped elect Bush is partial truth.
> The bigger part of the truth is that Gore defeated Gore by not recognizing
> the NGs.  By 2002 that can be a well recognized fact.  Many Nader Greens
> deserted the campaign justly trying to prevent a Bush victory.  By 2002 if
> these and a few of the disenfranchised minorities are united a 5% to 10%
> would make both parties shift their positions to those of the NGs.

The Green Party as I know and understand it is *not* aiming at changing the
agendas of the Dems and Repubs. Greens want to build our party's electoral and
political power as a separate entity from them. In Minnesota, the Green Party is
now a major party, since we got more than 5% of the vote and a minimum of 2
votes in each county. We are not here to move the two main parties this way or
that way, but to present a political vision and platform that will draw voters
to us and get *our*  candidates into office, where the Green vision and platform
can have an impact, not on other political parties, but on society, on our whole
system.

> I'm not sure what Ralph Nader plans for our future.  But I hope we will see
> him establishihg a shadown cabinet to carry on from where he has brought us.
> And I hope that each of us will pledge to continue to support, actively and
> financially, the actions we have started.

I sure hope Ralph Nader isn't "planning for our future!" I'd kinda like to make
plans for my own future, and for the Green Party as a whole to make plans for
*its* future with the input of the grassroots membership. Nader isn't Green,
never joined the party and has said he never will. It seems highly unlikely to
me that he is going to want to be the titular leader of a new entity called by
his name--"Nader Greens." He's a wonderful leader, and a person of high
integrity, intelligence and commitment. But I really object that "he has brought
us" anywhere, other than  into public consciousness. He didn't create the Green
Party or its platform--Greens from all over the US (and before that, the world)
did. He agreed to be the party's endorsed candidate and to uphold our platform
and campaign on the basis of it. The Green Party does *not* depend on him. It's
not a party based on the leadership of one person. It's a grassroots effort and
that's the *only* way it will succeed.

The Green Party faces unprecedented challenges now, in the wake of election
2000. Here in Minnesota, it's becoming very clear that one of the biggest ones
is integrating the passionate mostly young energy that so many Nader supporters
have brought in with the solid foundation that has been built and nurtured by
the few incredibly committed individuals who have been involved since long
before anybody ever heard of the Green Party. The newer folks are mostly
inexperienced in politics, but have plenty of idealism and passion; the older
folks are sometimes jaded and tired, but are very familiar with the political
system and how it works from decades of participation. Each group has what the
other needs. And we all have a vision and passion for a just and sustainable
society. Together, we're going to continue building and weaving the Green Party,
not in anybody's name or at anybody's feet, but with the four pillars and the
ten principles of the Green Party worldwide as the common ground and context for
our work. Ralph Nader can come along if he likes; but he isn't the leader.

Betsy
--
Betsy Barnum
bbarnum@wavetech.net
http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/1624

**************************************
The complex interchange we call "language" is rooted in the non-verbal exchange
already going on between our flesh and the flesh of the world.

--David Abram, The Spell of the Sensuous