> They embrace
> "nonviolence" as one of their sacred principles (or whatever those ten
> things are called), but many of them are hesitant about calling for too much
> slashing of the military budget.
At the last Green convention, an amendment was added to stop all nuclear weapons development, deployment, and research. Green candidate Anderson talks about revamping the DOE military-industrial complex to do Green energy, transportation and related work. Most of the Greens I know in NM are for scrapping huge parts of the military enterprise. I don't know that you could unilaterally scrap the whole thing without inviting some form of aggression. I am not a pacifist, and I know many are not. The value of nonviolence is supposed to be the reminder of first resort.
> Many of them are socialists. Others are
> militantly anti-socialist, and refer to the former as "watermelons" (green
> on the outside, red on the inside).
"Militantly" anti-socilaist? Maybe in tone but nit temperament. The umbrella is big, and why not? If seeking purity is going to delay action and positive movement on social issues, why not? At least we can agree to disagree. How many other left movements have gotten off that rock? Will there be a day of reckoning? Maybe, but then who's to say who will win. The only Marxist specter that seems to be repudiated in the Green Party is the one that haunts the Gulags.
> On the whole, they have a totally whacky
> love of small business and in local politics are sometimes hard to
> distinguish from NIMBYs, though they 're getting better.
Wacky is being perhaps kind. But then, it's better than being for big buisness ain't it?
> The New Mexico Greens are very good on a number of things, but are
> definitely not on the left end of the Green spectrum.
I do not know that you'll find too many Greens lefter than Bob Anderson. Carol Miller is much more radical than the kinds of Greens I find caricatured on this list. Her rhetoric is close to Bob's but she's more grass roots and Independent than he is.
> Their program, for
> instance, calls for universal single-payer health care -- but then quickly
> adds that of course they favor roles for both non-profit and for-profit
> HMOs, hospitals and clinics in such a system.
Uhhmm... I don't think so. In practice, HMOs would be voted against by both Anderson and Miller (who is a healthcare administration wonk).
> They defend public
> education--but also private schools and home-schooling.
Private schools? No. Home-schooling? Maybe. But so what. Everyone has a right to educate their kids the way they wish right? Hell, if I had the time, I'd keep my kid home and teach him world-literature along with the rest of it, including several languages.
> The whole platform
> is like this -- a quick reassurance that they aren't all *that* radical
> after each proposal which could be attacked as sounding "left wing."
Yeah maybe you're right, but then it's not in stone is it? The practice is the proof and what the Greens running for major parties in NM say is very radical--far left of anything you'll see in Europe or here.
> Greens in other areas on this list should be aware that the NM Greens are
> proposing their platform as the basis for a national campaign in 2000.
True. And I think it has a good shot to be chosen for this. I would like to see a more socilaist bent put on it at the national level. That's suit my tastes.
chuck miller
-- http://www.users.uswest.net/~bautiste/index.htm