The problem is not the Green Party.  The problem is our electoral system.  If this country, or more states, or more cities, adopted "Instant Runoff Voting", we could vote for our first choice (whether it be a Gore, a Kucinich, a Nader, or a McKinney) without having to worry about whether we were throwing the election toward someone like Bush.

What are we waiting for?  Several countries around the globe have already adopted IRV.  I understand San Francisco uses it for municipal elections.  I look forward to the day when I can vote for my first- AND second-choice candidates without the angst of wondering whether I threw my vote away.

The Green Party actively campaigns for IRV, by the way -- at least in my state!

Rep. McKinney thought that Robert Mugabe was a cool guy, stated publically that the Bush administration flew those planes into the Twin Towers to help their corporate friends reap the benefits of increased defense spending, and messed up Katrina relief only because the suffering residents were black. Her dad told a reporter, when asked why she lost her bid for re-election, that the election had been bought out by:" the Jews...J-E-W-S".

I think we can safely say that Cynthia does not represent the majority of anybody not certifiably certifiable.

Similarly your statement: "the American left has perverted the party into far more of a red party than a green" shows little correlation with their history in Wikipedia.

   So, the "American left" has "perverted" the Green party??  How hilarious!!  I didn't know there was an American left!!!  Maybe I should come back?? (LOL)

   And what, dear Wolverine, have you on the right done to our beloved country??  Turned it into a soulless consumption machine hell bent on imperialism and the destruction of the globe.

   And that doesn't count as perverse in your mind??

   Sigh.  No wonder there is no "movement" in American environmentalism.  It's all the fault of the "left".

patrick in Beijing

While our lovely global capitalist system integrates the peoples of the world into its lovely global market (while depriving their lives of all meaning), "green agendas" will do nothing.  Nobody cares about deep emissions cuts -- I need to get to work, and my fossil-fuel burning car is the only way for me to get there.  Capitalist government is a mere commodity, a profitable investment for campaign donors and lobbyists, and the Greens have nothing of value to sell to those members of the investor class who are buying.

We seem to have had this cycle -- Republicans rig the election, Democrats "lose" (while actually winning), Democrats blame Nader/ Greens -- installed to prevent people from understanding what precisely is so corrupt about American politics.  "If only the Democrats would win a Presidential election!" they tell us, as if Bill Clinton had been some great populist.  "If only Ralph Nader wouldn't spoil the election," the propagandists of the Democratic Party tell us.  Public opinion has been domesticated through a revolution of lowered expectations.  No "viable" candidate even bothers with the people anymore, and the "solution" to environmental problems is a subsidy for ethanol fuel.

Eventually some sort of third party will emerge from the desolation of the American political landscape -- once the vaunted "American middle class" has been thrown into the streets and has been allowed to recognize the Democratic Party as just another political commodity for the investor classes.  This third party will appeal to the American people on terms that Americans will grasp as their own.  It won't be the Green Party.

http://www.dailykos.com/User/Cassiodorus

Patrick,
While I do not consider myself a leftist, I am certainly not on the right.  I agree with the left on most issues; it's their priorities, like those of the current Green Party, that I disagree with.  As an environmentalist, I want a Green Party that prioritizes peace and the environment ahead of all other issues.

An example of how the left has perverted the U.S. Green Party's priorities lies right here in San Francisco.  In 2002, the San Francisco Green Party supported a ballot proposition that will take a significant amount of extra water from the Tuolumne River in the Sierra Nevada, because the project will also fix San Francisco's old water system.  On the other side, I contracted with Sierra Club to become the "No On Prop A Campaign Coordinator."  I was a member of the Green Party at the time and asked the San Francisco Green party why it supported Prop A.  First I was told that at the meeting during which the endorsement was decided there was no opponent of Prop A and that the Green Party had second thoughts after realizing the ecological harm that Prop A would cause, and that the SF Green Party would only passively endorse the proposition.  After receiving a large, glossy endorsement of Prop A from the Green Party, I was then told that the party enthusiastically endorses Prop A, because it wanted to broaden its base for electoral purposes (just like Bill Clinton and his buddies did to the Democrats).  This story is a perfect illustration of the Green Party becoming more of a red one.

Re LegumeSam's comments:  Notice that he does not mention environmental concerns even once.  His politics are those of the lunkhead working class, city people living in industrial society who have no idea or care for the natural environment.  Regardless of whether his comments are correct regarding political strategies and tactics, his is a highly anti-environmental position and should be strongly opposed by any real environmentalist.

