The following is a press release from the Green-Rainbow Party of Massachusetts, 21 January 2010

GREEN-RAINBOW PARTY:BROWN VICTORY REFLECTS NEW POWER OF BREAK-AWAY PROGRESSIVES,NOT A REPUBLICAN SURGE

With the surprise victory of Scott Brown over Martha Coakley in Tuesday’s special Senate election, the conventional wisdom regarding the dominance of the Democratic Party in Obama-era Massachusetts has been shattered.  But in the scramble to understand what the voters said on Tuesday a fundamental lesson is being missed. This was a revolt of progressives against a hijacked Democratic Party – not a sudden conversion of Ted Kennedy supporters to Republican ranks.  

The exit polls and the hard vote totals bear this out. Brown benefited from two very strong trends: first, a sizable number of Obama voters who were inspired by Obama’s progressive message in 2008 were not motivated to go to the polls. Secondly, a large block of voters who were disgusted by Obama’s acceptance of an industry-friendly health bill without a public option went to the polls and voted for Brown in protest.  

Brown did a good job of motivating his smaller conservative base but this alone would not have been enough.  He would have lost in a landslide if the progressive voters had felt that Coakley was on their side. The real story of this election is the rejection of a party that

has been hijacked by the special interests behind much of the crisis in health care – as well as the Wall Street meltdown, home foreclosures, climate change, and the expanding war in Afghanistan. The emergence of this break-away values-driven movement will change the face of politics in Massachusetts.

Brown benefited greatly when the election became a referendum on Obamacare. Exit poll data following the special election showed that 42 percent of voters reported casting their ballots to help stop Obama’s health plan from passing.  But Brown’s winning margin came not from opponents of reform – but from voters who felt that Obama was not going far enough.

This was demonstrated in a poll taken by Research 2000, which showed that 18 percent of people who voted for Barack Obama in 2008 supported Scott Brown in the Senate race.  Of that group an overwhelming majority – 82 percent – favor a public option health plan while just 14 percent oppose it.  Of those who stayed home, 86 percent support a public option while just 7 percent oppose it.

Jill Stein, Green-Rainbow Party co-chair, noted that “Without the ‘public option’ voters, Scott Brown would not have been elected.  Interpreting Brown’s victory as a mandate to weaken the health care bill misses the boat – and is the opposite of what voters are saying. The Brown win is a directive to go back to the drawing boards to create a public-option improved Medicare-for-all bill. The voters of Massachusetts should know. They are living with the budget-busting costs and inadequate coverage of the health care mandate on which the Obama proposal is based.”

According to Green-Rainbow Party Co-chair Michael Horan, “The Brown/Coakley race dramatically revealed the flaws of a bipartisan electoral system that offers voters only a rightwing alternative to the administration in power. When voters are upset, their only options are to stay home or to vote for a Republican who really doesn’t speak for their values.  In 2010 the Green-Rainbow Party is going to give those voters another choice.  We are going to run candidates who stand firmly for the real solution to  healthcare – a Medicare-like system that covers  everyone.”  

As evidence that the American people agree with the Green position, Horan cited a New York Times/CBS News poll that found that 72 percent of Americans “supported a government-administered insurance plan – something like Medicare for those under 65 – that would compete for  customers with private insurers.”

Stein concluded that “This year, Green-Rainbow candidates will give progressives something to vote for: health care reform that takes care of people rather than pharmaceutical companies and insurance company lobbyists.  People are resonating to this message. The pundits who think Massachusetts has lost its progressive vision should be prepared for another surprise.”

13 Comments

  1. vociferous

      First of all, I would like to say that I’m not sure that it is right for Michael Horan to be speaking on behalf of the entire Green-Rainbow Party. I was not asked my opinion before he wrote the article, on which, I am about to comment. Was anyone else asked?

     Horan’s article is maybe the best, recent, overt display of Green-Rainbow Party self-destruction. Electing a republican is some sort of progressive political statement?

