Green Party Watch

Cornel West: ‘We’ve got to think seriously of third-party candidates, third formations, third parties’

From Chris Hedges’ column this week at Truthdig:

“We have got to attempt to tell the truth, and that truth is painful,” [Professor Cornel West] says. “It is a truth that is against the thick lies of the mainstream. In telling that truth we become so maladjusted to the prevailing injustice that the Democratic Party, more and more, is not just milquetoast and spineless, as it was before, but thoroughly complicitous with some of the worst things in the American empire. I don’t think in good conscience I could tell anybody to vote for Obama. If it turns out in the end that we have a crypto-fascist movement and the only thing standing between us and fascism is Barack Obama, then we have to put our foot on the brake. But we’ve got to think seriously of third-party candidates, third formations, third parties.”

In a piece published at OpEd News, Green Party Media Director Scott McClarty asks some questions for the Tea Party Movement:

By Scott McLarty
OpEdNews.com, August 31, 2010

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Some-Modest-Questions-for-by-Scott-McLarty-100831-706.html

Having followed the news about the “Restoring Honor” Tea Party rally organized by Glenn Beck on Saturday, August 28, I have some questions for its leaders and participants. Some of the rhetoric I heard about a new movement to bring back America’s traditional values left me a little confused.

Which traditional values would Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, and the Tea Party like to see revived? Robber Baron Era values, before laws guaranteeing workplace safety, eight-hour workdays, vacations, benefits, and the ban on child labor? Pre-Social Security values, when old age meant destitution for millions of Americans? Religious values of the 19th century, when Roman Catholics, Mormons (like Mr. Beck), and other non-Protestant Christians suffered discrimination? Jim Crow values, before an activist Supreme Court rendered its Brown v. Board of Ed decision and Big Government passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

If the Tea Party is conservative, why don’t its members complain about warrantless surveillance of US citizens, extraordinary rendition and torture, the USA Patriot Act, the neocon doctrine of preemptive invasion, the ‘unitary executive theory’ of presidential power (endorsed by Justices Thomas, Scalia, Alito, and possibly Roberts), subprime mortgage schemes, Wall Street trading in derivatives and similar financial arcana, international free-trade cabals like NAFTA, and other radical innovations of the past two decades?
read more »

USA Today has an article entitled “Obama’s liberal base ‘disengaged’”. An excerpt:

“…a growing number of liberal groups and activists say they’ve had enough of Democrats who break their promises or cater to conservatives.

“The liberal wing of the Democratic Party is now in shock,” says longtime Democratic activist-turned-blogger Chris Bowland, 52, of Santa Rosa, Calif. “It’s very clear the party hates us and has no respect for its base.”

Bowland, who this month changed his party registration to the Green Party, says the Democrats are going to pay for it at the polls in November.

“Who is it that shows up to man your phone banks and who goes knocking on your doors? Unions and left-wing activists like me,” he says. But Obama has broken his campaign promises and now, “we’ve had it. I’m done.”

Greens have been around long enough to include us in the spectrum of political ideas. All too often Greens are lumped into the “left” end of the spectrum. It’s time to evaluate Green perspectives from our base up. To do that we have to address matters such as voter support and electoral strategies and find ways to implement our Platform.

It is worthwhile to review the current administration’s policies with the previous administration’s and ask: “What’s new about this or that?” We also can ask why are we not making the structural changes that are really needed for ecological democracy or adaptive governance. We don’t need to gloss over differences to include them in the decision-making processes and yet, that is what we continue to do. Rather then using a model that proposes central government versus state governments, I would suggest a model that presents autonomous regions (or governing entities) with defined authorities integrated into both state and Federal governments. read more »

Some people say that there’s no difference between Democrats and Republicans. I don’t think it’s fair, or for that matter, plausible, to make that claim. The problem with the Democratic Party is that there isn’t as much of a difference between Republican politicians and Democratic politicians as there ought to be – certainly not as much of a difference as Democratic voters like to believe that there is.

Those of us who are in the Green Party need to remember that most Democrats truly believe that there is a great deal of difference between their leaders and the leaders of the Republican Party. What Green Party candidates need to do is to walk a balanced line, acknowledging the differences that really do exist between Republicans and Democrats, while showing Democrats the ways in which the distinction between the two dominant parties is insufficient.

