Binh writes (above) “Why don’t the Nader Greens or left Greens or whatever you want to call them secede and form a new, better, if smaller (at first) Green Party? I’m not sure I understand the rationale behind staying in a party where the (right-wing) leadership does all kinds of nasty undemocratic —- to prevent the party from moving to the left.”

That is exactly what we have done in Maryland Bihn, creating the Populist Party of Maryland (Ralph Nader chose the name and gave us our initial push by organizing the initial ballot drive, but we have carried on since then, running campaigns for Governor, Lt. Governor, U.S. Senate, and State Assembly. It’s difficult to properly describe how much stress is lifted from our sholders by not having to deal with the Democrat agents in our midst as our collegues in the Green Party are forced to do! I hope others will join us in our Populist revolt against the two-party system and the capitulators in the Green Party who fear any real challenge of it.

The following is an exchange I had with Nader Green Steve Welzer. Yours, Chris Driscoll, State Chair, Populist Party of Maryland

Steve,

I’m not at all sure that the Nader/Green alliance was in any way beneficial to Ralph Nader, to his supporters or to this great nation in such dire crisis. I refer you to Ralph’s “Letter to Greens,” written in early 2004 for details. Ralph may decide to seek the Green nomination next year, and if he does I will support him in that decision; however, I have seen little to convince me that the Green Party U.S. has grown any more mature as a national organization in the intervening years. I’ve yet to see any concerted effort on the part of national Green officials to reach out to Ralph and his supporters and show that they can grow and improve as a leadership. In fact, the last I heard, they still claim not to be a leadership at all, which is one claim with which I am in perfect agreement.

That fact alone, in fact, is telling. In this age when national leadership is sorely needed, the Green national officials fail the test. What makes you think they will be any more likely to lead in the way they should by reaching out to Ralph Nader and independent Nader supporters than they were in 2004 when the blew their historic opportunity to do so? As a direct result of that error, and of their willful disregard of political realities by choosing to run a stealth safe-states campaign for president in direct opposition to the campaign of Nader and of their own Peter Camejo, both sides of the former alliance lost ground, but the Green Party U.S. lost much more through their mistake: they lost several ballot lines, and, I’ve heard recently, 50,000 members. That’s not good for anyone, but the mistake was deliberate and it was the Green national officials who orchestrated it.

I’ve yet to see any evidence that they have learned from their mistakes and are willing to be more reasonable this time around. Here in Maryland where I live, The Populist Party of Maryland, created by Nader supporters in order to get him on the ballot in 2004, approached the state Green Party in Feb. 2005 about the possibility of a joint campaign for Governor, which the state Green elected officials rejected out of hand. We approached them again about supporting a Zeese Unity candidacy for U.S. Senate in 2006, which they also rejected out of hand, yet that candidate went on to directly appeal to Green voters in the state caucuses to win the Green nomination, as well as the Populist and Libertarian nominations. That was accomplished by going around the Green elected state officials, but one thing was clear, when we approached the state Libertarian leadership, they acted like leaders seeking coalition, when we approached the Green mis-leadership, they acted like sectarians, circling the wagons and rejecting coalition. To make matter worse, during our Populist Gubernatorial Campaign in 2006, the Greens, in a typically sectarian way, went out of their way to attack our candidates, while we bent over backwards to avoid attacking them, even inviting them to participate in joint events, which they also rejected. Can you imagine the spectacle of the Green Candidates for Governor and Lt. Governor attacking the Populist candidates, demanding in public that we withdraw our candidacies? Claiming over and over again that we did not have a right to run? What a shameful embarrassment for the third-party movement! Part of their strategy was to attack us by continuously mentioning our origin as a party based on Nader supporters. Not that we were offended by being mentioned along with Ralph Nader, but the fact that they decided that that was a campaign strategy worthy of Green candidates tells us a lot about how these misleaders think. Again in the late fall of 2006, after the elections, we Populists approached the state Green officials about the possibility of planning future “unity” campaigns based on the success of the Zeese Unity Campaign for U.S. Senate, (which, remember, the Populists, Libertarians and Green rank and file had to force on the state Green misleaders!) and once again they rejected our coalition appeal. We Populists think it is wrong for any third party candidates to say in public that other third parties do not have the right to run. It is a basic violation of third-party principles. We appealed to the Green state leadership to curb their candidates from that shameful public display, but to no avail. We still believe in building coalitions, and we still believe that progressive third party candidates gain nothing by attacking each other and everything by joining together in our attacks on the corrupt plutocratic corporate parties, and I hope someday the Green officials in Maryland will come to feel the same way.

I will be surprised if their national apparatus is any more reasonable about appeals for coalition and working with progressive and populist forces outside their narrow, sectarian ranks.

I want to make crystal clear that I think there are some wonderful state green parties and many wonderful individual Greens who would not act in the brazen sectarian fashion the Maryland State Green Party elected officials acted in and continue to act toward Nader supporters outside the Green Party, apparently solely because we were and are Nader supporters and they now see us as a threat of some imaginary kind.

