(Richly said, Scott! – promoted by eli_beckerman)
It has been fashionable for a while for media pundits of both progressive and conservative stripes to lament big money influence in the politics and policy-making of the two ruling parties. This is often accompanied with a call for a new party (or two or three). It is seldom accompanied with any real reporting on those pioneers who are already doing the unfashionable hard work of party-building, especially those that do it without that very disdained establishment money.
In yesterday’s New York Times, Frank Rich lamented on the big bad money. His fellow Times columnists Thomas Friedman and Bob Herbert have also done so frequently. I’m sure that Rachel Maddow has, too.
Pollsters tell us that lots of people are unhappy with corporate two-party politics: over 60% of both self-identified conservatives and self-identified progressives believe the country should have a new party. News producers, therefore, know they’re on safe ground when they report on voter dissatisfaction with the political process in the abstract. That abstract safe ground is where they remain for now.
In June of 2009 Bill Maher profoundly parroted the theme on PBS: “[W]hat we need is an actual progressive party to represent the millions of Americans who aren’t being served by the Democrats. .. Shouldn’t there be one party that unambiguously supports cutting the military budget, a party that is … in favor of gun control, gay marriage, higher taxes on the rich, universal health care — legalizing pot — and steep, direct taxing of polluters?”
The Green Party of the United States responded, telling Mr. Maher “We’re here!” It asked him to invite some Green Party candidates onto his program. The press release and phone calls to Maher have been ignored for the time being.
The Dalai Lama said in New York in May of this year that he might join the Green Party “if the United States had one.” The GPUS invited him to join as an honorary member. (For at least several years the Dalai Lama has supported the growth of green parties and politics around the world, telling people that joining a green party is a meaningful simple first step that an individual who is concerned about peace can make.)
We are the party that does not accept the big corporate money that Frank Rich bemoaned yesterday. We didn’t take the money before the Citizens United decision and we don’t take it even when the Supreme Court says it is OK to do so.
At the moment it is very easy for Frank Rich and major media to ignore green parties in this country. Our voter registration is low and the number of candidates we run is small. This is not because the ideas that we espouse are unpopular. Mark Miller’s and my local races received fair coverage from local media and did well (45% and 18% respectively) despite our small organization. Our ideas are popular and growing. As our numbers grow we’ll get more coverage. Mr. Rich and his peers won’t write about us unless we grow. (I tried explaining this to a voter during my campaign who indicated that she could not join the party nor vote for a Green Party candidate until she read about it in The New York Times!)
Closer to home we are preparing a mobilization of Green-Rainbow Party members both to celebrate of the ‘major party’ status which the party will gain next year (as defined by Massachusetts Election Law), and to plan for the increased membership and organization which will impact local governance and support future campaigns . This mobilization represents an opportunity for us to become more active and more numerous.
It starts with us. The New York Times will tell us about movements after they have happened, not before.