(There’s work to be done to make registering GRP a meaningful and effective move. – promoted by eli_beckerman)
The established power brokers are not pleased at the mobilization of the Green-Rainbow Party, which is a way of saying that they are taking notice. A brief mention that I made in an article about how green party membership bolsters ones activism elicited a response on the Green-Rainbow Party’s Facebook page from an official within a competing political party, who pleaded against registering with a green party, saying that a voter who did so loses his or her influence because that voter could no longer participate in Democratic Party or Republican Party primaries.
Our influence is growing because our numbers are growing. We don’t increase our influence by participating in other parties’ primaries.
When I am asked about primaries, I suggest that we should build up the Green-Rainbow Party so that we can have our own primaries. “These green primaries will have a much different look from those of the big-money parties that accept lavish corporate contributions,” I add. “Our primaries will be engaging and welcoming of the expanded debate that is lacking now.”
I turn the question around to those who feel that participation in Democratic or Republican primaries is important to their activism: “how has participation in another party’s primaries actually helped advance those issues that the green parties are the strongest supporters of?”
Isn’t it time to suggest to activists who have been thwarted by corporate money power to publicly affiliate with a party that does not take that money at any level – local, state, and national? In Massachusetts registering Green-Rainbow is the next meaningful step in a power shift that denies the power that is inherently derived from an affiliation with a corporate money party.
The particular example in my article was about peace activism. It holds true for other activism on issues that greens embrace while other parties’ leadership and their financial supporters abhor: single payer health care, fair progressive taxes and budgets, local food networks, local ownership & control of wind energy, public transportation, and a critical questioning of the trickle-down strategies that are pervasive in the policies of Democratic and Republican parties.
Our influence and strength is growing because our numbers are growing.
In the Berkshires, membership in the Green-Rainbow Party is growing. As an elected Berkshire County representative to the State Committee, when I appear at a public forum on these and other issues, our local mobilization gives more power to the issues that we represent. It gives me and others more voice. We have already seen the established powers taking notice. Incumbents are not used to competition in Massachusetts. Activists for issues that we support will find their influence enhanced when their green affiliation is public. Our presence and growing number makes it harder for incumbents from corporate money parties to manage grassroots constituent expectations downwards. Some activists who also run grassroots non-profits, which must remain non-partisan, are realizing that as individuals they bolster their activism by registering Green-Rainbow.
Fellow voters will often approach me and say, “I really hope that green parties grow stronger because I believe in what they stand for.” More frequently now they realize that the next step is theirs to take. Others are still waiting to take these first steps.
As a Green-Rainbow candidate for State Representative last year, I stated on election night that I would rather accept an electoral defeat knowing that support for mine and similar campaigns is growing, than I would wish to celebrate an electoral victory knowing that support is waning. Witnessing a growth in party membership propels candidates such as me to run for election again. It also helps to attract popular candidates currently affiliated with the corporate parties to consider switching to join us.
I recently attended a talk by Eric Stoner, an editor at wagingnonviolence.org and a teacher of non-violence at a community college in New Jersey. Mr. Stoner shared his observations about the success of non-violent movements in Egypt and in Tunisia. I found the subject of the talk interesting because non-violence is one of the values of green parties. People seem to want our movement to succeed.
Mr. Stoner posited that non-violent movements were poised for success when they were 1) committed to non-violence, 2) when the public shed its fear of punishment or retribution, and 3) when people willfully withheld their power.
I suggest that there are parallels that can be applied to the Green-Rainbow Party.
Commitment. The party must be committed to running candidates who engage in debate and who espouse green values.
Shedding Fear. In our ongoing outreach we have observed voters shedding fear that would have prevented them earlier from registering Green-Rainbow. Some voters may not articulate it as such, but fear has been part of the dynamic. Perhaps the established political powers funnel funds to an employer, perhaps a voter is concerned of what others will think, or perhaps there is fear of being put on some FBI list. After all, Leonard Bernstein, when he was music director of the New York Philharmonic was required to sign an affidavit in order to obtain a passport in the 1950’s when the orchestra went on tour to Europe. He was asked to declare to the government that he had only ever voted for Democrats and Republicans. He probably lied when he signed it. (Source: Leonard Bernstein: The Political Life of an American Musician, by Barry Seldes). Well, let the FBI try to deal with 10,000 votes for Green-Rainbow candidates in the Berkshires last year.
Witholding of Power. Mr. Stoner articulated this phenomenon in Egypt and in Tunisia in terms of people refusing to do what they were supposed to do, or were expected to do in ways that denied power to the powerful. Voters who register Green-Rainbow publicly declare the kind of politics and values they support and publicly refrain from participating in the primaries of other parties. It’s an important step of political disobedience. Voters then also invite candidates who have felt the need to run in other parties’ primaries to come to the Green-Rainbow Party instead.