I am hopeful that once the Green Party U.S. goes the way of other like-minded sectarian forces into the oblivion of the footnotes of history, that the better state Green Parties will form part of a broader national “party of the people” along with other progressive and populist forces. I have many close friends and political associates who are Greens and who act in exemplary ways. Many Greens in the state of Maryland voted for me in our gubernatorial campaign last year and helped in our campaign. Yet the Green Party U.S. and the state party with which I am most closely familiar, the party in Maryland, has not in anyway reformed itself into a democratic organization. As Josh Franks pointed out in a recent article on DissidentVoices.org, they continue to operate more as a sectarian click than they do as a democratic organization. They continue to use as the model for their presidential nomination the outmoded, undemocratic U.S. Electoral College which gives small backwards state organizations incredibly unbalanced voting weight. If the national organization is anywhere as sectarian as the Maryland organization is, they are sure to reject appeals to coalition just as the state organization did repeatedly.

I have not seen anything that would lead me to believe that the Green Party U.S. (GPUS) has adopted any more than superficial reforms toward becoming a democratic organization, and has certainly not done what it needs to do to become the mature organization Ralph Nader spoke of their possibly becoming in his 2004 Letter to Greens.

As I said at the beginning of this letter, if Ralph Nader seeks the Green nomination, I will support him in his decision. It is his to make after all. However, I fear that any further association by Ralph with the Green Party U.S. will hurt his chances of reaching the people more than help them, given the generally bad reputation the national Green organization has created for itself. It seems as though the Green Party nationally and in my state go out of their way to present themselves as a culture not just different from working class culture, but absolutely anti-working class. Before I left the Green Party in the Summer of 2004, I found that as a life-long labor activist, I had absolutely no luck in selling the Green Party to working people because as hard as I tried to present the Green Party as a pro-working-class group, the sectarians who ran the organization were more successful at presenting the party as a group of counter-culturalists who went to extraordinary lengths to alienate themselves from working people. I have nothing against those in the counter-culture. In many ways I count myself as one of their ranks. However, the Green misleaders seem to have grown for themselves a rather virulent strain of counterculturalism that goes out of its way to push working people away! That may not be the case everywhere, in fact, I am sure that in some states Greens have gone out of their way to make working people feel at home in their ranks. I look at New York, for example, as a state Green organization that has adopted democratic methods of the type that working people demand, making their party more accessible and open to working people. But for every New York, there are dozens of state Green organizations run by and for sectarian countercultural nuts.

If Ralph Nader can overcome those kinds of obstacles to reaching out to the great majority in this country, I applaud him; however, it will be all the more difficult for him to do so with the Green ball and chain around his neck. This is a political calculus, for sure: what’s more important, the positive of a few dozen ballot spots or the overwhelming negative of the sorry baggage the Green Party brings with it into any coalition? I tend to feel the negatives outweigh the positives. I may be wrong, but I hope I have presented a case fat least worth considering.

Sincerely,
Chris Driscoll, state chair, Populist Party of Maryland and 2006 Populist nominee for Governor.

RalphNader2004@yahoogroups.com wrote:
Ralph Nader 2004
Messages In This Digest (1 Message)
1.
Revive the alliance! Get on every ballot! From: s_welzer
View All Topics | Create New Topic
Message
1.
Revive the alliance! Get on every ballot!
Posted by: “s_welzer” stevewelzer@msn.com s_welzer
Wed Sep 12, 2007 6:46 pm (PST)

[This is an updated version of an article
that was circulated earlier in the summer.
The appeal is more urgent now that Ralph
Nader has given permission for his name
to appear on the Green Party of California
primary ballot.]

REVIVE THE ALLIANCE, IN SOME FORM

Our party has an opportunity to revive an alliance
with an iconic, historic figure who the Atlantic
Monthly named as one of the 100 Most Influential
Americans of all time; who, for over ten years, has
been identified with the Green Party in the press and
among the electorate; who advocates strongly and
prominently for issues of critical importance to
Greens. I think we should proactively take advantage
of the opportunity.

The Ralph Nader/Green Party alliance that was
initiated in 1996 was arguably the most promising
development for alternative progressive politics in
this country in decades. It culminated in a notably
successful campaign in 2000. That campaign got the
highest percentage of votes for a progressive ticket
since the La Follette campaign of 1924. It had a high
media profile and therefore generated an unusual
amount of public discussion about issues like the
role of third parties, the closed nature of the U.S.
political system, access to the televised debates,
and electoral system reform.

The closeness of the 2000 horse race between George
Bush and Al Gore, the disputed outcome, and the
consequent atrocious policies of the Bush
administration resulted in a difficult situation
for the Green Party. Many liberals and progressives
decried the Nader campaign, after-the-fact, as
misguided - due to the alleged “spoiler” effect. Such
criticism was misplaced, but Greens felt the heat.
Some became inclined to retreat from a posture of
putting forward the most serious possible challenge
to both of the dominant parties; some got cold feet
about the party’s association with Ralph Nader.
These and a host of other factors resulted in the
dissolution of the Ralph Nader/Green Party alliance
during and after 2004.

On his part, Nader failed to recognize the extent
to which the interest in and sympathy for his 2000
candidacy was based on the idea that he was working
to build a significant, permanent new alternative
party. I believe that he made a mistake by “going
independent. ” It resulted in loss of support,
diversion of precious campaign resources toward
dealing with ballot access problems, and a
disconcerting series of unproductive alliances
with forces more marginal than the Green Party.
The struggle for “more voices and more choices”
in American politics would have been advanced
immeasurably had Nader, after 2000, tackled
the challenge - as an insider - of helping to
develop GPUS into a serious new force.

