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

by Betsy Barnum

07 December 2000 21:57 UTC

Bill Ellis wrote:

> 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.

"A new beginning" and "welcoming a whole new band of people" from the Nader 
campaign
is *quite* different from what you said previously, which was "start over" and
forget what the Green Party has done up to now. It seems that, after all, we are
saying essentially the same thing.

> 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.

I think this is an exaggeration. In my experience as a Green, which is about as 
long
as ASGP has existed (4 years), there's been antagonism between the two, but not 
to
the point of threatening the whole party. Several folks from Minnesota have also
been involved in trying to bring the two together. From what I understand, that 
gap
has been closed. There was a meeting in Boston a few months ago at which a
rapprochement was worked out.

> 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 think you are wrong about this. The Greens were the only group with enough of 
a
foundation to run any candidate for president. There was no other progressive 
game
in town. The Progressive Party is nowhere, as far as I know--or if it does 
exist, it
is way under the radar. It was the Greens who approached Nader, and had to 
convince
him to run in 1996. You know this. Nader wasn't looking for a political party to
revive. He didn't want to run for president or be a political leader of any 
sort.
Ronnie Dugger tried to start the Alliance for Democracy about six years ago, 
and it
went pretty much nowhere for quite a while, until it was vitalized by an influx 
of
Green support. Around here, folks like me tried to hook up with the Alliance 
back
then, and there was nothing going on, so we went with the Green Party which was
definitely a happening thing. Dugger is now a Green, and ran as a Green in New 
York
for U.S. Senate (unsuccessfully).

> > 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.

Now, I hear you saying something different from just above, Bill. Help me 
understand
what you mean by "The Green Party has almost ignored "The Movement" in favor of
electoral politics."

This is my understanding, from a much shorter involvement than you have had. 
GPUSA
was the first Green organization, and it has the social-movement focus. The
electoral-focused organization, ASGP, was formed in 1996 for the purpose of 
getting
Nader to run for president, so prior to that there was no formal organization of
Greens who focused on electoral politics. Are you saying that even without
organization, Greens favoring electoral politics ignored GPUSA before 1996?

In the past four years, GPUSA has definitely not been ignored--it has always 
had a
solid base of individuals and state parties as members. It has had enough of a 
power
base to force the much younger "upstart" ASGP to negotiate with it and work out 
a
mutually satisfying agreement on what each will do in the future.

Petra Kelly, one of the founders of the German Greens, said somewhere in  her
writings that there's nothing wrong with having two "branches," even two
organizations, of  Greens--one focusing primarily on the social movement and
activism, and the other focusing mostly on electoral politics. This is how the
Greens differ from other political parties--we are *also* a social movement. I 
think
this is significant in two ways-one, that the movement is connected to 
struggles for
justice and ecological sanity all over the world, and two, that it offers a 
home for
those, especially the young, who are passionately committed to activism as a 
way to
create a just society.

I wasn't Green when the Amherst meeting took place, so I can't comment on that. 
But
the social transformation and electoral concerns of Greens are integrating, 
perhaps
slowly, and not without difficulty, but they are coming together. The ASGP/GPUSA
agreement is a national symbol and example of that.

I feel that I have a foot squarely in both. I am an activist and am working on 
every
front I am involved in to strengthen the Green movement from the grassroots. 
And I
see clearly the need to get people elected to office to push the system toward
sustainability as well. I'm treasurer now for a city council candidate seeking 
Green
endorsement, and I am thus more involved in local electoral politics than I ever
have been before. This is important work, and not at all exclusive of social
activism.

> 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.

I think you are correct on both counts. One big area of discussion here right 
now is
what kinds of projecs our local Green Party units want to do to to help people 
and
let everyone know we are not going to disappear between elections, but that we 
are
committed to social change 24/7. And by focusing energy *also* on getting Green
candidates elected, we can be that much more effective. Being involved in the
community needn't exclude being involved in elections.

> > 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.

Your point is taken, but my point was that the Religious Right has *also* made 
it a
priorty to get their people elected to office. They have done this mostly in 
local
races, which are usually nonpartisan, but primarily with Republican 
endorsement, so
their agenda has risen upward electorally as well as by "winning over people."

> The
> Greens could act similarly by joining the many other progressive movements.

It's my perception, at least around here, that most Greens are already involved 
in
other progressive movements, and it is in this way, already, that the movement 
has
grown and matured. Continuing to do this is definitely on our agenda.

> > 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.

I did not misspeak. And I did not say that Greens are interested in power for 
the
sake of power. Greens are interested in power for the sake of changing society. 
The
name Green *is* important because it is the Green Party that has the vision and
platform for fundamental change.

The other parties have proven over and over that they are not committed to or 
even
interested in true change. Many of the Greens I know worked within the 
Democratic
Party for years, trying to move its agenda in a more progressive direction, 
only to
be frustrated over and over. Our own Jill has made statements of this sort here
quite recently. A lot of us have given up on reforming the two parties and 
decided
to give our effort to a new party that strives to be a legitimate politcal 
force in
its own right. This is *not* power for power's sake.

To me, the goal of changing society means, in part, electing Green Party 
members to
office. To you, it means movement-building. I want us not to be exclusive, to
continue to pursue both avenues, and not consider either avenue the only 
"right" or
"good" or "effective" one.

What a beautiful idea--people can be Green and focus on electoral politics, 
they can
be Green and focus on social justice, and they can be Green and do both. This is
really different from "politics as usual."

Betsy