“Why don’t you run as a Democrat in the primary?” I was innocently asked during last year’s campaign . “Because I’m not a Democrat and I don’t support the Democrats’ acceptance of corporate contributions,” was my honest reply. “Your participation as a voter and my participation as a candidate in that party’s primary would give it undeserved power. Let’s invite candidates here instead, if they are willing to advocate for green issues.
I welcome the day when the Green-Rainbow Party will have its own primaries. Aversion to primaries and grasroots campaigns is a big-money-party phenomenon, as we have seen in the local Democratic Party’s incumbent protection efforts in the first congressional district. I, however, would welcome a primary challenge the next time I run for office. It would give the voters an opportunity to see a growing movement becoming stronger – doing what parties are supposed to be doing. When corporate contributions are removed from party politics – as they are in green parties that refuse such contributions – grassroots democracy is the sole source of power.
Activists welcome this and are taking the steps to see it happen.
#
“How has participation in another party’s primaries actually helped advance those issues that the green parties are the strongest supporters of?”
About as much as voting for Green candidates has. Actually, a bit more. However much we want Medicare-for-all, it doesn’t happen overnight, and we’ve taken steps in that direction. Gay rights, jobs for young people, and billions poured into clean energy have been the direct result of progressive legislation passed by Democrats who got their start in the primaries.
And any Green representative elected to the State legislature will learn early on that to accomplish anything will require horse trading and compromise. Starting from, perhaps, a more principled position than some Democrats are capable of, true; but you will not serve your constituents by simply casting an endless series of “nay” votes because the legislation isn’t your ideal. You will work with Democrats and Repubuicans to eke out the most acceptable compromise. That is, if you plan to have any effect whatsoever, which is going to be unlikely in any case due your inability to ever rise to any positions of influence within either house.
So my question to you is: how has participation in the Green Party helped advance those issues that green parties are the strongest supporters? I’ll be frank–the answer to me is “not a whit”; and my experience suggests–let’s say strongly–that the GRP is going to remain organizationally incapable of advancing that legislation in any meaningful way in the future. If I felt differently, I would have hung on, but I’m into in evidence-based politics. I do not see that high-volume growth that others kept talking about.
I signed on a Democrat this year because I believe that participation in next year’s Democratic Party primary is the single best way to advance most Green values. Not all-but nor do I agree with all, and I hope nobody else does either; that would be a bit creepy and redolent of a cultish mind-set. I’ve found a candidate many of whose positions align closely with those of the Greens; a candidate who put together, overnight, a wholly grassroots organization that far surpassed in a matter of days any campaign organziation the GRP has ever fielded; and who is attracting exactly the kinds of people–young people (lots young people), people of color, disaffected Democrats, disgruntled independents, [along with Greens and former Greens]–that the GRP has long dreamed of attracting–but can’t.
And with only candidates for state legislature in 2010–a total of two!–primaries seem to me to be a utopian fantasy for the GRP. Think maybe you need to work on simply getting some candidates to run unopposed in a “primary” much less dream about big-time primaries? I suspect the party will be lucky to field four uncontested candidates alone in four districts next year. At, uh, that rate….
The choice for me is too obvious for words. When I find a candidate of integrity who by and large shares my vision, has the background and experience, has demonstrated a willingness to and ability to deal with those from different persuasions and to deliver measurable results, who TRULY fires up both the mainstream AND the marginalized, and has a real shot–why on earthy would I devote my time and energy to suporting candidates for big-time office who, quite frankly, are capable of pretty much none of the above?
I don’t expect Greens to jump ship, and I admire the tenacity of the few, the happy few. But I would warn anyone considering abandoning the Democratic Party for an illusion that, once you get beyond the wild-eyed rhetoric about the explosive interest in the party etc., there really is no there there. Once bitten, twice shy, you know?
#
This conversation sounds black and white, something you decry Michael, so let me acknowledge something first.
Your criticisms of Green Party politics in the US are on the mark, and there are Greens on this blog making weak arguments and holding to nonsensical positions. Let’s get that off the table. And I have no problem whatsoever with supporting good candidates in primaries where a progressive third party has no reasonable chance of winning.
For a second let’s pretend the GRP doesn’t exist and I want to support my values and be practical when it comes to the US Senate race. I can speak from personal experience how Scott Brown has screwed Massachusetts and is harming this country. I’ve been part of a number of campaigns pressuring or pleading with this Senator to do the right thing on climate policy, on higher education, on jobs, and on immigrant rights. Any Democrat would be better than Brown on these issues, issues that impact close friends and family.
The default orientation is going to be electability, any Dem is better than Brown, so who’s going to be able to do it. Now I can be involved on a wide spectrum from passivity to intense action and support in this election. Draft Elizabeth Warren, make donations to my favored candidate in the primary or a PAC for the general election, become a campaign volunteer, chat up my friends, get involved in my Democratic ward or city committee to GOTV, do nothing but vote for the Democrat on election day, work with non-profits and advocacy groups to educate people and pressure the candidates on key issues… etc.
