>I feel your pain, Nathan - I think you're anything but a dishonest
>hack, and I don't approve of the attribution - but he rather
>convincingly refuted several of your major criticisms: the whitness
>of the Greens and their voters, the liberality of the Dems they've
>defeated, the effects on surviving Dems, the political profile of New
>Haven, etc. Soooo. just what's wrong with Greens running for City
>Council, anyway?
Nothing's wrong with running for city council, whatever label you want to give yourself (Green, New Party, progressive Dem, Republican, whatever) if your politics are good and you mobilize a good base. I just don't think it makes much difference what you call yourself.
Since you were convinced by John's arguments-- which are based on his slanted view of New Haven politics -- let me note that while NH has a quite twisted history of corruption et al, the city council and mayor have been quite progressive in a range of areas, especially in support for the local labor unions battling with New Haven, which in that city is pretty much the defining issue of economic equity, since higher wages wrested from Yale is the only real source of grassroots capital in that city at this point.
And I never went to any Local 34/35 rally where John DeStefano was not there denouncing Yale and cheering on organizing at the university. Mayors don't have that much power to force unionization but he did definately support the community mobilization that strengthened the union efforts.
I have nothing against Greens running to marginally improve such city politics, but it is so disconnected from the real ideological battles in the country, where descriptions of someone like DeStephano as anything but an ultraliberal would seem bizarre.
He thinks such internecine warfare in the powerless sandbox of small city politics is "real politics", which is why I find the whole enterprise so marginal to real political fights that face working class families.
-- Nathan Newman
.