[statecom-discuss] Re: Fw: Scipes / Wo sind die Gruenen? (Where are the Greens?) (with apologies to Leon Rosselson) / Jun 17

[Mike Heichman]

>>
>>
>> ZNet Commentary
>> Wo sind die Gruenen? (Where are the Greens?) (with apologies to Leon 
>> Rosselson) June 17, 2007
>> By Kim Scipes
>>
>> As the Bush Administration continues its immoral and illegal wars in 
>> Iraq and Afghanistan, and as the Democrats pee all over themselves in 
>> finding ways not to stop the idiot-in-chief and his anti-democratic 
>> administration from destroying everyone in the world including us, I 
>> have a recurring question pop into my mind:  where are the Greens?
>>
>> Things were looking up.  Living in Illinois, I was delighted to see 
>> that Rich Whitney, the Green candidate for Illinois governor, got 
>> over 10% of the vote last November.  To me, one who is generally not 
>> involved in electoral politics, this suggested that the Greens were 
>> getting their act together, as to get 10% in a highly-populated state 
>> such as Illinois suggested a certain level of electoral party 
>> infrastructure and sophistication had been built.
>>
>> And I had (perhaps naively) assumed that similar gains had been built 
>> in a number of states across the country.
>>
>> Yet, I never heard anything more, really.  Usually, a Green 
>> representative will issue some sort of press release/article 
>> informing us of their performance-but if they did after November 
>> 2006, I never saw it.  Curious.
>>
>> Perhaps I wasn't on the right e-mail list.  It's possible, although 
>> I'm a member (albeit, not an active member) of the Illinois Green 
>> Party, and I would have thought I would have gotten something from 
>> the Party.  And while I don't spend my life checking out every web 
>> site on the net, I peruse several (of several different political 
>> persuasions) regularly, am on numerous e-mail lists, and usually 
>> manage to see a pretty good range of left thought and opinion.
>>
>> But nothing.  And that has continued across the first five months of 
>> the year, while Baghdad burns and DC political leadership turns into 
>> fecal matter.
>>
>> To say that opportunity is knocking on the Green's door is an 
>> understatement.  The war is-not unsurprisingly-a disaster, high level 
>> graft and corruption is being exposed regularly, and still the 
>> Democrats pee all over themselves whenever Bush clears his throat.  
>> It would seem a perfect time for a third party, especially one that 
>> has its act somewhat together, to make major gains.
>>
>> Alas, nothing-at least not publicly.
>>
>> What's happening?  Why can't the Greens take advantage of this 
>> incredible opportunity?
>>
>> To be honest, I don't know-and I certainly don't have inside 
>> information to make any kind of intelligent guess.  Someone much more 
>> active, and much more involved in Party leadership, will have to 
>> provide that analysis.
>>
>> But here is my two cents worth, from the "outside," if you will.
>>
>> The Greens aren't bold enough in their imagination, in their dreams.  
>> And they haven't done sufficient member education to stimulate 
>> grassroots members to demand so much more.
>>
>> The Greens, as an electoral representative of the environmental 
>> movement, have a lock on this aspect of politics.  They have earned 
>> it.  And the field is ripe.
>>
>> One example.  In late April, Global Exchange and Co-op America 
>> sponsored a "Green Festival" in Chicago 
>> (www.greenfestivals.org/content/view/17/37/ )-and in a major 
>> convention center that really is not very accessible via public 
>> transportation (despite claims otherwise) to city residents-they 
>> still managed to get over 31,000 people inside the door over three 
>> days, to see all kinds of green businesses (I'm not turned on by 
>> green capitalism, although if you've got to buy things, better from a 
>> green business than not), powerful speakers, and a very positive 
>> example of how much better off we would all be in the country went 
>> green.  It was clear to me, as my family and I attended, that the 
>> social basis for environmental consciousness definitely has been 
>> created.  And it would make sense that the Green Party has a strong 
>> environmental base to build upon.
>>
>> Join that example from the "Heartland"-we are not talking about the 
>> more advanced environmental consciousness generally on the 
>> coasts-with the response that Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" has 
>> garnered across the world (despite its considerable weaknesses, such 
>> as a lack of critique of corporations, for one), and we see something 
>> important is developing.  And already, there seems to be a slight 
>> increase in focus on climate change (i.e., global warming) in the 
>> mainstream media in this country.