    That is absolutely insane.

    I have wondered for quite a long time, now, whether the Green-Rainbow Party and the Green Party of the United States, are being compelled, somehow, by someone, to “stand down”. I can only interpret these statements by Horan and Stein to be an attempt to confuse potential Green-Rainbow Party members about the intent and mission of the Party.

     Exactly which aspects of the Green-Rainbow Party’s Ten Key Values does Scott Brown support? Will he vote for bills which are intended to strengthen and expand environmental law? Will he vote against a bloated military? Will he and his “progressive” republican party help bolster the labor unions? As a so-called conservative, will he help pass laws that bring better health care to the uninsured and under-insured? None of these questions can be answered in the affirmative.

    Maybe Michael Horan can interview Scott Brown to get his opinion of the Ten Key Values of the Green-Rainbow Party. Decentralization would be a good subject to start with. Let me remind everyone what decentralization is, as defined and described in Green-Rainbow Party’s Ten Key Values:

                   Decentralization

             “Centralization of wealth and power

             contributes to social and economic

             injustice, environmental destruction,

             and militarization. Therefore, we

             support a restructuring of social,

             political and economic institutions

             away from a system that is controlled

             by and mostly benefits the powerful

             few, to a democratic, less bureau-

             cratic system. Decision-making should,

             as much as possible, remain at the

             individual and local level, while

             assuring that civil rights are

             protected for all citizens.”

     The Green-Rainbow Party needs to retract the statements by Horan and Stein, remove them from their positions and reitterate it’s mission statement, distancing itself firmly from and re-positioning itself in diametrical opposition to the republican party.

     Jill Stein did not even bother to send out an e-mail notice informing members of the Green-Rainbow Party that she was running for the vacated Senate seat. I had to go to the web site to find out.

    By omission and commission, action and inaction, the Green- Rainbow Party is being dissolved, rendered ineffectual and passive by those in charge of it.

    This salute and applause to the republican who now represents our state and helps make laws for the entire nation is audacious and entirely suspicious.

    As members, we need to call a meeting and regain control of our party from those with antagonistic agendas. I will make several related proposals at the State Committee meeting in 2011.  

  2. Fortunate

    I suspect most voters looked at the billions in bailouts for banks instead of homeowners and a watered down health  plan that won’t control costs and said,  ‘If this is the best you can do for us, I’ll either stay home or vote for somebody who says they won’t throw my money away.” If they believed Brown, they were mistaken— he doesn’t merit anyone’s vote and he WILL  throw their money away on tax breaks to monied interests — but they already knew not to believe the Dems in congress, who have proven to be incapable of change we can believe in.  

    • vociferous

      Patrick, I interpret Michael’s article differently than you.

      You cite as the central theme of the article: “…the people who did not show up to vote hold progressive and left political views on issues like healthcare and are upset with the Democrats. That is not what I get from the article. I read the thesis of the article as: “Progressives, including Greens, exercised their free wil today, not approving of what they understood as the Obama health care overhaul, they elected a republican in a valiant display of rebelliousness”.  


      • Hey, Vociferous.  I agree it would have been better having a candidate of our own.  Let’s work to get some in Novemer.  Green friends around the county and in the Green Party of the US asked me why there was no Green-Rainbow candidate in the special election.  The following message I sent to them on election day explains my perspective, and my own personal voting decision.

        ………………….

        No one is more pained than I am about the lack of a Green-Rainbow candidate on the ballot on today’s special election.

        The time for a candidate to mobilize in order to be on the ballot was very brief.  When the special election was announced most of our active candidates had been getting ready for state races later this year or were working on the IRV referendum.  Our State Committee had decided over the summer that the primary focus of the party would be on state legislative races.  A few candidates did consider organizing to collect the necessary 10,000 signature and launching a campaign, but they decided not to, given the large task of organizing and the party’s stated priorities.

