So I’m trudging off to this past Wednesday’s monthly meeting of the Pasco County Green Party. Hell, I am the Pasco County Green Party. My main emotion is relief that my just-repaired car didn’t break down again. And with the world going to hell, part of me is quietly hoping that nobody else will show up, that I’ll have nothing to work with, that I can give up with some small shred of dignity. I’m old, sick, poor, and so terribly, terribly tired.
I get to the restaurant, and nobody is there, not even customers. Except some stranger looking around who waves to me. He’s from St. Petersburg, to the south. And we are soon joined by Jen, the organizer from Tampa. We meet. I lay out my very modest plan to try to work the 170 or so Green registrants in this sprawling county with its Confederate flags adorning the barely paved streets. We kick around a few ideas, we build on them, there are moves to be made. Small moves to be sure, but useful.
That’s all I need to keep going. We shake hands at the end, I head for home feeling a little less old, not quite so sick. Not too tired. Off to face the coming storm.
Why the Greens?
I’ve become less willing to suffer fools gladly. I consider the U.S. left, taken as a whole, as a cesspool. It has pursued “more and better Democrats” for decades, before collapsing utterly as Obama yanked out the Public Option during the Great Healthcare Debacle. I have ranted against the 3rd party ghetto as well, the comfortable niche occupied by radicals who think it is enough to have the correct program but otherwise keep their hands from getting dirty.
My greatest anger is that the left has turned its back on the poor. Won’t defend them. Certainly won’t organize them. Only raises their plight as an argument for supporting the latest crop of Democrats. So how come I’m now working with the Greens?
After all, everyone knows that they are just a bunch of aging middle-class hippies who care more about trees than real people, a rap that dovetails neatly against the media’s snide slurs about the Occupy movement being a bunch of pajama-clad rich kids living in their parents’ basements.
So get this pitch from Green presidential candidate Jill Stein’s January 25 State of the Union speech, right up top after the customary greetings:
One hundred and forty-six million people – that’s nearly one in every two Americans – is now living below or near the poverty level. The stress falls hardest on our most vulnerable and disadvantaged, with the majority of children, half of our elders, three quarters of Latinos, and two thirds of African Americans living in or near poverty.
Last year, one million Americans lost their health insurance, raising the numbers of the uninsured to almost 50 million of our people. Over 6 million Americans have lost their homes to foreclosure.
Thirty million college students and recent graduates are trapped in the financial prison of student loan debt. Most students must take out costly loans to meet the skyrocketing cost of tuition. Yet paying off those loans is almost impossible as young people face double-digit unemployment and much lower pay – 40% less – than their parents’ generation received for the same work.
Overall, nearly 25 million Americans are unemployed or unable to find full time work. And even those who have jobs are struggling, because wages have been declining for American workers, and are now lower on average than in 1996. Household income has fallen faster since the official end of the recession than during the recession itself, because the so-called “recovery” is made up of mostly low paying jobs.
Over seven million are under “correctional supervision”, 10 times greater than in 1965, as incarcerating poor people – disproportionately of color – has become big business with the failed war on drugs. And more African American males are now locked up in US prisons than were slaves in 1850.
America’s creed is “With Liberty and Justice for All.” That is a creed of Equality. But right now we are experiencing the worst economic inequality in our nation’s history. The gap between the very rich and the many poor has never been so great. The wealthiest 1% in America now own as much wealth as 90% of all Americans. Those over 65 hold, on average, 47 times as much wealth as heads of households who are under 35. White families own, on average, twenty times as much as Black families. Such inequality is unacceptable, unconscionable* and un-American.
From the party’s bio on Cheri Honkala, their vice-presidential candidate:
Cheri Honkala was born into poverty in Minneapolis, Minnesota. She grew up watching her mother suffer from domestic violence that she quietly endured for fear of losing her kids. At the age of 17 her 19 year old brother Mark, who suffered from mental health issues committed suicide. He was uninsured and could not afford to get the help he needed. At the time of Mark’s suicide Cheri was a teenage mother living out of her car and going to high school. Despite her difficult upbringing she graduated high school.
Cheri and her son Mark (named after her brother) lived in and out of places eventually becoming homeless after the car they had been living in at the time was demolished by a drunk driver. Mark was 9 years old and Cheri could not find a shelter that would allow them to remain together that winter so in order to keep from freezing Cheri decided to move into an abandoned HUD home. She then began working to help other poor families and became a pioneer in the modern housing takeover movement. For the past 25 years Cheri Honkala has been a leading advocate for poor and homeless in America. She co-founded the Kensington Welfare Rights Union and the Poor People’s Economic Human Rights Campaign. She has organized tens of thousands holding marches, demonstrations and setting up tent cities.