A timely example of this balanced approach is the issue of nuclear weapons. Tomorrow is the 64th anniversary of the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima, Japan. A poll of Republicans, Democrats and political independents (not members of the Independent Party) about the Hiroshima bombing, by Quinnipiac University, was released just yesterday.

The results: Republicans were strongly in favor of the nuclear attack, 74 percent supporting the decision to drop the atom bomb, and only 13 percent against. Democrats were different. The largest group of Democrats, 49 percent, expressed support for the nuclear attack. Only 29 percent of Democrats said they disagreed with the attack, and 22 percent said they were unsure.

Let’s not make the mistake of thinking that political independents are more likely to reject the Hiroshima attack than Democrats. 65 percent of independents expressed support for the nuclear attack against Hiroshima, and 23 percent being unsure.

What about Green Party members? Where did they stand in the poll? Well, they didn’t stand in the poll. They weren’t counted as Green Party members. However, it’s a safe bet that a strong majority of Green Party members would express rejection of the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima. After all, the Green Party has non-violence as one of its 10 key values. The Democratic Party doesn’t even have the word “non-violence” in its platform.

What do we do with this information?

It’s clear that the Democratic Party is not a party of non-violence. But that doesn’t mean that there aren’t any Democrats who support non-violence. There are many who do. In fact, of the three political groups considered by this poll, the Democratic Party had the most non-violent members. With only the information contained in the poll, many voters might conclude that the best way to support non-violence. Of course, if the Green Party is added to the consideration, the Democratic Party’s support for non-violence looks downright weak.

There are 29 percent of Democrats who expressed a strong belief in non-violence in this poll. They aren’t being represented well by their own political party. They ought to be open to considering the Green Party, but that consideration won’t take place unless they perceive the Green Party as being a politically viable option.

We need to woo these Democrats, not assault them with generalizations that they know aren’t true. They know that there’s a difference between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, and they also know that there is a great deal of diversity within the Democratic Party. When we acknowledge that diversity, we encourage non-violent Democrats to differentiate themselves from their political party as a whole. When that differentiation is accomplished, these Democrats can begin to see that their ideals aren’t being promoted by the Democratic Party leadership, and the Green Party option, reasonably communicated, becomes a lot more attractive.

You’ve got to recognize the sheep as an individual separate from the flock before it will have the courage to start acting like a goat.

When government agencies release a report on a Friday, you know that there’s someone who’s hoping that news about the report will get lost in the weekend news cycle and be forgotten by Monday. When that government report is released on a Friday evening in the middle of the summer, it’s a sign of something particularly embarrassing.

That’s just what happened with the release of an inspectors general report about the use of Big Brother spying techniques by the White House against law-abiding Americans within the borders of the USA. There’s a lot to cover from this report, but here are some highlights:

- The Bush Administration was engaging in much more surveillance against Americans than has been revealed so far. The report calls this spying “extraordinary and inappropriate”, but the inspectors general won’t reveal to the public just what it involved.
- Top officials concluded that the Big Brother spying wasn’t actually very effective in protecting Americans against terrorism.
- Congress was not informed of the spying as required by law.

That last point is extremely important because of two other factors:

- Much of the warrantless spying against Americans continues under President Barack Obama
- The story expanded last night with leaked information that Vice President Dick Cheney himself was directing intelligence agencies to keep information about spying secret from the U.S. Congress.

What makes this a Green Party issue? For one thing, the Green Party is opposed to government secrecy and violations of Americans constitutional rights. On a political level, the Green Party can be strongly differentiated from the Democrats and the Republicans, as both of these political parties are involved in the cover-up of government surveillance programs against the American people.

Not only has the Democratic-led Congress failed to conduct any meaningful inquiry into the illegal spying, but last year, many Democrats, including then-Senator Barack Obama, joined the Republicans in passing the FISA Amendments Act, a law that legalized massive electronic surveillance of our private communications and provided retroactive immunity to telecommunications corporations who helped George W. Bush with his spying programs. Furthermore, President Obama has opposed efforts by the Electronic Frontier Foundation to reveal the extent of electronic spying against Americans.

Last month, in order to start to control the abuse, a small number of Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee introduced a measure into an appropriations bill that would increase the number of members of Congress who would have to be informed of CIA spying activities. Almost immediately, President Obama announced that he was opposed to the measure, and would veto any legislation that included such requirements for increased oversight.

How did the House Democrats react? They backed down, saying that they’ll work with the White House to cripple to oversight provision.