Regardless of past differences, debates, disagreements
it is key now that both the Greens and Ralph Nader’s
circle of colleagues acknowledge the lessons of 2004
and recognize that running competing campaigns
is a recipe for disaster. Hopefully, both can
now see that the Nader/GP alliance had great
potential and needs to be revived in some form,
either through:
. Nader as the 2008 GP nominee, or
. a Nader campaign supported by the Green Party, or
. a Green campaign supported by Ralph Nader.

BALLOT ACCESS AS A PRIORITY

The Democrats decided in 2004 that the scenario of
spoilers-enabling- a-Republican- victory was so
insufferable that any tactic on their part was
permissible to thwart it. Preventing ballot access
for Nader and, to a lesser extent, the Green Party,
became a priority goal. The Democrats were successful.
Nader got on only 35 ballots. The Green Party ticket
got on only 28.

Appearing on all 51 ballots is a daunting task, but
surely it’s not impossible - the Libertarians have
accomplished it several times. In order to succeed,
the organization of the ballot access drives in the
hardest states must be initiated far in advance of
the dates when petitioning is allowed to begin. That
means petition drive organizing for the 2008 cycle
should begin within weeks after the November, 2007
elections are over.

It was the Democrats’ priority in 2004 to keep
progressive challengers off the ballot. It should be
our priority this time to show them that their rabid
tactics of 2004 will not be allowed to set a precedent.
They declared a war; they won a battle; we must now
come right back and show that we have the
organizational skills to prevail.

The Democrats would like nothing better than to see
the Nader forces and the Green Party forces divided
again in 2008. All those who recognize the importance
of a progressive alternative challenge to the
entrenched duopoly have an interest in working
against such a division, an interest in promoting
some form of collaboration. Ralph Nader owes it to
the progressive community to act responsibly in terms
of the timeframe of his decision about his intentions
for 2008. If he decides to run, it would be encouraging
for the Green rank-and-file to hear that our leaders,
along with representatives from Nader’s circle, are
taking proactive steps to avoid a scenario of
mutually destructive competition. Let’s all work hard,
instead, to find a way to revive what had been
a mutually beneficial alliance.

Steve Welzer
Green Party of New Jersey

The idea that Nader supporter are harmful to the Green Party is inane —
though there seems to be attempted myth making to suggest that Ralph Nader abandoned the Green Party to go “independent” rather than the other way around.

This “independent” run was actually the result of his success in 2000 where he was scapegoated as the cause of Gore’s alleged loss. Rather than standing up to the scapegoating and the swiftboating and sticking with Nader’s incredibly popular candidacy, the Green Party introduced a disingenuous nervous-nelly approach called “safe states,” headed by an inferior candidate no one wanted — Cobb.

The nation suffered a huge loss when the Green Party took its cowardly approach and shunned Nader for 2004.

The leadership which decided on “safe states” and Cobb should be gone.

The Green Party should stop letting cowards among them run their affairs. I’d suggest they should hasten to renew their support for Ralph Nader and benefit from his guidance, wisdom, credibility — and knowledge about the American political scene.

The Green Party also has an opportunity now to support Democrats who want some place to go as they more clearly understand the betrayal of the Democratic Party leadership in NOT stopping the war in Iraq and the renewed funding of it.

Democrats cannot pressure the Democratic Party if they have no place to go.

This is a really tragic story because news of the Green Party here was very exciting — and intensely exciting when Ralph Nader became their candidate!!!

Nader, of course, knew something about building a party — had a dream platform — drew crowds, raised money, raised interest — and is a marvelous speaker who never fails to educate his audience.

All that had to be destroyed, naturally –

Who are the destroyers–????
And, why are they still in the Green Party—???

Both questions are so important because they directly confront whether we will solve the enormous problems that face us as a people,
or , like crazy people, keep doing what we’ve done before -falling for the lies & pretty pictures painted by duop candidates- expecting different results. Can it really be nessecary to say that neither Democrats nor Republicans represent us?

If we are reading this page, we KNOW the answer.

What’s obvious to radical Greens (and there are many) is that we cannot afford wasting any more energy, time or hope chasing after another failed promise made by those pathetic handmaidens to the corporate economics we now suffer under. But beyond them, it’s not a matter of “bad guys” or not enough smarts. Good god, we’ve had millions of great books outlining what we ’should do, what we “can do”. The bottom-line is “BUT WE DON’T”. And the real question is “Why?”
But more of us have to recognize the answer.

It’s the system. Looking directly at the problems, let’s face it, anyone
of us could come up with viable ways to heal the earth, heal most human suffering, devise ways to be green, energy-wise, globally peaceful and caring. Its not rocket science. But we should also be WAY BEYOND thinking its just getting the ‘lesser of two evils’ into office. The system, the culture, the economic manacles that force us into accepting cheap and inadequate policies is positively killing us. We all know that. So how can we be arguing about whether we need to change?

The question is How? As A Green Party member, I know there are many- some represented on this site- that envision a better way than the present mess and are willing to work for it. To finally achieve a fully realized democracy, we have to acknowledge the problem lies not in
isolated issues,or piecemeal reforms, but in the fundamental way we are locked out of rational decision-making. All that decision-making &
control resides in the hands of the corporate owners who also own the two parties, the private and ‘public’ media, the natural resources, and control labor, social spending, all governmental agencies. The only way we can build a constiuency of change, is to propose change. Anything less is useless.