These women are not your average treehuggers (though for the record, they and I have nothing against trees).
As for Occupy, the leading demands for their recent march on the Charlotte Democratic Convention were: “Money for Education, Housing, Healthcare & All Human Needs — not for War & Incarceration. Jobs and Economic Justice are their constant theme. And we know that they have put their asses on the line for this.
These are an important development on the left. I am not campaigning to get Occupy to formally endorse or campaign for the Greens, but they are pursuing similar tracks, through different tactics, and the alliance is tangible if not formal, held together through a commitment to the poor that is only mouthed by most of the left.
But as I mentioned above, the plight of the poor is now being invoked to whip the left into lockstep behind Obama. Independents often respond reactively, and fall into a trap.
There is a difference
Dem apologists argue that, if the Republicans win, they’ll do this, they’ll do that, and the task RIGHT NOW is to stop them. (And we can do progressive stuff later.) In response, independents tend to argue back that the two parties are the same, righteously smug in their 3rd party ghetto. That may satisfy them, but it fails on several levels.
First, it is ridiculous on the face of it. Of course, one can argue that both parties are equally evil, as though evil were a measurable entity. “In essence” equally bad? Sorry, but when you start engaging in essences, this might work in casual conversation but you have — scientifically speaking — entered the realm of pure gibberish.
Further, “equally evil” may satisfy the self-righteous few, but it rings false to the hundreds of millions who see obvious differences — in social services, civil liberties, foreign policy, across the board. This doesn’t make Obama good. One can even regard that in some regards the Democrats are worse, or that some Democrats are worse than some Republicans, but that is conceding differences, isn’t it?
But above all, it obscures the specificity of Democratic rule vs. Republican rule or, to be even more precise, the specificity of how both parties play different roles in serving their masters in the one percent. Crudely put, the Democrats play a sinister role in disarming the 99%, as we have seen in the past four years, while the Republicans drive the public dialogue ever further to austerity and repression.
That specificity has to be engaged, in order to engage those progressives who would have us continue to rely on the Democrats to defend us from the ravages that Republican policy openly advocates. In fact, I would argue that these Obamacrats seriously underplay the threat — the threat of overt fascism.
Oh how the Obamacrats love to evoke the spectre of 1930’s Germany: how the Communists were responsible for Hitler by failing to work with the Social Democrats against the Nazis (with nary a word about how the Social Democrats failed to ally themselves with the Communists to do the same). Yet while making the analogy ad nauseam, they actually dare not invoke the F-word to the current fascist forces that have elbowed themselves into the American mainstream. One could, of course, attribute this to American fascism’s superior public relations skills. They follow Atlas Shrugged rather than Mein Kampf, attack abortion rights and Muslims rather than Jews, etc., with the media’s criminally complicit in obscuring their rougher edges. But I attribute it to the left’s gutlessness, cynicism and mendacity.
After all, if the spectre of fascism were anything more than a stick with which to beat anyone to their left, they would be loudly demanding that Obama be taking sterner measures against the right, that Obama speak out against fascism directly, that Obama be mobilizing the American people for more than his own re-election. But Obamacrat strategy in fact depends on the American people NOT being mobilized. That would complicate how they have capitulated to the right at every turn, because they have been PAID to do so, and how they will continue to do so.
The Progressive Dem/Progressive Indy alliance
I have long called for an alliance of progressive independents and Progressive Dems (still the betrayed base of the Democratic Party), using the Democratic Party in the primaries and going independent in the generals. But this has failed on two levels.
First, the failure of the left to mount a primary challenge to Obama makes clear that the conditions do not exist for using the Democratic primaries to build a base, however attractive it may appear on paper.
Secondly, as Chairman Mao so succinctly put it, “it takes two to tango.” And the independent wing of such a projected alliance does not exist, at least not in sufficient strength. One could conclude from this that there is nothing left but despair. Or, as I think on my better days, one could conclude that the independent force has to be built. And I believe that its foundation must be the poor, those who are in the crosshairs of the coming bi-partisan onslaught.