BTW, his comments about Lorna Salzman are nothing but name-calling and hearsay.  I have no knowledge of this woman, but Sam has not provided any, either.  If she's regarded as a paranoid anti-communist, why exactly is that?  What has she done and said that's paranoid and anti-communist?

Your evidence that "the American left has perverted the party into far more of a red party than a green one" seems to be based on one proposition from SF in 2002. I can't speak to that issue (maybe someone can?). But you may be more comfortable sticking to the great work that local chapters of the Sierra Club are doing.

But the history of the Greens is long, tortuous and complex. My understanding is that is was the left wing of the party that wanted it to stay grassroots and work on movement building. And that it was the centrists and right-wing who pushed the party (prematurely, IMO) into national electioneering. At least, that was my experience in the late 80's, before the Nader campaigns. (Some of that left-wing strategy remains in the Green Alliance network.)

BTW, LegumeSam has a long list of Grist comments that ought to convince you that he cares deeply about the fate of the planet.

And there is an impressive (short) bio on Lorna on wiki.

Thanks for the compliment, but I can guarantee you I've managed to piss off somebody somewhere!

     You fail to explain how supporting that particular ballot measure was "red" (sounds more corporate, and thus "blue" than red).

     I spent almost 20 years in SF, and know the players well (you and I may have crossed paths).  The SF Sierra Club has it's own ideological issues (in a city that is largely non-white, it was still (the last I checked) mostly white middle class (having said that, many of the members are good people)).

     It is great to call for prioritizing peace and the environment ahead of all issues, but pay attention, the parade you lead may be small.  One of the reasons that the mostly white main stream environmental movement (MSEM) has largely failed has been it's inability to broaden its base.  And one of the reasons for that has been its failure to recognize that people suffering economically need to have their social issues addressed at the same time as their environmental issues.

    (For instance, there are actually Americans who can't afford cars, for them debates about the Prius vs. the Volt are meaningless.  Or telling them to trade in their old clunker (which they bought for $500 but burns gas and oil like crazy) is meaningless.)

     Talking about creating jobs by greening America sounds great, but if you have often faced job discrimination because of your color (and yes, it still exists), then you may suspect that none of those jobs will come your way.  And people may further suspect that when the contractors come to "green" their homes, that people of color will be offered terrible financial terms and cheated.  So, race enters into the discussion.

     And so on.... (which I always yell at my students for using, but really, I could go on all day (smile), but I have to turn in marks. But, hey it is snowing in Beijing, and very beautiful out!!  Woo Hoo!!!, So I may run out to play for a bit!)

patrick in Beijing  

BTW, for you and Jon, you didn't piss me off; this is a discussion.

Substantively, by prioritizing social issues over those of peace and the environment, the Green Party is, by definition, more red than green.  The example from the 2002 election was merely that.  There are many other examples, but I don't have time to go into them.

I agree with the rest of your post: the people with whom I ideologically agree in the Green Party have not waded into the election game.  I quit the Green Party after the 2002 election, writing the SF chapter a long letter explaining my rage over its endorsement of an environmentally destructive ballot initiative and what I still consider to be a sellout of what should be its core values.  I am now registered as "Decline to State," as in decline to state a party.

Re the "Sam" issue:  First, he responded to an issue about the Green Party with a personal attack on one of its members with whom he clearly disagrees in an attempt at guilt by association.  This was completely uncalled for and illegitimate.  He should have discussed the issue, not what he thinks of Ms. Salzman, which is irrelevant.  Second, his comments were highly anti-environmental, stating or strongly implying that only social issues should be considered.  I don't know or care what he posted in the past, this is what he posted in response to my post.

Patrick,

Support for the ballot measure was a left issue because it was framed as fixing SF's water supply infrastructure.  Actually, that's neither red or blue, left or right.  We'd all die without water, maybe even Cheney (can androids or cyber beings live without water?).

Before getting into Sierra Club issues, you should realize that the club is too conservative for me: I'm ideologically an Earth First!er and was a campaigner for them in the mid '80s.  That said, I interned in the SF Sierra Club law office while in law school.  Sierra Club has made tremendous efforts to bring non-whites into the organization (including a large program aimed at the mostly black southeast portion of the City), as did Greenpeace in the mid '80s when I worked there.  I'm really sick of leftists and non-whites blaming the environmental movement and organizations for THEIR lack of participation in the environmental movement or THEIR lack of concern for the environment.  If people don't care about the natural environment, that's their fault, not the fault of those of us who advocate for it.  I understand what it is to be poor, I've lived in slums myself, both in Oakland CA and in Chicago, and have been poor enough to be hungry.  But I never let my poverty override my concern for the natural environment.  You either care or you don't, and this leftist proclivity to always blame ANYONE BUT the poor is really getting old.  Just because people are poor doesn't mean they're cool or have no responsibility (though being rich almost guarantees that you're a jerk), but that's been the position of the U.S. left for decades, which is one major reason the U.S. left hasn't gotten any traction.

