> That's why I said that "building such a party takes a long time, and,
> frankly, I don't think that LBO-talk (where patience is in short
> supply) is the right place to discuss it, much less advocate for it"
> (at
> <http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20040216/
> 003760.html>). If you want to make a plant grow, you can't just sit
> and watch and sprinkle drops of water every four years -- you need to
> tend to it regularly, watering and fertilizing it. If you expect the
> Green Party to grow without lending a hand and doing your share, you
> are either a political mystic, to use your term, or "a free rider --
> desiring to enjoy the benefits of party-building without doing
> anything for it," as I said to Doug:
> <http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20040216/
> 003928.html>.
I think I'd better bow out of this discussion, because you aren't understanding me, and perhaps I'm not understanding you. (This seems to happen quite often when I try to get my point of view across on this list -- perhaps the way I think or write is just not suitable for the list).
When I talked about "drops of water," I meant the amount of effort and resources *I personally* could put into that sort of project. As I said before, personal matters, especially the need to get my finances in order, make it impossible for me to get into organizing work at this time, even if I were interested in working to build up the Green Party, which I'm not, because (and perhaps I'm wrong), I *don't* expect the Green Party to grow, with or without my participation. I think it's a dead patch of grass. Or rather, it's a patch of ground cover which is alive within its present territory, but not very likely to spread, IMHO.
> Take a look at San Francisco, where Matt Gonzalez of the Green Party
> "spent one-tenth as much as Newsom but got 47 percent of the vote,"
> receiving "10,000 more votes than Newsom on election day" but losing
> "when the absentee ballots were counted" (at George F. Will, "The Left
> Bank," January 25, 2004,
> <http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/16450.htm>):
SF, of course, is a rather unique part of the country, politically. Even so, I question how much stronger the GP is likely to get there from here on. (People with some knowledge of the SF situation, which I don't frankly have, may be able to set me straight.)
GP enthusiasts tend to produce the following sort of argument, when we skeptics say that we think it isn't likely to grow much beyond where it is now: "Look at the phenomenal growth in membership or votes the party has shown in this or that locality, or in presidential elections, between year X and year Y. If that growth rate continues, look where we'll be in the year Z (sometime in the future)!"
There's an obvious mathematical fallacy here -- that of assuming that a growth rate will continue unchanged forever. That doesn't happen with bacterial cultures, nor with political organizations.
> Matt Gonzalez, the Green Party, and their rank-and-file supporters --
> especially in the queer communities -- forced the shift.
That's what third parties typically do in this country's political system: they never get very large, but if the establishment types are open to being pushed on a specific issue, they can exert pressure.
I heartily approve of third parties, for this reason. In fact, we would have very little political progress if this didn't happen. (See past histories of IWW, Socialist Party, even CPUSA.) But the talk of people like Camejo: "now we have a few million, soon we'll have tens of millions, and then we'll win" (the White House, I guess), is hardly believable.
> Exactly, and 54.7 % of the voting-age population who refused to vote
> in the elections in 2000 should be the target of the Green Party voter
> registration drives.
As they should be the target of everyone's registration drives. But if and when they start voting, there is no way to predict who they'll vote for. I've seen claims that most of the non-voters are lower-income types, but lots of them voted for Reagan and both Bushes.
> From the Platform of the Green Party USA at
> <http://www.greenparty.org/Platform.doc>:
>
> ***** An Economic Bill of Rights
> * Universal Social Security: Taxable Basic Income Grants for all,
> structured into the progressive income tax, that guarantee an adequate
> income sufficient to maintain a modest standard of living. Start at
> $500/week ($26,000/year) for a family of four, with $62.50/week
> ($3,250/year) adjustments for more or fewer household members in 2000
> and index to the cost of living.
> * Jobs for All: A guaranteed right to job. Full employment through
> community-based public works and community service jobs programs,
> federally financed and community controlled.
> * Living Wages: A family-supporting minimum wage. Start at $12.50 per
> hour in 2000 and index to the cost of living.
> * 30-Hour Work Week: A 6-hour day with no cut in pay for the bottom
> 80% of the pay scale.
> * Social Dividends: A "second paycheck" for workers enabling them to
> receive 40 hours pay for 30 hours work. Paid by the government out of
> progressive taxes so that social productivity gains are shared
> equitably.
> * Universal Health Care: A single-payer National Health Program to
> provide free medical and dental care for all, federally financed and
> controlled by democratically elected local boards.
> * Free Child Care: Available voluntarily and free for all who need it,
> modeled after Head Start, federally financed, and community >
> controlled.
> * Lifelong Public Education: Free, quality public education from
> pre-school through graduate school at public institutions.
> * Affordable Housing: Expand rental and home ownership assistance,
> fair housing enforcement, public housing, and capital grants to
> non-profit developers of affordable housing until all people can
> obtain decent housing at no more than 25% of their income. Democratic
> community control of publicly funded housing programs. *****
Very good ideas -- let's hope the GP can help generate pressure to get some of them realized. But it won't be the GP who does it -- it'll probably be a Democratic Administration and Congress. (I hardly think the Repups, of course, will be interested.) Just as it was Democrats in the '60s who were pushed into enacting civil rights legislation and the other (much too few) progressive steps that were taken.
> Dennis Kucinich's position is to the right of the Green Party's, but
> Kucinich's is closer to the Green Party's than to John Kerry's --
> _nevertheless_, he will endorse Kerry at the Democratic National
> Convention, if not sooner, making his own position moot.
Of course he will endorse Kerry -- he's not a third-party believer, he's a Democratic Party believer. These parties are really like religious sects -- there is no factual, empirical basis for choosing one or another, it's all faith. (Of course, sometimes they convert from one sect to another, as Wallace did in '48, and others do from time to time.)
Whether his position will be moot or not after the DNC -- or Dean's position, or Edwards', or anyone else's in that party -- depends on how strong the left wing of the D. Party is at that point. True believers in the hate-the-Democratic-Party sect talk about that organization as though it were a monolithic, lock-step Borg (as in "Star Wars"), but of course it's nothing of the kind. It's a loose conglomeration of various wings, some of which could be called "tools of the corporate giants" and some not, all fighting each other all the time. Whether the Kusinich wing or the Dean wing throws all its support behind Kerry or not will not, I think, be a closed question even after the convention. (BTW, I don't think it's inevitable at this point that Kerry will be the nominee -- 95% or so likely, perhaps, but not inevitable.) And which positions Kerry takes on various issues between now and the election, if he is nominated, or what positions he takes after he is inaugurated if (if!) he is elected, are not predetermined either. All of these things are much more fluid and open to pressure from progressives of all kinds than the we-abhor-the-DP folks think.
(I don't say this because I belong to the "we-love-the-DP" sect. I say them because I'm an independent observer who is just looking at American political history.)
> If you have any concrete political projects that you would like to
> implement, attend the meetings of the Green Party of Philadelphia
> <http://www.gpop.org/index.html> and the local Democratic Party, pitch
> your proposals to them, and see which party will take them up and
> implement them sooner.
As I said, I don't have time to attend any more meetings at this point. I did plenty of that back in the days when I had time to do it, and I know very well how they go. I wish I had time to implement some concrete political projects; perhaps I have time at least to write a few more letters to the local papers (establishment and alternative), and throw some ideas out into the public square, anyway.
Jon Johanning // jjohanning at igc.org __________________________________ Belinda: Ay, but you know we must return good for evil. Lady Brute: That may be a mistake in the translation.
-- Sir John Vanbrugh: The Provok’d Wife (1697), I.i.