As stated before, two critical elements are the Occupy movement and the Green Party. The Occupy movement seems to be doing quite well, thank you, despite their no longer being the media darlings. They are digging in and building the foundation for future action.
As for the Greens …
There have been many criticisms of the Greens, and I have certainly made them myself. Many problems. But they stem from weakness, not malfeasance.
I’m not sure what direct impact the Greens will have in this election. I suspect that whatever impact it does have will stem less from mobilizing any great forces itself, than from it simply being on the ballots and attracting those looking for a progressive alternative to Obama/Romney when they step into the voting booth. That’s okay. We’re in this for the long haul. What will mark the success or failure of Green 2012 will have to be the extent the party can use the current campaign to develop solid organization. This, however, will require transformation(s).
First, take those thousands of progressives who spout how they are fed up with Obama, with the Democrats, who are VOTING Green this year. Fine. But how about WORKING Green this year? We don’t need cheerleaders — we need organizers. We need people who can make a specific commitment that bears some relationship to the danger we are all in, which the blogs trumpet daily without drawing corresponding conclusions. They cry “the American people must do this, the American people must do that,” without an inkling of how that is to come about, how their bold battle cries would turn into concrete mobilization. In other words, these bold radicals need to track down their local Green chapters and find ways to build them.
But a second transformation is also required. Among the complaints about the Greens, there is a steady theme of those who wanted to support the Greens, but were greeted with less than open arms. This is what I call the 3rd-party ghetto mentality, a certain, if not comfort with, acceptance of remaining small, remaining marginal, remaining impotent. There is a certain chicken/egg problem here. From the current Green perspective, what is the use of coming up with all sorts of organizing plans, brilliant as they may be, if they don’t have the resources to carry them out?
And if you want to volunteer, well, why bother if there is no eagerness to use your energy and enthusiasm?
We’ve grown hardened, tired, cynical. The left has suffered one defeat after another, as the country’s drift to fascism threatens to become a headlong rush. I myself feel foolish, naïve, a sucker once again, and again and again. But we need to start making a leap of faith. A la Field of Dreams, the Greens have to embrace “If we build it, they will come.” And serious radicals have to believe “If I come, they (we) will build it”!
We need to make this leap of faith because the two movements, of radicals to join, and Greens to organize, will not happen in synch, will not automatically mesh, will lead to all sorts of awkward moments, embarrassments, misapplied energies. This isn’t a problem. This is what growth looks like, this is what power looks like.
I fear that I make this sound too big, perhaps too much to wrap our arms around, because so much is demanded by the historical moment. But in other ways, it can be very small. So recall the introduction to this piece. Sometimes all it takes is just showing up. And knowing that if you show up, there may be someone else who doesn’t walk away.



41 Comments

As always, your diary was very interesting and insightful.
I’d like to make a suggestion, regarding how to grow a face-to-face-networked, progressive ecosystem. You might say that my suggestion is how to create preparatory ‘field of dreams’, out of which it would be a shorter hop, skip and jump to create a party-centered ‘field of dreams’.
Basically, this idea is a variation of the 99% club idea. Please listen to the linked-to podcast for an explanation of this idea.
The newish aspects are:
1) use meetup.com to list meetings
2) leverage meetup.com by using other groups’ meetup events to politely request that they attend their local 99% club meetup, at least once (of course, one needs to be sensitive and avoid giving the appearance of hijacking whatever purpose is already being pursued by any given meetup group; one needs to gracefully take “no” for an answer)
3) make the organizing principle to be
a) educational; especially educating about the dysfunction of our current system, and the role of the D and R parties in making it so; also, how dysfunction is systemic, which tends to render the worthiness of any particular issue irrelevant
b) the need to get organized, both along the lines of
i) social movements
ii)electoral/party efforts (such as the Greens)
I.e., 99% meetings will mostly be educational, with networking a given
4) try to get buyin from Progressive Radio Network, in the form of
a) creating a set of courses and/or video programs, which would be taught/shown at 99% club events; a recurring theme is for the citizens to get increasingly organized into ever-larger movements and voting blocs; I imagine it’d be best to release a new course/video once per month
b) Mike Feder, of Occupied Territory
There no great contradiction between an education-centric effort, like what I’m suggesting here, and a more organization-centric effort, which is what I’ve challenged the Greens (and others) to create. Education creates the motivation for more organizational and electoral types of efforts.
