The title of this blog came from a collaborative video and sound art piece created in 2009 by the artists Doug Henderson and David Brody, of Berlin and Brooklyn respectively.   I liked it instantly upon seeing and hearing it.  The call to disobedience came to mind recently when I was asked to define a phrase I sometimes use, ‘political disobedience,’ in conjunction with my Green-Rainbow Party activism.  A Facebook friend asked for a definition of ‘political disobedience’ when I used it to invite people to meetings of the party’s local chapter.  It  was also on my mind when the Green-Rainbow Party sponsored a recent screening of Howard Zinn’s “The People Speak,” which is a documentary about the strong positive impacts that people’s movements have made through use of direct action and civil disobedience throughout history.

Political Disobedience, like Civil Disobedience, is organized direct action that people take to confront power that does not serve people’s interests.  I first heard the phrase ‘political disobedience’ from fellow Green-Rainbow Party member, John Andrews.  I liked it instantly upon hearing it as I did with the title of the art piece mentioned in the previous paragraph; I think the time for it is now.

I was honored to receive in the mail today an individual gift membership to Common Cause, given to me personally by a Common Cause Massachusetts board member who follows my campaigns.

It has moved me to forward the gesture to another.

“Make a financial pledge to our station in the next hour if you support Single Payer Health Care!,” is a popular line that listeners hear to drum up the number of ringing phones during a fund drive.

A local NPR affiliate is preparing a pledge drive soon.  Because voters in the 4th Berkshire District approved the non-binding ‘single payer’ health care question by the second highest margin in the state last year, with well over 70% approval, it’s a sure bet that the affiliate will dedicate several hours of pledging to the issue.

I attempted recently to find out from the station how many additional pledges are generated during the time slots that are devoted to ‘single payer’ health care, but it didn’t seem that any records like that are kept.  Without such data to communicate to lawmakers and advocates the pledge drive has little real effect in advancing the legislation which the callers presumably favor.  The fundraisers certainly know that support for the issue is strong, though.  They will reasonably continue with this tactic as long as it is viewed to bolster fund-raising.

As several of us in the Green-Rainbow Party are planning to participate with MassCare in “Lobby Day” on Beacon Hill, which is devoted to securing legislative co-sponsors for the single payer health care bill, it got me thinking …

A radio host asked me on the air last month what I thought of a voting reform known as “Open Primaries.”  I didn’t have enough knowledge at the time to comment one way or another, but I followed up with some research and herewith offer to continue the discussion.

As I understand it, the ‘open primary’ that was referenced would place all candidates for an office on the same primary ballot and allow all voters to cast ballots in the primary, regardless of the voters’ or the candidates’ party affiliations.  The top two candidates in the primary would advance to the general election.  City elections in Massachusetts, which are non-partisan, are held in this way with a ‘preliminary election’ whenever more than two candidates for the same office secure a place on the ballot.  The ‘Open Primaries’ reform would amend the Commonwealth’s election laws so that races which are presently partisan would be administered in the same manner.

The ringing phone abruptly woke me up on a January morning in 2008.  I did not recognize the Great Barrington area phone number showing on the display as I hit the answer button.  I am recalling a conversation that took place three years ago because now at the close of 2010 there have been some  recent discussions within the Green-Rainbow Party about advocating for non-profit single-payer public health insurance.

“Hello.”

“What is Dennis Kucinich going to do to give us single payer health care?” a brusque, somewhat raspy, imperious male voice belted out from the other end of the line, prefacing the words with no greeting or introduction.

Briefly taken aback and quickly woken up, I realized that the press release I had issued about the Kucinich For President office that I had opened in Lenox (back in that Democratic Party presidential primary winter) must have been published, prompting the call.  The press release had provided my phone number as contact for the office.

The conversation that followed back then has provided me with additional insight into why the United States still does not have the kind of public/non-profit health insurance system that virtually every other wealthy democracy provides.  This, in turn, has assisted me in thinking about what the Green-Rainbow Party can do now, as we approach 2011 and future elections to promote quality public health insurance.

In my opinion, the effort is not primarily about  preparing more fact sheets to assist legislators and voters in changing their minds.  Nor is it in holding more round table discussions or rallies.  Our members and candidates are often part of these efforts, but there are plenty of other groups who have taken the lead on those actions.  The Green-Rainbow Party plays secondary roles in these efforts.

The leadership that we can provide is to grow our political power by increasing membership, fielding more candidates, and securing more partisan votes in favor of politics and policy-making that is free from the influence of corporate contributions, including of course freedom from the dictates of those contributions from the health insurance industry that the two ruling parties gladly accept.

About 10,000 votes were cast in the Berkshires voted for Green-Rainbow candidates last month.  Many voters cast such votes for the first time and have told us they are interested in seeing the Green-Rainbow Party continue to grow.  Taking steps to grow the party, as these voters did, is important.  It is also easy.

Supporters need not wait for the next election to ‘go green and vote green.’  They need not all become activists, committee members, officers, or candidates.  They need not all go to any or all meetings.  They do not need to make a financial or a time commitment of any sort.

Of course the party needs some activists, some candidates, and some officers.  Voters can subscribe here for news and announcements of Berkshire Greens.  But for those who are interested in supporting the party there is a simple first step you can make that is public and meaningful.

(updated and edited on May 24, 2011)

On December 6, 2010 a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Federal Court heard arguments on a possible appeal of a lower court ruling that the Proposition 8 ban of same-sex marriage in California  was unconstitutional.  The hearing was televised on CSPAN.  It was fascinating to watch.  Although it is very captivating to listen to highly-reasoned highly-articulated courtroom discourse, I realized that the arguments being made were re-hashed from the first days that the issue arose.   We’re keeping lawyers and pundits busy for many many years.  

My husband and I can now travel to any part of Canada and Mexico and be recognized as a married couple because those countries’ federal governments acted quickly and proactively to instruct their respective provincial and state governments to recognize same sex marriages.  The rulings were on constitutional grounds that are very similar to what is being argued here.

The best jobs policy for a commonwealth to adopt is to provide a quality public infrastructure that fosters private enterprise.  It is a proven engine for upward mobility.  Let’s reject the two familiar non-working policy frameworks in a stagnant debate that argue either:

1) that taxes and government impede enterprise (and thus should always be cut); or

2) that credits and incentives should be extended to favored companies and industries (whose officers and lobbyists make investments to exert influence on public policy-making).

I’m not arguing against all tax cuts or against all credits, but I do argue that our public infrastructure does not support enterprise, job creation, and upward economic mobility.

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.

For only a few more weeks Town Hall will continue issuing warning notices, generated by the Commonwealth’s Elections Division, to any Massachusetts voter who registers in the Green-Rainbow party.  Early next year the warning will be dropped.