Many people cannot afford or justify devoting any time to politics, to push back at you a little. And in most cases a person will get more done by handling problems directly or by seeking voluntary help and support, whilst politics addresses it as a big question and will do little in the short run for an individual case.
When does it become practical and sensible to devote time to politics at all? With this election? And specifically to vote in the Democratic primary, I could easily wait till the general… that line of thinking does not bring me into the Massie campaign, let alone becoming an active Democrat.
Now you say something about having concrete alternatives, and me setting up a false dichtomy because the GRP does in fact exist and I am active member of it. And all those flaws, blemishes, mistakes, and bad politics come to the fore.
In fairness, joining a political party does not mean you have to defend everything or agree with everything going on within it. Enrolling in the Democratic Party does mean you need to defend DiMasi, Finneran, and Flaherty or rationalize the voting record of the current Democratic State House caucus. I think the GRP has made some critical mistakes, and I am not absolved from a few of those, just as you aren’t.
At bottom here’s I have a crazed ideological justification: there is a clear, reasonable, and evidence-based way to build a progressive third party that produces results within our electoral system. Start locally, focus on winnable races, grow your membership and resource base, focus your victories and build momentum, and do not engage issues or campaigns that will not at least build and strengthen your organization, etc. I can point to historical examples in the US, to Vermont right now, to the New Democrats and Greens in Canada, the Greens and Lib Dems in the UK, and Greens in Australia and New Zealand. What’s more, their organzing has produced tangible, real political victories for ordinary people, from single payer in Canada and Vermont, to aggressive climate policy in the UK and Australia, to fairer budgets and taxes in all of the above, as well as good policy on immigration, civil rights, war and peace, environmental policy, and so on.
The strategy I point to exists independently of what the GRP has done or is doing, though the too often unheeded GRP electoral strategy gets the general idea right. The bulk of my work and experience with the GRP is in the Berkshires and the Pioneer Valley where I have had positive experiences and success working on Scott and Mark’s campaigns and helped Nat build support for very practical and commonsense policies which I have seen first hand having direct influence on budget policy, debate, and advocacy in the Commonwealth
I want to build that party, because I also realize that politics is not just about individual candidates but institutions and power. This is a perfectly reasonable, evidence-based, and grounded view of engaging in politics.
As much as you need to get things done, compromise, bring diverse interests and people together, seek the good and find a golden mean, there is the essential and fundamental aspect of politics where tension, conflict, agitation, and yes disobedience lead to palpable victories and concrete improvements in people’s lives. If you remove that from the equation, which I think your perspective often does, a coherent democratic politics is lost.
To emphasize the latter is not to ignore the former. I am not only a Green, I am and have been involved in campaigns and projects where forging a braod consensus, working with Republicans, Democrats, and policy makers, praising your imperfect allies, accepting and celebrating the bitter-sweet compromise, is all necessary. To use one example, during my whole tenure as a GRP member I also engaged in Gov Patrick’s forums, town hall meetings, and budget hearings, in a constructive fashion and getting to know many of the civil servants working to improve government and help people within his administration.
I’ll end on a strident note. The Democrats have many breeds, old, new, and “new”, but I can see where inspiring, groundbreaking, and creative campaigns like Patrick’s and Obama’s can lead when their supporters are left without something of permanence as basis to advocate for a better politics. I believe America needs a better Democratic Party (and Republican Party), but I see it arising from direct action, grassroots organizing, and building credible alternatives that move the political center. The outlook for this may not look too great, the immediate tasks will demand flexibility and creativity, and many individuals will come and go, but its a choice too obvious for words.
#
A small party can’t survive drifting haphazardly through politics. Especially a Green party, which has no reason to exist in the US if we believe it possible to find answers on the existing political terrain.
I heartily agree that we should be more active outside the electoral field. I strongly feel that a small party can only progress by first developing a principled platform and practicing focused support for people and programs who are ignored or shunned by mainstream politicians. Our first task is not to go from zero to majority support, but to go from one or two percent to six or eight percent. This goes equally for electoral and community organizing.
I have some questions to ask of all sides here.
Aside from the question of whether it’s “right,” Do we have the energy and numbers to both work for liberals among mainstream politicians AND to build our own party?
Does anyone think that it’s OK for an active member or official of GRP to support the candidate of another party against a GRP-endorsed candidate?
If our numbers and influence are really growing anywhere outside Berkshire county, may we see voter enrollment figures, number of active chapter members, and what the chapters are doing?
If we run our own party primaries like the big guys and have candidates who stand a chance of winning, why couldn’t GRP be taken over by big-spending candidate/machines?
A small party like ours should have the will to think through its own values, interests, structure and strategy. If we don’t we will continue to fail and deserve to fail.