I think folks have to consider the “regime” itself. Most regimes present you with a single “selection” and most of those disenfranchised by the regime just don’t bother to participate (and those that are privileged by the regime will fight to protect their privileges and defend the subjugation that permits it). Here in the U.S. the “regime” is different and easily confused. It declares itself as the “two-party” system (replace “system” with “regime”) albeit it’s not a constitutional framework or the “system” beholden by it. We confuse “choice” with “selection” and folks instinctively join in on the auction that proceeds. For progressives, many of us are in begrudging denial in an abusive marriage with the democrats. They “cheat” on us, betray us and practically urinate on us but despite all that, folks stick with the marriage (and EVEN DEFEND IT!). Why? Fear is part of it. Often a defensive strategy (if you can call it that… not a working one) of voting against a worse evil. There’s a social narrative as well as the “spoiler” myth (yes, you’re spoiling the regimes monopoly when you dare to own your own vote and cast it where it’s “earned” rather than just letting those parties own them and profess their “entitlement” to your vote and suggest you’re “taking away” votes from them).
I’d say what’s different about the greens are many. For one, we’re building our own governing capacity outside the regime parties. It’s not been easy but it’s been working bit by bit. Unfortunately, progressives are our own worst enemies in building a unified front. Sectarianism itself has kept us divided and there are many separate parties on the left with overlapping objective agreements in values but tend present more reasons not to work together than the obvious reasons that we should. The greens are a “big tent” party and there’s room in the tent for all progressives to participate in it and more and more have been doing so. Not enough but we’re trending in the right direction.
Another is “ballot access” itself. The greens have BY FAR the most ballot access of any progressive third party in the U.S. If you want to run for office AND you are a progressive AND you’ve come to your senses and divorced that abusive spouse (the Dems), running as a green gives you access to the ballot in so many states (including here in Florida) WITHOUT having to ALSO run an expensive and almost doomed ballot access drive just to get yourself listed as a candidate on the ballot! Given that progressives that fit in that last description most often won’t have an obscene amount of money to run their campaign, you have a LOT of reason to run as a green if for not just that. But there’s more.
Leverage. We have to think about how ANY of this builds leverage. The “dems” know that most progressives don’t feel they have anywhere else to go so they can expect their support without having to offer more than empty feel good rhetoric. Same goes for the labor movement. And it goes on. Some still have this delusion that progressives have some “leverage” with the democratic party. I think David Cobb made this very clear with his former involvement with the democratic party: “The democratic primaries is where progressive politics GOES TO DIE!”. Folks have to understand that “progressive politics” are NOT in the interests of the privileged classes pulling the strings in this regime. When the dems even co-opt progressive movements, it functions to demobilize them and ultimately betray them. If we WANT progressive change WE HAVE TO DO IT ON OUR OWN! How do we do that? Build on what’s already working and not start from scratch. That’s why we need to not only JOIN the greens but BECOME the GREENS!
One of the biggest differences the greens embody is this. Being a green requires COURAGE to aspire to what you want. For the most part, staying with the abusive spouse the democratic party embodies requires being in FEAR of what you most fear and siding with an unfaithful, abusive relationship with a party where you have no leverage to have any aspirations realized.
Frankly, a lot of organizing of greens may include just a few people in a few counties. It’s a start but somebody has to stand up and organize and build our “own” independent leverage. We even need to organize amongst ourselves as through working together we can do more and do the two most important things in the process: “Learn and adapt”.
I am glad and honored to see my fellow progressives stand up and make that commitment to build a party by, of and for the people. Many will still defend that abusive spouse of the democratic party despite how historically self-destructive that relationship has been for progressives. Regardless, the Greens are here and when folks described in the latter are ready to move on, come join us! You will be welcome! Many of us have been there so you’ll be in good company.
The trick, of course, is, how to create the entity that could actually implement your excellent plan. In the 60′s, there were fairly large forces that could take action, and the debate would take off from there. Today, we are more numerous in some ways, but lack the cohesion required to even make such decisions. That’s a tough one.
You make an excellent case, James. I support the Greens rather than other 3rd-party fragments for two main reasons:
(1) they have made strong moves towards the poor and the economy; and
(2) the ballot status you mention. That ballot status is not merely an available tool as you mention, but also evidence of a certain level of strength that goes beyond the usual left fetishization of program.
To try and get people outside of their comfortable homes and into face-to-face relating with their fellow citizens, I think the best way to do so is to forbid programs and content developed for this purpose from being shown, anywhere else, for, say, a period of a year. This could be done via copyrights, a few “cease and desist” letters, where necessary.