Let’s also this fact. The vision, philosophy and goals of the Green Party, with its Ten Green Values [ particularly the Third Value which calls for a direct and democratic voice in all aspects of our social and economic life] have no place in a profit-driven, corporate state. They are mutually exclusive. Our goals as Greens can only be achieved in a new society based on real social and economic democracy. It’s obvious to many Green Party members that it only makes sense that our voice,
therfore, must be an alternative to the capitalist economic and political values represented by the Demopublican machine, not be its patsy.

As for politics having the potential to change society, we only need to read Article Five , the Amendment Clause of the Constitution. It guarantees our right to change institutions, relationships, to change economic rules, to create a new society that answers the new needs of the people. Of course, that is a potential. We first have to clearly commit to Social and Economic Democracy as our central goal before it can become a reality. But we DO have a way- part of our history and part of our tradition- to build a movement, gain visability as a clear alternative, support our own candidates and gain a growing voice in local, state and national elections. Its there for the ‘doing’.

Joshua Frank raises the MOST important debates of our day. Can we en-vision a different and future better than our present? Can we admit the deep systemic nature of our problems and seek to move beyond denial? Will we use our political voice to speak the truth and not settle for less? Do we have the courage and patience to work as a force for real change, and begin to do what needs to be done? The first American Revolution started with similar questions. The dialogue that Frank has started here may be the start of the next, peaceful one. Our ‘ Great Experiment’ can continue.

Ralph is 73 years old. I sincerely doubt that his name is in the hearts and minds of younger left-leaning Americans who are the future of the Greens. I certainly don’t think Nader has enough political capital (or personal celebrity notoriety) to get anything close to a fair shake in the media at this point, much less from the public.

In 2000, Nader received 2,883,105 votes for 2.74% of the popular vote. He received 463,653 votes for 0.38% of the popular vote in 2004.

I’m sorry, but that doesn’t look like the rising star I’d want to hitch a political party to!

For those who say that since the “political” process is a product of this social system, therefore it cannot be effectively used to make fundamental changes, misses the point …, that is…, despite its origins in this kind of class divided society…, it’s Constitutionally mandated vehicles…, such as the ballot process, and the standards of fairness and justness found within the Fifth Amendment’s clause , that also contain many guarantees that are expressly set out in the Bill of Rights, enable us, that ENABLES US TO ABOLISH CAPITALISM…, sine die, and replace it with a system of Economic Democracy…., one which is explicitly called for in the 10 Green Values.

For an opposition party in this present pro capitalist -two party monopoly of the consciousnesss of the majority (working class) electorate…, to become a viable force…, it needs, first and foremost, to address the needs of the “majority,” which is the ONLY citizen grouping that CAN, via the ballot process, provide the basis…, which is representation in Congress…, for the necessary, systemic changes that are required as everyday institutional procedures in a democracy.

First and foremost…”Agitate, educate and organize…, politically to make the parliamentary process work for us…, and industrially, to be organized, ready to begin the democratic operations of our needed and wanted industries…, without a hitch in the continuity of our daily ways…, when the Amendment process is used, and capitalism is eliminated…, and our institutions are transformed from their present autocratic political, and industrial, corporate governments to a true democracy in we have a direct vote in all matters that affect our lives.

The Green Party of the U.S. can “Speed the day!”

That’s a good in itself! Isn’t that what the 10 Green values call for … “democracy” in our socially necessary institutions?

But Max Shields minimizes Frank’s call for a radical change by calling it a pathological urge and little more…, and that any radical change would simply be a replacement of one pathology with another…, his (Max’s) seeming conclusion being….nothing gained!

Not so!

Max denigrates Frank’s reasonable “radical” directions by confining his ((Max’s) understanding of the concept of “radicalism” to simply a “pathology” without demonstrating its societal reason for being…, its social content.

Pathology can mean the study of the essential nature of diseases, and especially of the “structural and functional changes produced by them……” which is a fair and accurate description of a “radical” concept, and when applied to our own society, it becomes clear what it reveals, and what our rational prescriptions must contain to remedy our social problems, which, purportedly, is why the Green Party exists.

What systemic changes would the Green Party make to implement the 10 Green Values…, the most significant among these, the one which would bring into being all the others, is the 3rd, the one which mandates that “We, the People, have a direct voice and vote in all matters that affect our lives. ?

Certainly, a “direct” voice and vote would be applied to both our civic and our economic institutions…, to our communities…, to our broader, regional government bodies…, and equally necessary, to our industrial work places where our R&D work is done…, where our mining, refining, fabrication and assembly works is done…, where our public services …, health, education, recreation and all other cultural proclivities are decide by ourselves to be needed and wanted..

The content of the socialist ( radical) criticism of capitalism is just that…, a revelation of not only ….. the societal diseases spawned by capitalism…, such as perennial impoverishment of millions of working class Americans…, the periodic wars caused by the global economic rivalries among the commodity producing (capitalist) societies…, and the continued threatened, and actual destruction of our precious, life giving environment…, equally significant, it, bona fide socialism, contains the democratic prescriptions that can enable us, We, the People, to eliminate the social diseases this system produces.

Were We, the People, in a democratic system in which decision making empowerments…, enable us to the means to minimize, if not totally eliminate, industrial processes that jeopardize our natural surroundings…, would we continue to use the same commodity production mechanics used by capitalism that have produced our societal discontent?