At the very time that it’s becoming clear that the Republicans’ illegally kept secrets about government spying from Congress, Obama and the congressional Democrats are working to make sure that the secrecy continues. The Democrats aren’t repairing the Republicans’ attacks against the Constitution – they’re continuing them. It’s going to take another political party with true progressive values to undo the damage.

It’s a sad sign of how unreliable the Democratic Party has become on environmental issues: In New Jersey’s campaign for Governor, the Republican candidate (Christopher Christie) has criticized the Democratic incumbent (Jon Corzine) for not doing enough to promote sustainable energy. An Associated Press article on the subject leads with the headline, Christie wants N.J. to go greener.

Of course, if you really want to go greener in New Jersey, you ought to be supporting the Green Party of New Jersey. Unfortunately, there is no Green Party candidate for Governor of New Jersey this year. However, there is an independent candidate, Chris Daggett, who is a former Commissioner of the state Department of Environmental Protection.

Over in Illinois, the Democratic Party is preparing to hold a reception – not even a dinner – that will cost $150 per head.

On July 18, the Illinois Green Party will be holding a fundraising dinner that will cost 25 dollars per plate, with an option for low-income participants to pay an alternative rate of 10 dollars.

Which political party do you think is really representing the interests of the working families of Illinois?

One of the most common arguments against the Green Party comes from within the Democratic Party, in the form of the plea that activist energy ought to be focused on reforming the Democrats from within, rather than challenging them from without. The Democratic Party is a powerful organization, it’s said, and if progressive reformers could take over the party, they could change it and create a great deal of positive change.

I’m familiar with this argument, because I used to make it myself. During my time on the New York State Democratic Committee, I would write earnestly to Greens, urging them to join the Democratic Party, to reform it from within. Obviously, I’ve given up on that idea since.

The main problem that progressives encounter within the Democratic Party is a tremendous pressure to conform, to promote the Party in general, and not to speak out when its politicians support antiprogressive policies, with the idea that if the Democrats could just gain control over government, the Democrats would shake off their temporary concessions, and a progressive agenda would finally benefit.

In 2009, we finally have a federal government that is solidly Democratic. So, we can fairly evaluate now whether the strategy of working within the Democratic Party to reform it can work. We can ask, how progressive are the progressive Democrats?

I ask this question in the context of a growing crisis of secrecy and dishonesty from the Obama Administration on the issue of torture. Earlier this year, President Obama argued that he has the right to suppress lawsuits by people who have been tortured as a result of the U.S. government’s practice of extraordinary rendition. Then, Obama insisted upon violating the Freedom of Information Act in order to keep photographic evidence of torture by the military a secret. Last week, the Obama Administration informed Congress that it opposed legislation to prevent torture by requiring the videotaping of of military interrogations.

Yesterday, Obama added to his protection of torture secrets by delaying the release of a CIA memo that purportedly demonstrates that the intelligence agency informed the Bush White House that its use of torture was profoundly illegal. The Obama White House promised to release the memo yesterday, and people waited, and waited, but the memo never came. This is the third Obama postponement of the memo’s release. These delays are taking place, the Obama Administration says, so that officials have the chance to keep portions of the memo redacted – blacked out.

Why, if the Obama Administration truly opposes torture, is it so consistently working to keep America in the dark about the extent of government torture? Where, if the Democratic Party has any progressive potential at all, are the progressive Democrats?

There is a group of Democratic politicians in Congress who are willing to call themselves progressives. They’re called the Progressive Caucus. There isn’t a single Democrat in the Senate that’s willing to join the caucus, although independent Senator Bernard Sanders from Vermont is a member of the group. In the House of Representatives, there are 75 members of the Progressive Caucus. The Clerk of the House lists 255 Democrats in the House. That makes just 29 percent of Democrats in the House who are willing to organize in the name of progressive reform.

That number is just a count of House Democrats who are willing to even go by the name of “progressive”. The number who are actually willing to reliably act to promote progressive reform is even smaller.

This brings us back to Barack Obama’s repeated delays of the release the CIA torture memo. Given the President’s refusal to let the public know the truth about the crimes of the Bush Administration, it’s up to Congress act. Early this year, Congressman John Conyers introduced H.R. 104, a bill that would establish a “national commission on presidential war powers and civil liberties”, investigating the unconstitutional activities of the Bush Administration, identifying particular crimes for the purpose of prosecution. This commission would have subpoena powers to demand documents like the CIA torture memo currently being withheld by the Obama White House.

