Third Party Videos: Where is the Green Party?
YouTube and other online video sites have made releasing promotional videos for causes or candidates or parties a piece of cake. A number of people noted that Ralph Nader’s campaign was exceptional in the use of YouTube videos to promote his campaign. Many videos were put out over the last year for candidates, some of high quality, some hastily thrown together. Some were awesome, some were not so great.
With the Presidential election over, third parties seem to be inwardly focused on party building; the Green Party certainly is. The Green Party has a large financial debt, stagnant donor income, and the need and desire to reach out and broaden its base of support. Under the Obama administration Greens have a great opportunity to pick up support from the millions of liberals who are going to wake up and realize that they elected a Moderate Centrist, not a Leftist. How will the Green Party reach out to these disaffected voters? Is it left to the states to do that? Does a voter in Hoboken interested in the Green Party google “New Jersey Green Party” or “Green Party”? They look up “Green Party” – and the Green Party should be prepared to greet them warmly and welcome them to the fold.
GPUS should make a concerted effort to reach out to new voters and new members with creative, smart, appealing, funny, and short (120 seconds max) videos online. Perhaps a “video Contest” could be held encouraging Greens to submit videos with some kind of prize awarded to the best video. If a great high-quality video comes forward it could even be used to buy television ads at inexpensive slots in targeted regions of the country.
Below the fold I have posted some videos with commentary, some “green”, some from Third Parties.
This video below is from the Constitution Party from 2007. While it sets the Constitution Party message out clearly in just over one minute, it is rather boring and comes across like an infomercial.
This video from the Libertarian Party from a few months ago is both an issue piece on the bailout with a plug for Bob Barr. While the length is nice and short (38 seconds) it comes across looking like every other cheap political advertisement – panning photographs, annoying voice over, and a bad splice from the “Money” sample to the voice over.
As for the Green Party, there is a wide range of examples of both good and bad videos.
This video is from the UK Greens from April 2008. It is animated with various “greens on the street” commentary about the state of things. It gives a sense of “Yeah, I feel that way too” combined with some pretty decent animation that draws the key issues the UK Greens are focused on. At almost 3 minutes it is too long. It ends with a human speaking the message: “Vote Green on May the first and change everything, for good.” This wouldn’t be my first choice for message, but the video all in all is visually appealing and builds a connection between the viewer and the Green platform.
Now I love this next video called “Its about…” from the Ontario Greens circa 2007. There is no voice over, just a low impact music track, and just less than a minute. It is visually appealing in a way that subtly emphasizes the message – which ends with “Vote Green – and be the change you want to see”. By following a small child, who walks alone first on city roads then is finally skipping happily down a forest path, it suggests that the child is “our future” and we are on a journey that is ideally surrounded by trees not concrete. I like it.
This final video has to be included (and we could include many more). Featuring an original song by Some of All Parts written to promote the Cynthia McKinney / Rosa Clemente campaign, the video puts images up to match the music. While I have to confess that the actual video montage is just “okay” to me (and please don’t be offended!), it is the song that has the strongest appeal here and it is the song that carries both the 2008 GP message and the message of McKinney and Clemente. I forwarded this video to so many people this year, primarily to introduce people to our candidates through a great song, and to our issues through the accompanying video.
So what do you like in a political or movement video? What would appeal to you – or what would appeal to Americans? What could the Green Party do to support outreach through this medium? Do you have a favorite Green Party video?
Nothing to add at present, but your general ideas are wonderful. Indeed, how warmly are we going to welcome newcomers in the years ahead, let alone retain those who have already contributed a ton of sweat equity into the Party?
One thing we could do is see what other national Green Parties do w/ their web presence. Check out the UK page, which is as welcoming as anything I’ve seen for any party anywhere (especially how they highlight in very bold fashion not only their position on hot-button issues but their vision as how they would implement their philosophy in the “real world”, e.g., free school lunches):
http://www.greenparty.org.uk/
That is a nice site!
The Green Party of Ireland’s site is pretty simple, I like what they are doing with youtube videos on the side.
http://www.greenparty.ie/
Some others:
Germany:
http://www.gruene.de/
New Zealand:
http://www.greens.org.nz/
Canada:
http://www.greenparty.ca/
Mr. Cavlan, you are starting to sound like a real prick. Whatever Greens pissed you off why don’t you take it up with them and leave the rest of us alone.
Cavlan’s made graphic threats to other GNC delegates and was incredible offensive and counterproductive on the lists. I’m sure many of the inactive delegates, including myself, was driven away from him and his ilk.
Thanks, Mike Cavlan, for a history. And, for insight. Maybe someone should try to listen and learn, instead of attack you again.
Did people hear him say that people are working on something else? Maybe people should listen to what he and others are working on. Maybe we need to help (or be awake enough to compete, even.)
By the way…
If Mike Cavlan were the only one who got kicked off the national list…or maybe even one of two or three or four people who did…maybe, someone could say he is the one with the problem.
But, there are scores of people who got kicked off, bullied off, or disgusted off.