The “system” now being opposed by the 10 Green Values…, which are the Green principles that form the bedrock of Green agitation…, is, of course, this undemocratic, economic system, capitalism. Capitalism’s rules have “compelled” corporate controllers to disease our society with many ills…, among these being the destruction of our environment, the disgraceful, perennial poverty among millions of working class people, and the periodic wars caused by global economic rivalries . It is in in this context, “socialism,” or an Economic Democracy, can be viewed as “radical,” in that its reason for being is justified by its revelations of the societal diseases spawned by this present economic system…

Equally important, an Economic Democracy contains all the democratic mechanisms which, when applied to our civic and industrial government, empowers We, the People, with a direct voice and vote in all matters that affect our lives…, an empowerment that enables us to develop industrial processes that will not threaten our environment…, and will promote peaceful, cooperative , rather than competitive, economic relationships with our global neighbors.

Max Shields is right…, no “Party” has ever changed a social system…, but PEOPLE , organized and properly represented in a parliamentary process such as is the Congress of the U.S., people who make up majority electorate, through the legal and peaceful ballot process, can make the necessary changes in our government, and in our industrial complex, to complete the Green Party mission which is to “democratize our social institutions.”

Before any “radical” changes can be brought to fruition, the present mission of a “political” party in our society is to “educate and organize “ the majority electorate along political and industrial lines…, who will then elect representatives…, “working class” representatives… (yes, Virginia Greens, there is a “working class,” and ALL Greens are in it ) …. to bring legislation to Congressional floors that will implement Green principles (Values) to replace this “political” form of “un-representative” government with an “industrial government form” (work place democracy…, a basic unit of society) that will coordinate with civic community forms…, to determine our societal needs and wants.

This profound change can be accomplished through the Constitutionally mandated Amendment Clause…, resulting in We, the People, society itself, owning our socially necessary industries and democratically operating them to maintain a peaceful and prosperous society …, a society consistent with Green Values.

Joshua, what is your prescription for the implementation of Green Values,(principles) into the necessary social institution of our society?

Wally Petrovich said on September 10th, 2007 at 6:42 am #
My previous post is unfinished, unedited and was inadvertently sent due to fat fingers on the key board… Bear with me and see my complete, edited post. Apologies. I contacted the editors to halt it, but apparently the technology used allowed it to be posted without editorial consent. wp
Add to the discussion

That’s a good in itself! Isn’t that what the 10 Green values call for … “democracy” in our socially necessary institutions?

But Max Shields minimizes Frank’s call for a radical change by calling it a pathological urge and little more…, and that any radical change would simply be a replacement of one pathology with another…, his (Max’s) seeming conclusion being….nothing gained!

No so!

Max minimizes Frank’s reasonable “radical” directions by confining his ( Max’s) understanding of the concept of “radicalism” to simply a “pathology” without demonstrating its societal reason for being…, its social content.

Pathology can mean the study of the essential nature of diseases, and especially of the “sructural and functional changes produced by them……” which is a fair and accurate description of a “radical” concept,
and when applied to our own society, it becomes clear what it reveals,
and what our rational prescriptions must contain to remedy our social problems, which, purportably, is why the Green Party exists.

What systemic changes would the Green Party make to implement the 10 Green Values…, the most significant among these, the one which would bring into being all the others, is the 3rd, the one which mandates that “We, the People, have a direct voice and vote in all matters that affect our lives. ?

Certainly, a “direct” voice and vote would be applied to both our civic and our economic institutions…, to our communities…, to our broader, regional government bodies…, and equally necessary, to
our industrial work places where our R&D work is done…, where our mining, refining, fabrication and assembly works is done…, where our public services …, health, education, recreation and all other cultural proclivities are decidexc by ourselves to be needed and wanted..

The content of the socialist ( radical) criticism of capitalism is just that…, a revelation of not only the societal diseases spawned by capitalism…, such as perennial impoverishment of millions of working class Americans…, the periodic wars caused by the global economic rivalries among the commodity producing (capitalist) societies…, and the continued threatened, and actual destruction of our precious, life giving environment…, it, bona fide socialism, contains the democratic prescriptions that can enable us, We, the People, to eliminate the social diseases this system produces.

Were We, the People, in a democratic system that decision making empowerments…, and the means to minimize, if not totally eliminate, industrial processes that jeopordize our natural surroundings…,

The present , undemocratic, economic system, capitalism, has diseased our society with many ills…, among these being the destruction of our environment, perennial poverty among millions of working class people, and periodic wars caused by global economic rivalries .., and in this context, “socialism,” or an Economic Democracy, can be viewed as “radical,” in that its reason for being is justified by its revelations of the societal diseases spawned by this present economic system… , and equally important…, contains all the democratic mechanisms that, when applied to our civic and industrial government, empowers We, the People, with a direct voice and vote in all matters that affect our lives…, an empowerment that enables us to develop industrial processes that will not threaten our environment…, and will promote peaceful, cooperative , rather than competitive, economic relationships with our global neighbors.

Economic democracy under capitalism is a “radical” concept

Radicalism, defined and understood in the context of specific systemic conditions, has real substance which can be rationalized (reasoned) and placed into the context of today’s social institutuions.

For example, the 3rd Green Value states that all citizens should have a voice and a direct vote in all matters that affect our lives. Nothing

Max Shields is right…, no “Party” has ever changed a social system…, but PEOPLE have.

It our society, is within the powers of the majority, who make up electorate, through the legal and peaceful ballot process, that “We,” the People, can make the necessary changes in our government and in our industrial complex. to complete the Green Party mission of “democratize our social institutions.”