        The special election race is being billed my many in the punditry as a referendum on “Obama-care.”  What’s often missing in the pundits’ analyses of why the Democrats are having such a hard time is that we in Massachusetts have been living and breathing “Obamacare” for several years.  We were the testing ground for private insurance mandates.  The ordinary person is not happy with this at all.  Insurance executives are ecstatic, of course.  Those on the plans that are subsidized for low income residents are quickly learning that year after year the benefits get worse and worse while the costs (premiums, co-pays, etc.) get higher and higher, and the number of uninsured is rising again.  They are then slapped with regressive tax penalties.

        I posted a note on a BBC news story today that told BBC readers that what Obama is peddling for health care would be summarily rejected by the voting public in the UK, Europe, Canada, Japan, or most any other place with a strong publicly-funded health plan for everybody.  Obamacare moves us further away from publicly-funded insurance for all.

        The difficulty that the Democrats are having should give us lessons for November.  I don’t know of many Greens who are voting for Scott Brown, but there are supporters of Scott Brown who can be convinced to vote for us in November if we campaign effectively.

        There have been some good discussions in the last few days on our listservs about how different individuals are voting.  The Green-Rainbow Party has made no endorsements.  Personally, I’m following the Jose Saramago example(from his wonderful novel “Seeing”) and casting a blank ballot, full of regret that my party does not have a candidate on the ticket today.

  3. michael horan

    Vociferous-

    I didn’t write the statement I’m quoted in it. I do stand  by it en toto, of course. Including, and especially, “a Republican who really doesn’t speak for [progressives’] values”–like the one you quote.

    The Party hasn’t “saluted and applauded” any special election candidate. In fact, various Greens actually used this blog to explain their choices, as individuals, and then proceeded to vote their consciences–as individuals. With no Green in the running, the Party remained silent.

    Jill Stein was not a candidate in the special election for Senate. Really, we wouldn’t have kept that under wraps.

    As for my impeachment, the procedure is outlined in Bylaws 9.6. I’m not certain as to whether you need to submit a written proposal, but I’d be happy to look into it.

    Seriously, Vociferous, be happy to talk to you about any of these matters, so feel free to personally introduce yourself when we run into each other. I hope you’ll apply your energies this year to helping elect candidates whom we most assuredly do agree on.

    BTW, I can’t help but enjoy writing that pulls no punches, even if I’m at the receiving end.

    Yrs,

    michael

  4. thegreengrass

    I think the sentiment that it was a large amount of dissatisfaction with a number of things going on politically is pretty true. It definitely seems like voters are just unhappy with what’s going on and are continually seeking out whoever is going to change it. It’s easy to understand why, in my opinion. Both major parties backed by corporate dollars (which is apparently about to get worse, but that’s another discussion entirely), who seem to be looking out for the best interests of the already wealthy, be they oil men or bank men, while the actual electorate gets the shaft day after day. Just look at the past few days; we got new high unemployment numbers at the same time we had reports of banks giving out very, very large bonuses with what sure appears to be tax-payer money. At its simplest level, this looks like Washington making sure the people with power (i.e., tons of money) are looked after while regular people see nothing but job loses and hardship.

    At any rate, it’s certainly a valid view. To top it off, I even saw this in the Metro today – http://metro.us/us/article/201

    I know there are way more unenrolled voters in MA than either major party has, and it’s a number that’s only grown in the past decade, so I don’t think hope is lost. There’s obviously an audience looking for someone who’s really going to fight for them is there. What just really upsets me is that the political system with this last decision by the Supreme Court seems contented to keep the playing field inaccessible to those whose candidacies aren’t backed by oceans of corporate money.

  5. michael horan

    Thanks for posting it. From The Metro no less.

    I think he’s largely correct about that spooky ability of the great-middle to veer from Obama to Brown, and that “party” is becoming of less consequence.

    Kind of a double-edge sword for third parties. More likely to win votes, but maybe less likely to get registrations? *Imagining an election in which the entire electorate was “unenrolled.”  

Leave a Reply