RE: [pf] you want Green Views? Here's some Green Views!

by Bill Ellis

07 December 2000 20:32 UTC

From: Betsy Barnum <bbarnum@wavetech.net>
Subject: Re: [pf] [GreenParty2001] The New Greens

>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.
...............................................

Betsy,
I don't take strong exception to any of your points.
But I do believe that there is a chance for a new beginning.
Nader has brought a whole new band of people under the Green banner.
Let's welcome them.
I have been a Green since the Chicago meeting.
I became less green with the Amherst Conference in which Charlene, Fritjof,
and others were essential frozen out.

> You wrote:
> Follies of the past! If that weren't so false and ludicrous, it would be
> insulting!
BE:
The bitterness between the G/GPUSA  and the rest of The Greens was a folly
and nearly destroyed the Green politics in Ameerica. I was a founding
memnber of GPN and have worked with many others trying to mend the gap.

> 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.
BE:
If the old Green Parties hadn't been there we would have formed some other
Third Party with Nader, Ivins, Hightower, Dugger and others. It would have
probably been revival of the Progressive Party.  None of these people have
had much to do with the Greens since Amherst. Many had never heard Green.
I've been a Green for 20 years,  have addressed the UK Greens and met with
the German Greens.  I'm not suggesting that we dump the Green Parties but
that we in the USA unite with other current progressive leaders.
>
> 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.
BE;
I'm most pleased that you have this view.  Unfortunatelly it is not so.  In
my 30 years in the movement, and editor of TRANET,  I have found too little
integration with the A&T (Alternaive and Transformational) movements.
The Green Party has almost ignored "The Movement(s)" in favor of electoral
politics.  That was the discussion I led in Amherst and has been an ongoing
concern of many other Greens as well as Ralph Nader.


> 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.
BE:
Here we disagree in part.  It is my humble position that
1) The Greens, if unitied as a pllitical lobby could make progress in
instilling green values in all of the political agenda. and
2) that by becoming more active in actually DOING SOMETHING to imnprove
society between election Greens could win new members and new support and
become a major political force.  This later idea comes from German and
Italian parties who are quite active with funds and foundations that create
the kind of world the envision outside of the political arena.

> The Religious Right, while it is not a political party, has had a great
> deal of success in winning elections.
BE:
You make my point. The Religious Right wins without being a political party.
The radical right has infiltrated every aspect of our society.  Most
recently I've been reading the new publication "Classical Homeschooling"
that is taking over the homeschooling movement.  They recognize that if they
win over the people they will also advance their political agenda.  The
Greens could act similarly by joining the many other progressive movements.

> 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.
BE:
I think you misspoke youself.  IMHO the Greens are not interested in power
for the sake of power.  We want to create a better society based on sound
green principles.  The name Green is not really importaant.  Changing
society is. Power of the sake of power is what has made politics what it is.
The Greens will succeed if the whole social agenda is changed.