Another thing to try is to just post introductions on the web. I mean, intros of the 99% club presentations/courses, plus some videos of attendees introducing themselves, or answering a simple question or two.
I may be of some help if this idea grows some legs. If anything, I have an extra webcam jeffroby can borrow indefinitely and I’m pretty technically versed (heck, I was running a web server back in 94′ using the self-compiled 0.9 linux kernel on a 386 and everybody thought I was crazy… I’ve been in the trenches for some time now)
We do seem less cohesive. I can’t say that I have a great handle on why, though I think television is largely responsible (as it supplants real human interaction), as well as less intact families. The author of Bowling Alone quotes a statistic “Every ten minutes of commuting reduces all forms of social capital by 10%”.* So, overwork, and 2 wage earner families (who may work in far apart locations, preventing a move close to both workplaces) plays a part.
OTOH, millions more people every year are dropping into the ranks of the poor, and are stressed out, accordingly. We may be quite comfortable compared to, say, Greece, but there are millions upon millions who are not comfortable, but rather very stressed out due to marginal finances, if not homeless. Consequently, there are potentially multi-millions of highly motivated reformers amongst us.
I tend to think that the main general reason even the potentially highly motivated don’t organize is because they’ve basically been conditioned not to. E.g., how many times do we read comments that we “must” have campaign finance reform, before anything can/will change. Yes, money is a huge help. But nobody ever paid me a dime for my vote. With the internet, the cost of communication is practically nil, so the $$ advantages are, IMO, more of an illusion, which is persisting in our collective minds, effectively paralyzing many of us. The persistent, collective illusion is shaping reality, but only because the illusion has become internalized by millions, and therefore act (or don’t act) accordingly.
To get something going, it also helps to have a budget. In the case of Progressive Radio Network, they obviously have some sort of budget. Plus, they already have a large amount of video type content, a fair amount of it intersecting with politics (e.g. WAR ON HEALTH – The FDA’s Cult of Tyranny ) which they might be willing to use as a basis for the teaching content.
I’ve also heard Gary Null say that PRN is active in getting diverse activist groups to coordinate their efforts. Presumably, PRN can thereby tap into a huge network, into which PRN has invested social capital, and ask for volunteer contributions of course/video material from these various activist groups, and their members.
So, let’s say that you have the first 8 months of content created. Well, Gary Null says that he gets about 40,000+ people listening to his daytime show, live, on their telephones. This implies many times that listening live on the web, and additionally many times that listening via archives. So, there’s already a cost-free avenue for propagating the message to have local facilitators volunteer their time, who, in turn, find a local place of business to host the 99% meeting, borrow their flat screen TV (which are quite common in restaurants, bars, and coffee shops, nowadays), create local meetup groups as a form of almost-free advertising, etc.
Spruz.com can help with more involved social networking needs.
Quite frankly, I think almost all the pieces are in place, via Progressive Radio Network.
Absent their buy-in, though, the possibilities are still out there, though I have trouble thinking of any route that could grow nearly as quickly, except perhaps whatever networks exist via the Occupy movements. E.g., http://interoccupy.net/.
I myself would be curious to hear other people’s suggestions for organizations or networks that might rapidly a) create content of the sort that I’ve indicated b) have a large, pre-existing base that can be recruited into forming 99% clubs, and doing so fairly rapidly.
Of course, if the unions weren’t Democratic Party playthings, they’d already be leading the charge. However, I hear that there’s some exceptions, in particular the National Nurse United.
So, those are my 3 candidates for sponsoring organizations, that might implement such a program, rapidly. 1) Progressive Radio Network 2) InterOccupy 3) National Nurses United
The NNU might be a key player, even if they don’t take the first step. That’s because union members need to be pulled from obeisance to union leadership, as surely as Democratic Party members need to be pulled from having a lemming-like relationship with their organization. As a union (or consortium of unions), NNU obviously has union cred.
Actually, there’s another ‘organization’ that progressive reformers might appeal to for funding (if not guidance; I’ve been complaining, often enough to annoy folks :-), about lefties ignoring the dramatic electoral successes of leftists in a number of South American countries). And that is the government of Venezuela. They’ve donated oil to poor folks here in the US, helped other South American governments.
