Green Party Watch

marnie says:

great research ron.

breaks5 says:

I don’t mean to sound negative, but that at least doesn’t seem particularly impressive to me. I was hoping she’d at least double that (i.e. 250k). I know Nader’s still in there taking alot of her fire, as he did to Cobb in 04. But if ever there was an election where we were going to bounce back, I would’ve expected to be this one. I’m also concerned that it appears we’re gonna finish at the bottom of the 4 “viable” third parties. I think we’ve still got alot of work to do.

Left opposition to the Democrats! says:

Yeah the results for McKinney are disappointing, IMO. Apparently too many people decided to vote for Nader or Obama. BTW, I have nothing against Nader or anything, I voted for him in 2004.

frances says:

I voted for her, what is the final count for her and for Nader?

Marc says:

We must remember and educate that Cynthia was not allowed on television, that these are among the most undemocratic elections held in the world. We will continue to be small until labor steps up and begins to cut its ties with the Democratic Party. Barack will help us begin this process through his treachery. “Obamafganistan”

ET says:

Cynthia didn’t get enough media coverage. Corperate media outlets are controlled and thats why she was practically unknown.

OhMy says:

Yes, ET: she did not get enough media coverage, but she had a responsibility to be organized and she was not. As I said, her staff never knew where she was, a Georgia Green organizer could not get confirmation for her presence, so she sent an e-mail and in the organizer’s words, “hoped for the best”.

Still, I voted for her even though I am not a Green, but because she was a left third party candidate, not running as Independent. Independents do not get anything if they get 5%, parties do. She, like the Green Party in general, was extremely disorganized. Her cell phone was full of messages and no one could get through. You or your staff should be accessible AT ALL TIMES for when the media do want to get in touch with you.

If the Greens want to ever get anywhere, they have to get rid of decentralization (equals disorganization), get rid of anti-democratic “consensus” voting and become more interested in reaching out to people instead of talking to one another.

Joshua says:

P.S.

I live in Arkansas.

breaks5 says:

Fired you don’t seem to realize that expectations like yours were not “modest” at all under the circumstances. Not just those circumstances related to organization and decentralization, but the Obama “tsunami” (as now former CT GOP congressman Chris Shays called it) the Nader factor, the fact that the real third wave in this election was the Ron Paul/Bob Barr/center right surge, etc. Yes a few million votes would’ve only gotten us as a party back to where we were 8 years ago, but would if anything indicate that 04 was the anomaly, not 00 itself. It unfortunately appears that the latter is the case, at least for now.

All of this boils down to something I can’t believe I’m gonna say, but OHMy, I agree with you on what I take to be your two main points: organization and decentralization. And that there is something of a relationship between the two. I’m not maintaining that decentralization necessarily leads to organization, but I think for a national campaign like this one, it can and to some extent did in this election. There are also different cultures,,values, emphaes etc. between the PTTP campaign and the GP but I think the organization issue is more key. Why did Obama win (besides selling out) and why did Ron Paul basically succeed in broadeing and deepening the libertarian movement/agenda in this election? Because they used new technologies, packaged discourses in innovative ways, got out to registered and mobilized people in the streets and online, in short, they used organizational strategy and tactics that engaged people. The other part of this of course is listening and responding to what voters say they want and incorporating that into a Green agenda. The candidate is obviously critical too. I think Cynthia has the goods, but she has some work to do stylistically (I think she’s better than Nader, but not yet a Ron Paul, for example).

I agree with OhMy that decentralization is not a help to the GP at the national level, but it does work at the local level where we remain the most successful party, at least in parts of the country (if you’re counting by election victories anyway). I’m therefore ambivalent on the issue, especially keeping in mind that GP is part of a global movement/alliance, one of whose 4 pillars is decentalization. Muslims wouldn’t sacrifice one of the 5 pillars of Islam, I think this is probably one of our 4 sacred cows that only a handful of us would be willing to give up either.

So I’m not sure what to suggest. We need a reevaluation over the next year or two over where we stand, what we believe in (it actually starts there since to have good strategy and tactics, you need to have a good theory/ideology that answers “What is to be done”), what we want to accomplish and how to do it. Maybe even something of a long-term flexible time-frame for goals. Do we want a few green congress-people by 2016, 2020 or something else? I’m disillusioned right now so I don’t have the answers, but I do have alot of questions which I think is where we need to begin.