>>
>> However, what the Greens have not come to embrace, as far as I can 
>> tell, is a radical politics that is more than environmental.  They 
>> play one note, and some could say they play it with increasing skill, 
>> but as well all know, one note a symphony does not make.
>>
>> Yet, with not that much boldness, there are several issues that if 
>> the Greens would take-and take seriously-then I think we could elect 
>> a Green president of the United States by 2020.
>>
>> Core issues to any type of serious radical politics include:
>>
>> Anti-racism.  Because of the still generally not acknowledged history 
>> of the United States, which continues today, and the current 
>> situation-especially the radically disproportionate incarceration of 
>> African Americans and Latinos-any radical project must specifically 
>> challenge white supremacy and any discrimination on the basis of 
>> race. (And this is particularly important in a predominantly white 
>> political project like the Greens.)
>>
>> Anti-sexism.  For the same reasons. (And this holds true that we have 
>> to condemn and work against any type of oppression, even though these 
>> are the only ones I mention herein.)
>>
>> A focus on climate change-with a demand that we cut 80% of today's 
>> carbon dioxide emissions by 2030.  This obviously includes total 
>> opposition to nuclear power.
>>
>> A focus on income inequality-with a demand that no one in corporate 
>> management nor government employment can make (including stock 
>> options, and any other forms of payment for years worked) more than 
>> 10% more than any employee in the firm, and that this must be 
>> rectified within three years.
>>
>> A focus on health care-that free, high quality health care be made 
>> available to every one in this country, regardless of immigration 
>> status, within three years.
>>
>> A new US foreign policy, which includes a rejection of any US efforts 
>> to dominate the world, a reduction of our military to where we spend 
>> no more than 10% of current budget on all forms of the military 
>> (including veterans benefits), and a conscious and immediate effort 
>> to negotiate the eradication of all nuclear weapons and the 
>> capability of producing such any where in the world.
>>
>> Now, obviously, these could be debated, changed, etc., as they are 
>> just a starting point, but the main idea is that the Greens could 
>> fight for and I believe win a radical program by 2020-but it has to 
>> be fought for and won, not assumed.
>>
>> And that leads me to my final point.  As far as I can see, the Greens 
>> could not adopt such a program at this time, because the educational 
>> groundwork, debate, etc., have not taken place within the Party, nor 
>> any discussion on how to implement such a strategy.  If they are 
>> serious about winning the presidency-and with the necessary support 
>> in the House and Senate to implement such a project-then they have to 
>> develop a serious and critical education project especially in the 
>> Party, although I would encourage them to make it accessible to 
>> interested outsiders.
>>
>> But, if they will attempt to do this, they actually have a lot of 
>> strength they could mobilize, so they wouldn't have to start from 
>> scratch.  There are a range of progressive academics and educators 
>> that would probably be delighted to visit towns and organizations to 
>> speak and do educational events for a serious political project.  As 
>> more and more Green Party members get a deeper understanding of these 
>> and related issues, then further leadership development-and electoral 
>> candidates-become possible, which means the quality and range of 
>> leadership expands further into the hinterlands of the United States.
>>
>> In short, I argue that the current weakness of the Green Party is not 
>> because of being too bold, but because not being bold enough.  From 
>> my daily work with students in Northwest Indiana, I know that there 
>> is a substantial number of people-far from a majority, but not an 
>> inconsequential number-who know something's wrong with this country, 
>> and they are seeking intently some answers to their situation that is 
>> getting worse on a steady basis.  These people can be reached, if 
>> addressed respectfully and helped to understand their situation and 
>> that of the country as a whole.  They can be won to develop a global 
>> consciousness, one that includes environmentalism and a wide range of 
>> critical perspectives.  They are seeking a way to put consciousness 
>> into action, and electoral politics is one way-if the politics 
>> addresses real issues.
>>
>> The question I have, again, "Wo sind die Gruenen?"
>>
>>
>> Kim Scipes is a long-time labor activist and a member of the National 
>> Writers Union, AFL-CIO.  He currently teaches sociology at Purdue 
>> University North Central in Westville, Indiana.  His on-line "Current 
>> Labor Issues" bibliography can be accessed at 
>> http://faculty.pnc.edu/kscipes/LaborBib.htm.  He can be reached at 
>> kscipes at pnc.edu.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>