And, while Gregg Gerritt is mostly gone (or quiet now), the people we have left as “leaders” are just inadequate. Arrogant, incompetent, and doing the same shtick over and over again.
Now we have David Cobb and Pat LaMarche inserting themselves and representing us again. If our party gets boiled down to them we are in deep trouble.
And, even if anyone can say some nice things about former counsel David Cobb who inserted himself as our presidential candidate, I know that no one genuinely likes Pat LaMarche.
Every faction seemed to have realized that she was annoying and self-serving. The recent mess where Pat LaMarche agreed to be a paid representative for a casino company and then had a broo-ha-ha with them even and quit. If Pat LaMarche is the best we can do….yech! Get me outta this place.
I do not want to have to moderate comments.
I would ask that people avoid personal attacks on other people – both people here and others. It is not healthy. One can be critical of ideas or directions without personally insulting people. So please try to be respectful.
I was working a health fair in Detroit a few years back and mentioned to a women that I was with the Detroit Greens. She asked me if I knew Pat LaMarche. Pat has spent the night at a Detroit homeless shelter as part of a tour of shelters she did across the US, raising awareness of a growing problem in Detroit, Michigan and across the country. She represents the Green Party well in everything she does.
All I can add is DO get outta here, both anonymous (sic) and Michael. Start your New party. Good luck and Good riddance to you.
Ronald, please moderate me as you see fit. Thanks for the opportunity to address these two nabobs of negativism
Dear Ron,
You must know that when you threaten to moderate people, it sounds harsh and hurts.
Anyway, I do think that you know who people are from their ap’s probably. So, I will discuss more with you in private.
Ron, you are correct, that as the host, you have complete control over this venue and who and what people post. That is your right.
But, it is sad that there is really no venue in greendom anymore, where people have the power to say what they want, and the group-support and political power to have free speech. That is one of the problems and reasons for the angst. We have over-moderation on our national lists. And, we have people from national who follow everyone around to other projects with the same spin and propaganda. “Be nice.” “Don’t do personal attacks.”
It is difficult not to do something the national spinmasters would call a personal attack. We all know that politics is personal. And, many of the people who get named are named because they are candidates – hence political figures, and/or because they hold power either fairly or unfairly in the party. To say “no personal attacks” truly gives some people cover. And, perpetuates the status quo.
To Lou Novak:
Please study non-violent communication. You said:
<<>>
What?
I went to various NVC trainings. When someone is angry – even cursing – someone who is non-violent is supposed to let them vent, and then respond to their hurts and concerns. If anyone in our party had the wisdom, patience, and integrity to do that, we would not be in the situation we are in.
It is lovely if certain green leaders do charity work such as homeless shelters. I suppose that it good p.r. for the party. But, ultimately, it is not enough to mean that they are above reproach on political or other concerns.
I do believe that some people in our party create non-profits, and steer greens towards charity projects and certain coalitions specifically to draw people away – like the Pied Piper – from the powerful work of electoral activism that we are trying to focus on.
So, we have very different perspectives on what is good to do and what is confusing to do and what is distracting to do.
Perhaps I have a morsel of truth or wisdom.
Guess you don’t need it.
There are not a lot of NC reps left. And, the ones left are not so great at handling money and handling relationships. So, it might be good not to scare even more people away from our party.
But, yes, as I hear tell Michael Cavlan is moving on to something else.
And, me, I am thinking about it seriously.
If these people are the best our party can offer, I do not see a lot of hope.
But, I am not a negative person. There is a whole world out there of ideas, organizations, and yes, other parties.
The quote did not come out above at the <>>, don’t know if I did not past right, or it is a formatting thing.
Lou Novak had said:
” All I can add is DO get outta here, both anonymous (sic) and Michael. Start your New party. Good luck and Good riddance to you.”
As I said, that is not very nice, and is not “non-violent communication.”
In addition, since Lou Novak is a National Committee Delegate on the GP-US National Committee, is he saying that as a party leader. As a party leader, is he telling people that disagree, and telling me and Michael Cavlan he wants us to leave? That is not a very good way to build a party.
I am still an enrolled green. But, I am seriously questioning it. Lou makes me think even harder.
Since I am anonymous, guess Lou doesn’t know what resources and talents I may currently bring to the party. Can’t imagine the resources we lost when dozens of people were tricked and kicked off the national list-serve, and dozens left as each presidential candidate wannabe was unfairly treated and scorched at national. The Elaine Brown folks, the Nader folks, etc.
Oh you poor babies. I throw your own words back in your face and I should study non-violent communications??? Give me a break. I do admit to falling for your bait and wasting all of our time. Good day to you sir and/or madam.
Dear Lou,
Yes.
You so don’t get it. You should truly read a book on non-violent communication.
When someone expresses anger, the WISE, COMPASSIONATE, and NON-VIOLENT thing to do is NOT to throw words back in their face.
The WISE, COMPASSIONATE, and NON-VIOLENT thing to do–the thing that would heal wounds and grow our political party– is to listen, hear what the specific concerns and complaints are and begin a dialogue.