The mission of a “political” party in our society is to “educate and organize,” We, the People, along political and industrial lines , to elect representatives…, “working class” representatives… (yes, Virginia Greens, there is a “working class,” and ALL Greens are in it ) to bring legislation to Congressional floors that will implement Green principles (Values) to replace this “political” form of “un-representative” government with an “industrial” form which includes both our work places and our communities…. This profound change can be accomplished through the Constitutionally mandated Amendment Clause…,.

in which We, the People, society itself, owns the necessary industries and democratically operates these to maintain a peaceful and prosperous
society, which the Green Values advocate…, but which the Green Party of the US membership has not pursued for reasons never explained in open discussion.

Joshua, what is your prescription for the implementation of Green Values, (principles) into the necessary social institutiojn of our society?

There are MILLIONS of other people, organized into small “single issue” causes, that naturally belong into a reinvigorated national Green party. The issues should become planks of national, state, and local platforms. The national green leaders and strategists should make a list of these groups and causes.

A proposal should be made to each group (or collectively to several groups organized on a special issue). These groups are presumed to be experts on their single issue, and have resources (people,time, energy, money,mailing lists, etc.).
All the individuals and groups would perhaps form a “caucus” to a national Green convention where they would submit their proposed “planks” (of a platform) for consideration. The representative(s) of their group would most probably become candidates for elected office (at every level of government) of be available to become appointees to a new green administrations.

Who would naturally become Green party registered members, activists, and office seekers?
Anti-war protesters. Global warming activists and scientists. Envirnonmental activists. Human rights activists. Immigration activists. Prison reform activists.
Health care advocates. Teachers unions and education activists. Housing activists . “Living Wage” activists. Labor unions. Working people. Seniors. Social Security activists.

The list goes on and on. It involves just about everyone in America who is not in the top 5% who own 90% of everything.

The Greens must consider thinking beyond it’s Ten Points program to consider this question: The greens must confront corporate capitalism and oppose the privatization of the federal government.

One last point: the national Green party should change it’s name to:

The Green Commonwealth Party

to reflect that this new invigorated Green party shall rule “of, by, and for”
the economic interests of all the people, and not just in the interest of profit
maximization for the corporations or the “military-industrial complex”.

Jeremy Wells, Santa Monica, Ca. Registered Green Party over ten years but never able or want to be an “activist” in the kind of “discussions” that have wrecked the Greens.

Tom Yager said on September 6th, 2007 at 6:29 pm #

“Given the same leadership that squandered the gains of 2000 is still running the show, how can one assume these guys won’t make the exact mistakes all over again?”

Who is this leadership

The following 2004 Cobbites/Safe Staters hold the following positions: Greg Gerritt, still chair of the PCSC, despite having admitted that in 2004 he allowed his belief that the Greens should pull dramatically back in 2004 to guide the recommendations he made to candidates.

Phil Huckelberry, who is now a co-chair of GPUS instead of with Greg in the “strategists who failed spectacularly” retirement home. Scott McLarty, who is still “media director” despite having been the media director who attracted no media in 2004, and has attracted none since.

Jody Haug, who managed to extend her SC term limit by being switched to Treasurer, a position for which she had no qualifications, and in the course of which narrowly avoided a significant ethics violation only due to last-minute intervention by a concerned person outside the party.

Jody Grage, second time, for being co-chair of Fin Com, yet GPUS is still bankrupt, and no reorganization plan to emerge has been undertaken. Jody Haug, third time, for being chair of Fundraising, and no major changes or innovations are coming from there to create any faith that GPUS will ever emerge from bankruptcy.

Brent McMillan, still our paid Political Director despite having the number of Green candidacies, the number of Green victories, Green ballot lines, the total numbers and percentages of votes received by Green candidates, and national Green enrollment having declined anywhere between spectacularly and merely substantially in each year he has held that position.

Greg Gerritt (failings already described) and Nan Garrett (don’t even get me started) chairing the Coordinated Campaign Committee, despite the same set of failings just listed for Brent McMillan, all under the direct auspices of that committee.

Julia Willebrand, still co-chair of the International Committee, despite having failed to follow her own bylaws and seek the input of international Green Parties when GPUS proposals could have an impact on them.

Howard Switzer (and after his recent banking proposal, and the people he consorted with to develop it, this is particularly bizarre) heads the Platform Committee.

Jim Coplen, who is one of the roughly 12 people who are Green in Indiana after all his hard work, is on the Steering Committee. So is Holly Hart. There’s more, but I can’t have possibly failed to make my point by now. GPUS and its course for 2008, from an administrative standpoint, is under total lock-down. The only hope for change would be if the grassroots could find some way, perhaps through state-administered primaries in the larger states, to exert themselves over the will of the overwhelming majority of the key party position-holders.
———————————

“and how do you figure that the gains of 2000 were squandered?”

I mean that most literally. The national vote totals fell from 2.8 million to 119,000, the single largest third-party reversal for a party that actually fielded a candidate in two consecutive elections, in American history. We only got on 6 state ballot lines beyond the 22 that still existed in 2004, and appeared on just 28, instead of 2004’s 46, lines.