CAGreenabroad says:

Sorry, but she was a poor choice for a candidate who ran a poor campaign and scored poorly. Someone famous for slapping a cop is not someone most Americans would seriously consider voting for. If the Green Party wants to win elections it need to run candidates who can win voters over. Hard to tell if the results on a national level (some individual races excepted) is the party’s status now is “irrelevant” or “non-factor.” Sad, because a pro-peace, pro-people-over-profits candidate could have done well given the candidates run by the parties of the elephant and ass.

OhMy says:

* to have HER as an ally

Green Ferret says:

Actually, decentralization is not one of the 4 pillars of the Green movement. The pillars are nonviolence, social justice, grassroots democracy, and ecological wisdom.
When communicating with those who are not yet Greens, I’ve started using another formula, which I find more intelligible to newbies: peace, justice, democracy, and sustainability.

Grassroots democracy is one of GPUS’s ten key values and is closely related to decentralization. Decentralization is something that needs to happen with our government and society in general – as a wise man once said, we can have democracy or we can have wealth and power concentrated in a few hands, but we cannot have both.

That being said, decentralization is not a panacea, especially when it comes to running a political party. We have to understand that leadership has a place too, and a very valuable function: leadership produces more leaders. Ralph Nader has shown little interest in encouraging people to run for local and state office, which is unfortunate, but by dreaming big and pouring his heart and soul into his campaigns, Nader inspires generation after generation of young civic leaders. His campaign this year certainly was more ‘top-down’ than the Greens’, and it accomplished little in terms of practical building for the future since he was independent, but by delegating serious responsibility to his campaign team, Nader got serious results from them. Too many Green volunteers were left with nothing to do.

There is much to be said about this topic, but I don’t want to overwhelm everyone, so I’ll step back and listen to what others have to say. Critical thinking after the action is an essential part of any successful movement (the labor organizer Saul Alinsky wrote that jail was his favorite place for reflection). As long as we are respectful and assume that everyone is trying to help the Green cause, we can and should have a very productive discussion about this year’s campaign.

breaks5 says:

Ferrett, thank you for correcting me. I obviously confused my terms, despite the similarity of the two concepts. I basically agree with your nuanced take on the issue and that of leadership.

OhMy, I don’t agree with your argument about “conspiracy theories” any more than I do the argument about the capital hill “incident” (I’m not attributing the latter to you). Maybe she could’ve worded her New Orleans remark a little more subtly, but she cited a credible source and if you believe Greg Palast’s work on New Orleans for starters, then there was a conspiracy. We just don’t have enough of the full picture, which is why we again need an investigation, as we do with 9/11 and many similar issues. These are green issues, as they are progressive issues more broadly (they’re even libertarian issues, so it really crosses the political spectrum).

I don’t accept your argument about consensus-decision making being “anti-democratic.” If anything it’s more democratic than a simple majoritarian-decision making process (shall I quote Madison on that issue?). That’s not to say that it can’t be laborious, drawn-out and at times even debilitating. I think we need some reconciliation of the two and I don’t have an answer for that, but I wouldn’t simply scrap it.

OhMy says:

PS I’m not trying to sound combative or be personal with anyone on here.

I would scrap consensus, but being a multi-tendency organization, I would compromise and settle for a “sane” consensus that is not open to manipulation (seen too much of that). All rules up front NOT changing the playbook as the moderator(s) go along.

breaks5 says:

Yes she did cite a credible source, and no you shouldn’t believe me because I SAID SO.You can watch the video where she made the statement yourself (it’s on youtube). Have you actually seen it? As to Americans having too much sense, I’m not sure that’s the case and it doesn’t appear to make much difference on the matter (or 9/11 or any of the other half dozen or more major “conspiracies” we’ve had in this country this decade).

And I’m not gonna waste time debating how one defines, practices democracy, etc., but you apparently have a rather limited idea of the concept. Apparently you don’t know your Madison (who didn’t even support democracy, but still believed in checks and balances, as the constitution illustrates). Your idea is the basis upon which the Nazis came to power, or upon which the right wing in India (to cite a democratic country) justifies laws and constitutional changes for the “majority” religion. That isn’t how the GP operates and I doubt most people would want that sort of change.