Re a political party that prioritizes peace and the environment, yes it would be small (though as people evolve mentally and spiritually it will grow), but without such a party those of us for whom those issues are the most important ones have zero representation.  That's why I got so excited about the German Green Party in the '70s and the U.S. Green Party in the '80s.  It's sad and infuriating to see the party sellout its core values just to get elected, like what Bill Clinton and his buddies had the Democratic Party do (not that the Democrats were ever all that great, but they were much better than they are now).

The problem here is lack of proportional representation.  The U.S. and U.K. are the only "democracies" that lack this more representative form of government, and we need to change from our winner-take-all system to a proportionally representative one.  Then, even small parties will have some say in governance, because it will be difficult to get a majority to pass a bill without including them.

Re the poor people/car issue: environmentalists need to advocate people living more naturally, so we should advocate getting out of cars and biking, walking, and public transit.  We should advocate for gasoline and cars to be heavily taxed, not for cheap cars so that even more people can participate in destroying out planet.  And BTW, what China has been doing for the past 10-20 years to, among other things, get people off bikes and into cars is totally evil, though I blame Americans most of all because they're just following our disgusting example (personal note: I don't own a car).

Finally, I fully agree about racism in the U.S.  Even when we thought it was basically over, government studies still showed that equally qualified blacks were far less likely to get the same jobs as whites.

Enjoy the snow.  It's the one thing I miss about living in Chicago.

       Debating the virtues and sins of the SF Sierra Club doesn't interest me, but I was active in it and close to it for a number of years.

       The California League of Conservation Voters has done a much better job of reaching out to the poor and disenfranchised, IMHO.  

       I have to admit, that there is much to admire about Earth First!, but also much to dislike.  Talk about an organization with issues around race and class!!  So, forgive me, but I don't consider them progressive, but rather right conservationists.

       If you call China totally evil, you should call the whole world totally evil, which removes all meaning from the term.  Bicycling in Beijing is still a lot better than it is in SF.  (And there are now cheap rental bikes available at major bus stops!!)

       I never thought racism in the US was over, and didn't need the studies.  I worked in enough corporations and organizations to see it first hand.

       Blaming the poor is pointless, you should instead be asking how to organize the poor (and the Greens do a poor (smile) job of that, and have their own problems with race and class).

       SF is a peculiar city, it talks real pretty, but every year more poor people are driven out (as I was about eight years ago) by higher housing costs.  And it's treatment of poor people would be scandalous if anyone cared.  

       It was a small but powdery snow in Beijing, still on the ground a bit, the city looks lovely (at least in my part of it!!).

       The Greens may not be much (I was never an active member, merely registered, I was active in other organizations), but just as people suggest working to improve the major parties, it might be useful for some folks to work to improve the Greens.

patrick in Beijing

1. I'd think you paranoid anticommunists would be proud to be paranoid anticommunists.  After all, the Green Party is full of Reds, and I'm one of them, or at least I used to be one.  The GPNYS is also full of Reds; I won't name names because I don't want to waste their time here.

2. We evil Reds want a global, ecologically sustainable society.  Such a horrid goal should obviously be fought tooth and nail, as it would mean "communism" which, as old Uncle Joe McCarthy taught us, is evil.

3. Those poor people are irresponsible, and so we should blame them for something, because it's all for the greater good of "the environment."  After all, assigning blame is an essential function of environmentalism.  If we were all responsible types, we'd have a nicer environment, and that's the most important thing, right?  In fact, I'm sure that would make a universal goal, which all reasonable people would assent to.  Oh yeah, that's right, it's merely a MIDDLE-CLASS goal.  According to this ideology, dirty homeless types need to eat, for sure, though they should never let hunger get in the way of solid allegiance to an environmentalist ideology.

       I'm pretty sure I know the answer, but thought I'd ask anyway (I am wrong from time to time (grin)).

       In your first point, do you mean you used to be a member of the Green Party or you used to be a red??

patrick in Beijing