We fell from first to fourth amongst third parties, lost half our ballot lines (which made it impossible thereafter to mount state and local candidacies in those states), saw enrollment fall by thousands (and it continues to fall, except in Maine, so don’t butt in, Maine, it’s falling). Numerous state parties saw what had been their entire membership, and voting base, completely obliterated. All the money disappeared. We repeatedly contracted, cut staff, expenses, found cheaper office space, made repeated appeals, but kept losing money to the point of bankruptcy. And without one key donor, the party would have been closed a year ago. I don’t know what definition of “squandered” you use, but I’m using the standard one.
——————————————–

“If you want the Cobb supporters to be out of leadership positions, the Nader supporters would have to join them. The 2004 split was partially attributable to Nader’s decision to run as an independent and seek an endorsement instead of the nomination.”

You’re joking, right? This is not a chicken-egg scenario. As has been amply documented, self-appointed Green “leaders” met with Ralph to tell him he shouldn’t run, and that his path to the nomination, as well as his strategy of running all-out, was seriously obstructed should he choose to ignore that advice. His letter announcing his withdrawal from consideration for the GPUS nomination came after that.

Incredibly, one of the most passionate self-appointed spokespersons in this situation, Pat LaMarche, who openly opposed ANY Green from running in 2004, somehow became the 2004 VP candidate, something that plainly could not have occurred had Ralph pursued the GPUS nomination. Hmmmmm. So how, exactly, to the Nader supporters, who were not part of these communications, and had their preferred candidate driven away from them by self-appointed powers beyond their control, be equally culpable for the aftermath? I don’t know what definition of logic you use, but I use the standard one.
——————————————-

“In several states, running two parallel petition drives resulted in neither candidate getting on the ballot. ”

That did not happen for that reason in any state. Cobb was not dealing with one iota of opposition from Democrats, while Nader was facing their 20 million dollar ballot-challenge war chest. In most states where both petitioned, Nader got on, and Cobb did not. But even if we were to allow, for the sake of discussion, that the two candidates would be petitioning in the same pool, that was something the geniuses who were backing Cobb were responsible to have considered, since Ralph made it clear he’d run without the Green Party well before the GPUS nominating process got rolling. Just another reason why I don’t understand how they all got promoted and solidified their control over most GPUS leadership positions.
———————————————————————-

“Nader ended up 0.4% of the vote, which was better than Cobb, but a pale shadow of 2000. In addition to the split in the party, both Cobb and Nader were hurt by ABB, which was out of the control of either candidate. ”

Yes, and his number was still four times what Cobb got, still came in third, not sixth, and was still first, not fourth, amongst third-party candidates, all of which, despite the clear impact of ABB, would have left the Green Party in the exact same national position it was in after 2000.

Imagine what might have happened had Nader been the Green candidate — he’d have started with 24 existing ballot lines from which the Democrats could not have disqualified him, would have used his bigger budget (and name recognition to attract more) to get a lot more than the four additional lines Cobb got, and would have undoubtedly gotten a lot more on top of his ultimate total than just the extra 119,000 amassed by the Cobb team. As much as 2000? Of course not. But GPUS would have still been Number One, instead of Number Four behind the religious fanatics of the Constitution Party, and that would have been a much better position from which to move forward than from wherever the Cobb team left us (broke, reduced in membership, crushed at the ballot booth, and strategically adrift).
——————————————————–

”We have as many ballot lines now as we did in 2002, and considerably more registered Greens.”

That is not true. We have considerably fewer registered Greens. Probably around 20 thousand fewer, but it would take awhile to go state–by-state, since GPUS conveniently stopped compiling its annual registration numbers in 2004. But pulling two easy examples, California had 157,000 Greens in 2002, and only has 138,000 now, a 12% decline. Green-Rainbow fell from 9500 to 7500, a 21% decline.

And even bringing up 2002 is specious. Post-”spoiling,” all the way beyond 2002 and into the middle of 2004, the Green Party continued to grow in leaps and bounds by every measurable criterion (see the list of those criteria above, under the failings of McMillan, Gerritt, and Garrett). Membership was much higher in 2004 than in 2002, even though liberals were being brow-beaten to blame the Greens for everything starting in November, 2000. After late 2004, everything fell apart. What the Democrats and the media couldn’t do to us in four years, we did to ourselves in four months by withdrawing from the national scene and leading with a gang of idiots who tripped over themselves to assist the initial party raiders, the PDA. To suggest that we’re now almost back, after 5 years to where we were two full years before we hit our peak (and were thrown over the cliff by our own leadership), is a false argument. It’s also not true. Check your numbers. We only have 15 lines right now http://web.greens.org/statestatus/. We had 24 going into the Cobb campaign. http://www.gp.org/ballotstatus.shtml
———————-

“Although our registration declined modestly in 2005 and 2006, so did that of most other parties.”

That is also not true. The 2005 numbers showed tremendous growth for Democrats and Republicans. Our registration fell. I have not checked 2006 for Dems and Reps, but outside of the aforementioned Maine, which does not begin to offset the losses elsewhere, GPUS registration fell considerably. Just look at California, New York, and Massachusetts to give yourself a hint of the truth. It’s on their respective BOE websites for each year — 04, 05, and 06. The decline is staggering. I don’t know what definition of “facts” you use, but I use the standard one.
—————————————-

“Registration was in a long-term decline in states that included New Mexico and Oregon before the 2004 campaign. California’s registration has declined because of state party infighting that goes beyond Cobb vs. Nader. ”

In-fighting amongst the 100 or so state committee members in CA is invisible to the 138,861 registered voters. There is no evidence that committee in-fighting in any party has ever translated into membership drops, even when it is highly publicized. There was unbelievable in-fighting in the Democrats in 2004 (no point in reviewing all that here, it was very much in the press), and their party registration soared. Party decline for Greens started in late 2003 (and started hitting state tallies in 2004, when more decline set in) with the membership-raiding drives of the precursors of the PDA, who captured thousands of registered Greens with the bait of voting for Kucinich in Dem primaries. Immediately upon the conclusion of the election, that organization received the immediate blessing, in word and deed, from David Cobb, Pat LaMarche, and Medea Benjamin. Facts!
——————————————————

”I agree that 80% is too high a threshold for making a major decision, and that the Greens have other problems such as an obsession with process. I’ve seen too much time at Green meetings wasted on upchuck like picking apart the minutes from previous meetings.”