Throwing words back in someone’s face as you have admitted to doing, and ignoring someone as you are suggesting to do, are both wrong and mean. Especially since you are a National Rep of the party.
(But, I confess, I am a National Rep, too. Speaking anonymously because I wanted to be sure it was not perceived as official pronouncements.)
Thanks for offering me to leave. I am starting to relish the thought. But, thinking, maybe, some great hope will arise in the next few weeks. Or, that perhaps the current inner circle will self-destruct in their budget and debt woes. Oh, to have a clean slate in one manner or another. Or, even a half clean slate.
Ron Hardy:
”
I do not want to have to moderate comments.
I would ask that people avoid personal attacks on other people – both people here and others. It is not healthy. One can be critical of ideas or directions without personally insulting people. So please try to be respectful.”
Anonymous Green:
“Dear Ron,
You must know that when you threaten to moderate people, it sounds harsh and hurts.
Ron, you are correct, that as the host, you have complete control over this venue and who and what people post. That is your right.”
Ron could hardly have been less harsh. How can you post cringe-inducing attacks on someone who has put herself out there as a Green candidate, then whimper about your hurt feelings when someone asks you to be respectful?
Also, notice that nothing has been moderated. Ron has enough respect for readers of this site that all he did was lay out some very basic guidelines of respectful behavior, and expects posters to follow them. I hope that trust won’t be abused in the future as much as it has on this thread.
(pieces of a post I put up on the national discussion list)
A green in NY expressed to me that if we cut the GP-US office down to one person, it couldn’t work and GP-US would die. I believe that other people share that concern.
I believe that the worst case scenario anyone is proposing is one staff person and one fundraising person. (Which would also allow for additional fundraising contractors such as the Empower contract.) I believe that scenario can work.
For people who believe that if we cut the GP-US national staff back to 1 or 2 people, and cut the office, GP-US would be lost, I say: You have forgotten what the structure of GP-US is. GP-US is not (or was not designed to be) a central organization.
There is infrastructure, strength, energy and talent in GP-US based on the member states. Also, there are volunteers who came in through the member states, who are now part of the culture and infrastructure of GP-US committees. If we had a nimble national organization, the member states and volunteers might be able to pick up the slack, and might become stronger for being relied upon.
If we had a staff person who understood our true infrastructure and could use it well, we could operate with a lean and mean national structure. I am sure all of us know successful organizations (or political campaigns) where there is one, wise person at the top who artfully manages and delegates the work underneath them. GP-US has a lot to offer a person like that.
If GP-US did a search for an “Executive Director-type person”, or even better, a “National Administrator”, we could say to that person:
Here is your resource, you have over 30 smaller organizations (the states) who are supposed to give you their donor lists each year, and who will sometimes donate to you additionally; we have our old national donor lists going back a lot of years that are still fresh; we have about 100 or more volunteers on about a dozen functioning or semi-functioning committees; we have a deliberative body of about 100 people who you can pitch proposals to; we have archives with decisions made over many years, and body of rules, policies, and press releases for you to quote from and rely on. Can you keep this body functioning, and help steer them towards understanding what projects and campaigns they want to do? I think someone could do that job.
I do think we would have to search for the right person, and that it would probably be someone new. I feel that the right person might not be among the staff we have, largely because we would be asking for such a sea change, and the old staff was trained and encultured as it were in our old method. The present method appears to be a somewhat modified version of a top-down organizational model, with fairly compartmentalized departments, asking each person to be a piece of a team directing states and volunteers. The new model we might want, which is leaner and less centralized, is a servant leader/facilitator, who steers the entities we have in the correct direction.
I almost wish we could advertise on Craig’s list or a job search newspaper for the job we want, and have people pitch to us how they would do it. But, I guess that is not fair to job applicants. Still, it might be nice to have people who read this list think about what skills they would draw upon to do a job like this. Or, have the NC brainstorm other organizations who have operated on such a model, and/or people who would be good for this job.
Some present model vs. new model ideas
Create Green Pages national newspaper with a lot of help and direction from DC office
vs.
National Admin finds state with the best newspaper, and asks if they can do an annual or semi-annual edition on a national scale
National Office Staff worries or reports to Steering Committee about functioning of National Committees (merchandise, ballot access, etc.) National Office Staff participates on committees to guide them and to do work
vs.
National Committees are required to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and get their own work done. States realize that they must provide abundant and strong volunteers. Perhaps certain states come to focus on certain committees.
GP-US staff or committees scour the country for races, focuses on key races, weighs in on which races or candidates are strong
vs.
GP-US gets focused on Presidential race, and allows states and locals to prioritize their own races. The main value of GP-US to state and local races becomes the network of states sharing info with other states who ask.
I think there could be very positive benefits from rethinking the structure of GP-US. I think that the number of National Office Staff could be lowered, and yet, their effectiveness maximized by rethinking how GP-US interacts with the state parties.
I think that now is a good time to experiment with models, when the next presidential cycle is four years away.
I retract my statement about Michael Cavlan making graphic threats. I mixed him up with another former delegate.