Unfortunately, H.R. 104 has been buried by the House Democratic leadership. It’s been sitting in the House Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties for months – and the Progressive Caucus hasn’t been much help in getting the legislation out of committee. Only 34 out of the 75 members of the caucus have gone to the relatively small trouble of cosponsoring H.R. 104. That’s just 45 percent of the caucus, which is just 29 percent of the Democratic membership of the House.

With the Presidency and Legislative Branch firmly in hand, 2009 is the time when the promises of progressive reform of the Democratic Party is most likely to be fulfilled. Yet, we can see that the group that’s supposed to contain the most progressive members of Congress can’t get the majority of its members to support an investigation of the crimes against the Constitution that took place under George W. Bush. Even Lynn Woolsey, one of the chairs of the Progressive Caucus, hasn’t added her cosponsorship.

This remarkable inaction is a clear sign that the Democratic Party isn’t going to be reformed from within. There are some progressives within the Democratic Party who mean well, but the overwhelming majority of Democrats are either not progressive, or have been co-opted by the Democratic leadership’s campaign of promises that it never intends to keep.

If you want progressive action from a politician, don’t vote for a Democrat. Vote for the Green Party candidate whenever you can.

It’s too bad so much coverage of Presidential politics this election is being spent on personality and gamesmanship. One would think that there was nothing as important as whether Sarah was Sarah or Joe revealed his feminine side by coming close to tears. Meanwhile, the 800 billion dollar gorilla in the room was allowed to dominate his own kingdom. As the economy is the theme of daily broadcasts as to WHEN, not if, Congress will pass the bailout, the rest of us watch in astonishment that our future and our children’s future is treated in such a cavalier manner by the two parties.

It’s not just a matter of how much time was spent on the debate about the bailout, but also where the maverick was when it came to the bill? Where was the YES WE CAN candidate when it comes to the opposition to the bailout by the vast majority of American people? If people expected something of substance would be said about it in the Presidential debate there were surely disappointed.

The word both VP Candidates used was “oversight”. This is a term, like Main Street and Wall Street that has been abused in the recent bailout debate. Policy means enforcement which is more than oversight. It is a comprehensive restructuring of the economy that has already taken place. The income gap between rich and poor has widened; the public infrastructure (such as mass transportation, energy production, public health and education and resource management) has deteriorated; vast numbers of the American people have no health care and the inflated housing prices that were so popular to investment bankers closed any opportunity for millions to own homes. The distinction made was that we were told Obama would “fundamentally change the focus of economic policy” after voting YES for the bailout, while we were told that John McCain was “representing reform” while voting YES for the bailout. read more »

Okay, subtle title like a brick through a window, I know.

David Chandler, co-chair of the Colorado Green Party, has posted on his blog that he has decided to support the Democrat for President. My first instinct was to ignore this, but as co-chair of the Wisconsin Green Party, I decided not to.

One great term I heard last weekend from an Oshkosh Green (Kay S) at Fighting Bob Fest (Post coming on that soon) was about the “Democrats’ Butts”. We get this a lot when we table at events, particularly when our Green Candidate for President goes on stage and points out the Democrats have been blatantly supporting the WAR that the voters put them in office to OPPOSE. Or that the Democratic candidate for President (his name rhymes with Obama) voted in favor of immunity for telecoms that broke the law (along with the current administration) by spying on innocent Americans.

You see, they come up to our wee little Green Party table to talk about issues. I call this “Political Therapy”. And the conversation, at some point, includes what Kay calls the “Democrat Butt”. It’s like this:
read more »

…at least on YouTube, if not on TiVo. Yes, the Obama acceptance speech.

I just watched it on slight tape delay with the DVR and this is “One Green’s Thoughts” on it. Please feel free to share your thoughts as well.

Music selection

I believe there is a saboteur in the Obama camp, and it is whomever was in charge of music selection.

First, in a poke at the Cynthia McKinney Power to the People campaign, they played “Power to the People” to introduce…Dick Durbin? WTF?

But the proof of conspiracy lays at the feet of closing Obama’s speech with the country western Brooks & Dunn “Only in America” may have possibly cost Barack Obama the Presidency. Seriously, the ‘profound’ rhetoric that he closed with was doused with gasoline and set on fire the moment that song started playing. It’s over folks, start practicing saying “Down with McCain”, all you protesters.

On the Issues

Past the rhetoric were some positions. Lets cut to the chase:
read more »