>> As an active Green, I'm increasingly finding the GP insistence on consensus and a bottom-up model almost guarantees things can't get done fast and anything even vaguely controversial will never pass.
>Yes, and, sadly, it's not simply a mistaken practice; it's a defining
characteristic.
That's exactly what the problem is. And it can't / won't be changed. This model is part of the Green Party DNA.
This is why I'm increasingly involved with ANSWER in LA, as ANSWER knows how to organize, and thus Gets Stuff Done.
The contrast between the groups is instructive. I was at the national ANSWER conf in NYC two weekends ago. They presented an action plan for the next several months, subject to revision as needed, of course. People will go back and organize on that action plan. A simple enough idea, yet one that is foreign to the Green Party.
I was talking about the Green Party with an ANSWER friend. He thought about it, then said, "Y'know, I think Greens are lethargic anarchists"...
It sad, because there's much good in the GP. I think 2000 may end up being the peak for the GP, especially as now it appears more than a few Greens are re-registering as Democrats so they can vote in the 2004 primary.