No argument from me here. That’s all true, and it all sucks. Way too much sucks about the way this party operates, especially the strange tendency we have to promote and ensconce our most failed personnel.
——————————————————–

”However, it’s unfair to attack the party as being captive to the Democrats based on one campaign strategy for one office in one year.”

See all of my statements above. That is not what I’m doing. What I’m saying is that the party is captive to the very same leaders who created and implemented that strategy, and based on the very true information in my first paragraph (which is a very rudimentary list, it gets even worse when you go state-by-state), there is no way you could honestly disagree with my point. It is a completely proven point. If you dismiss that list, then you simply don’t care. And that’s the part I object to the most. There is so much dishonesty-as-business-as-usual amongst the leadership (they’re still claiming all kinds of “growth” out of the 2004 election, which is astounding) that I truly can’t even honorably recruit new members to join.

———————————-

“Most of the so-called “Demogreens” are fighting the Democrats just as hard as Nader supporters do.”

That’s not true. The “Demogreens” are those who apply and withdraw GP pressure in the electoral process in the manner of a lobby — give me the policies I seek, and I step back, kill those policies, and I step forward.

Republicans didn’t stop running against Democrats after they were given welfare “reform” and NAFTA. They’re real parties, and they run for their party, and not for some variable quotient of platform items vs. risk of “spoiling.”

Maybe you know some people you think are being referred to as ‘demogreens’ who have not earned that title. But you’re speculating. There have been hardly any names used. The demogreens exist. Many of them are proud of themselves. One is Mike Feinstein, who tried to cheat California election law to allow Democrats to run on Green ballot lines (no fusion permitted in CA). Others called themselves “Greens For Impact.”

Many other officers and “opinion leaders” openly support and strategize around races where Democrats aren’t in the race (like Phil Huckelberry, who frequently touts his candidacy results, without ever disclosing he never ran against a Democrat).

And there are spectacular cases like Ted Glick, who heavily promoted “safe states” before it was established, and turned out to actually be the holder of a NJ Democrat, not Green, registration.

There are a lot of “demogreens,” or perhaps you could call them “soft Greens,” and they’re very real, and by definition, most of them are not fighting the Democrats as hard as a real hard-core Green like my old friend Steve Greenfield in New York, who entered Green politics by running for Congress against a member of the Democratic Progressive Caucus who got 100% ratings from the League of Conservation Voters, and then for county office against two Democrats of good progressive repute in which he got 21% of the vote, and was then driven out of the party by the Demogreens, who subsequently elevated “I never ran against a Democrat” Phil Huckelberry to the Steering Committee.

Who is this leadership and how do you figure that the gains of 2000 were squandered? If you want the Cobb supporters to be out of leadership positions, the Nader supporters would have to join them. The 2004 split was partially attributable to Nader’s decision to run as an independent and seek an endorsement instead of the nomination. In several states, running two parallel petition drives resulted in neither candidate getting on the ballot. Nader ended up 0.4% of the vote, which was better than Cobb, but a pale shadow of 2000. In addition to the split in the party, both Cobb and Nader were hurt by ABB, which was out of the control of either candidate.

We have as many ballot lines now as we did in 2002, and considerably more registered Greens. Although our registration declined modestly in 2005 and 2006, so did that of most other parties. Registration was in a long-term decline in states that included New Mexico and Oregon before the 2004 campaign. California’s registration has declined because of state party infighting that goes beyond Cobb vs. Nader.

I agree that 80% is too high a threshold for making a major decision, and that the Greens have other problems such as an obsession with process. I’ve seen too much time at Green meetings wasted on upchuck like picking apart the minutes from previous meetings.

However, it’s unfair to attack the party as being captive to the Democrats based on one campaign strategy for one office in one year. Most of the so-called “Demogreens” are fighting the Democrats just as hard as Nader supporters do. I wish that Josh and his pals at Counterpunch would recognize this. The Greens have been mostly ignored by their natural allies in the progressive media, and we’re not being helped by getting only negative articles printed about us.

My dream ticket for ‘08 was Sheehan and Camejo, but Sheehan’s got other plans and Camejo is ill. And so are the Greens, unfortunately.

I’m waiting for a Cobb Green to start telling us why we should hold our noses and vote for Hillary Bomb Iran Clinton or Barak Attack Pakistan Obama. Don’t disappoint me!

Since you are not specific, would I be right to guess that
you refer to the Zionist lobby? For someone who gripes
about getting sidetracked on silly routes, I hope you are
not one of those who proclaim that the Jewish folks,
Catholics, Satanists, or the Illuminati run everything.

There are many players and some in thick with each other,
but I would not put any one bunch down as single handedly
trying to kill off a small struggling group.