X-From_: john.halle at SNET.Net Mon Jul 29 12:50:05 2002 X-Originating-IP: [64.252.101.9] X-SBCIS-MTA: [pop.snet.net] Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 12:50:56 -0400 To: dhenwood at panix.com From: John Halle <john.halle at SNET.Net> Subject: green dysfunctionality and left disengagement
In response to Doug's posting a few days back:
>Sure. I'm talking about candidates and operatives. They have an
>inordinate fondness for The Small. The party platform
><http://www.greenpartyus.org/documents/platform_2000.pdf> is full of
>that stuff, as well as being an undisciplined document with no sense
>of vision, priority, or strategy.
I share your discomfort both with some of the content and lame rhetoric of the platform. That should not obscure the fact that the rather tame social democratic reforms it lays out are infinitely more progressive than anything on the mainstream political horizon. E.g. single payer, universal health care, living wage ordinances, campaign finance reform, serious reductions in military spending to fund investments in public works and educational infrastructure etc.
>Not all Greens are like that. Rahul Mahajan, who's running for gov
>of Texas of all things, is great.
>Rahul says he's for a hard-headed leftism; the Greens need more
>heads like his.
Except for the fact that he's making an exceedingly soft-headed move running in a race where he will be lucky if he gets 1.5% of the vote, I agree that we need "more heads like his." That being said, I think you might be surprised at the number of "hard headed" leftists involved the Greens. Just because, unlike Rajul, they don't write articles in journals you read or approve of or their names don't come up in UWS cafe culture doesn't mean they lack the capacity for rational thought.
>As for John Halle's complaint that I should be out there organizing
>Greens, well, sorry, I'm pretty busy and I don't have time to do
>that.
This misses the point. I was not suggesting that you or anyone in particular become an organizer. I'm also plenty busy too, believe it or not.
Rather, I was attempting, yet again, to raise the question of what it would take for the sector of the leftist intelligentsia represented on LBO to move from its exclusively literary engagement with "the movement" to making a tangible contribution which actually advances radical politics in admittedly limited but concrete ways. In short, to become participants rather than disengaged spectators. Aside from making snide comments about Green dysfunctionality, list members seem to have little interest in addressing this question, as evidenced not only by your non-response but the failure to respond to Alan Jacobson's excellent posting which I repeat here:
>>It is a tautology--the Green Party sucks because
>>it has no power so I won't help build it, ensuring that it will never gain
>>power. The masses think about politics in terms of the electoral arena. If
>>the left abstains either because it is fearful of losing infinitesimal
>>influence in the Democratic Party or because the electoral vehicles
>>available don't match some macho class-war fantasy, then I guess we really
>>are mired in the margins.
As for your other point:
>And the already-existing Green party - or parties, how many are
>there, anyway? - looks jumbled and uninspiring. I think Nathan is
>right that if the Greens ever got 5% and public funding, they'd be
>taken over by Fulani or some such with more sophisticated notions of
>organization.
Again, whether this scenario materializes depends a lot on whether those who claim to have "vision", capacity for "discipline" and the ability to think strategically get involved in building the Green organization (not to mention help out with writing the platform). If this critical mass does not develop, it will be just as much your fault as ours and, I would argue, a major opportunity will have been lost.
John
--