I conceded that a consensus orientation can get rather laborious, but there should be ways to smooth that out over time. If you’re a process-oriented Green (a phrase I’ve heard others use), that ought to be of interest to you. But maybe you’re the action-oriented time, as I am. Despite that fact, I’ve been involved in enough groups (Green and otherwise) where hearing all points of view aired is the norm to recognize that it’s a much healthier way to build a consensus rather than running roughshod over “the opposition,” as happens in majoritarian organizations. If America was run like that we wouldn’t have a bill of rights. If the GP was run like that, we’d be alot more like the Republican party, or even the Democrats to a large extent. That is not what more than a fraction of what democracy is about.

OhMy says:

“Your idea is the basis upon which the Nazis came to power, or upon which the right wing in India (to cite a democratic country) justifies laws and constitutional changes for the “majority” religion.”

Okay, this is truly pathetic.

Democracy is MAJORITY RULE, and consensus is tyranny of the minority. Continue to sabotage yourselves by promoting anarchistic ways of organizing (such as the anti-democratic consensus voting model) that have no relevance in the real world.

And please educate yourself: America IS run like this with the exception of the Bill of Rights. And yes, the rights of minorities need to be protected which is why Prop 8 should not have even been up for a vote. Personal and political right of individuals should not be voted on, but all else should have a majority vote. That is a valid point, but it has nothing to do with your points of keeping the anti-democratic consensus voting model. Too often, the majority of Greens are voted down, this is NOT democracy. This backward way of thinking is the reason why CA does not have 50% say in the way the Party is run, even though they have 50% of the voters.

And yes, the source that Cynthia quotes is the mother of a guard, that “evidence” does not cut it.

And one more thing: it is the action-oriented Greens who want to abolish the anti-democractic consensus model and the process-oriented Greens who fight to keep it. But if the Greens ever get anywhere, it will be because they went to the democratic majority vote.

breaks5 says:

And Ohmy, yes it’s pathetic you have such a narrow -minded idea of the concept. But you don’t seem interested in the greater nuances of the argument.

Please provide some examples of how the majority is ignored frequently in the GP. I’d be interested to hear them.

OhMy says:

“But you don’t seem interested in the greater nuances of the argument.”

Out of the two of us, I am the only one who has provided nuances and your infantile attacks are boring and show that you have no interest in backing up your arguments and you are not capable of a mature discussion.

You ask for examples: I posted many above for you to read, so if you want examples, please refer to them.

Daniel Alley says:

Back on the topic of what might have helped the campaign. – Website.

One of the reasons Nader did so well was because he had a great media team. Good website. The Power to the People website did not even have a clear and concise position on the issues, just a long manifesto that left out many issues.

The Nader campaign also sent out emails about current events and cosntantly compared his policy positions to Obama’s and McCain’s.

In an age where we are shut out of TV, out of radio, our only hope might be the Internet, therefore it should be our most impressive.

joetruss (some of all parts) says:

Even though I voted green, i was pretty compelled to vote for nader due to his Youtube presence, the quick and fast updates, and his website, i enjoyed reading updates. so i wonder can we do this, and who wants to help make it happen, at least a website would start things off.

breaks5 says:

Assuming my posts are approved, I’ll finish my posting on this thread by noting yes there are things we should’ve done that the Nader campaign did do. Though tactically I think we have alot more to learn from libertarians and Obama (not ideologically or programatically). That involves more getting out into the streets, communities or whatever and organizing. We unlike the Nader folks have an organization. It’s time we used it a bit more effectively, though I obviously don’t think throwing out grassroots democracy is the answer.

breaks5 says:

Thanks Ron. I admit the disagreements on this thread got a bit out of hand, but I think your point about constructive/productive facilitation (which I should’ve thought of) is the key to keeping consenus-oriented decisionmaking productive. That’s what we had at the NYC party conference , including the national convention delegate election meeting. That person is unfortunately no longer with the party, a big loss to us. But we still fortunately have able and active administrators and activists locally. Nonetheless, your point about majority-minority conflicts is well taken.

I can see what you mean about the Arkansas case. It’s quite remarkable (I’m hoping for a little spillover into Louisianna on 12/6!). We also have a former Illinois GP activist here who’s told me a bit about the success and apparent greater unity they have in their state, at least relative to NY state.