Unfortunately, the government of Venezuela doesn’t have a large base of ‘members’ in the US, that could rapidly be leveraged to get local volunteer facilitators, the way Progressive Radio Network could, if they were so inclined. However, I don’t think the Venezuelan government is short of cash, and this program would require chump change, relatively speaking.
Your ideas are good. I would add that publicity does not necessarily result in growth. I have seen all too often that groups can make a big media splash, but fail to be able to consolidate. There is a political opening at the moment that you could drive an armored division through, but the ability to consolidate is a very particular skill, not something that happens naturally.
Hence my obsession.
Have you thought about actually joining the Green Party?
Can’t say I have, though I’ve definitely had them in mind as early adopters of my time-consuming-to-develop, democracy friendly web application. (I’ve taken to describing it as a “local networking power tool”, which seems a little more appropriate than “democratic infrastructure facilitating local, face-to-face networking”).
While my application will be open for use by pretty much anybody (who is non-subversive, non-violent, stays within the law, etc.), I think groups like the Greens and Tea Parties would be more inclined to use it, since it favors more open communication, and bottom-up influence, if not control. I anticipate that that will prove worrisome for standard Dem and Repub operatives, who rightfully fear losing control of the messaging, and thus losing control, period.
I actually completed a working model this past week, but now have to worry about hosting (if it grows virally; if it’s a flop, I should be able to scrounge together the $20/month, and it won’t matter, anyway), as well as intellectual property concerns – a subject that I not only don’t know about, but have a huge psychological resistance to learning (being that I created something I consider obvious, thus should not be patentable). I have no $$ for hiring a patent attorney, consequently am sort of in the doldrums.
I sincerely believe that I will do the Green Party far more good as sympathetic inventor, who lets them use my application for free, than as a member. Even if my current project flops, I have ideas for other democracy friendly tools and pieces of infrastructure. I’m also much faster at programming for the web, now…
Oh, yeah. My web app allows people to self-designate, if they so choose, as housing distressed, employment distressed, etc. One design goal is to try and reduce the ‘information impedance mismatch’ between people who need help, and those who can provide help. If people who are already poor, or unhappily marching on the road to serfdom, are willing to lift a finger or two and overcome some understandable embarrassment, they can help both themselves, and society, at large.
That would beat living under a bridge, on 2 scores.
This sentence could use particular elaboration, probably in the form of a diary, with historical examples.
I myself have complained about Denis Kucinich’s failure to grow the Progressive Democrats of America during him campaigns for President, and Occupy not anticipating likely evictions adequately. I could also add that they seem to not have adequately planned for a more robust form that I believe will be required, which relies less on General Assemblies and radical, participatory governance. That’s because people who are working and/or have heavy family responsibilities cannot participate in a prolonged governance process, especially one that requires a daily presence.
I guess I’d most be interested in how the Latin Americans that brought Bolivarians and other leftists to power consolidated their gains, both before and after they assumed power. From reading lefty blogs, I have a good idea of what became of left political gains in America (COINTELPRO, some political assassinations, such as that of MLK by “(US) governmental agencies”, unions getting tamed, cooptation, such as the veal pen, demonization and other PR manipulation by the media, ultimately controlled by business interests*).
All of which is interesting, but I’m more interested in models of success, though it must be admitted that South American leftists have not been in power all that long.
* frankly, when it comes to cultural items, I think American media is left leaning; but not when it comes to organized left political power, and bread and butter issues
I just did a search at amazon.com for ‘South American leftist governments‘ (which came up with many hits). The first hit was Social Movements and Leftist Governments in Latin America: Confrontation or Co-option?
From the book description:
(emphasis mine)
Have you considered FOSS for your app? I tend to democratize my apps via GPL (which doesn’t cost me anything either) and the license is often referred to as the “copyleft” which prevents “open source code” from being converted into closed source proprietary downstream (aka: the “extortion model”). I usually put my stuff lately on GitHub (which is also good for collaboration and crowd sourcing). Just a thought…
I’ve thought of going open source, though not Day 1.
Try thinking smaller. One example of successful consolidation was the unions. What they did with that success is another matter.
Or take your plan for the Greens where you suggested:
Try working this backwards from what you suggest to a part that maybe has 1 or 2 people in fewer than half the counties in the state. You have begun with “teams of 3 people.” Where do these teams come from? Phone calls? Who made those calls? Mailing? Where did the money come from for that mailing? A finance committee? And how was that finance committee formed? Who decided to form a finance committee? What did its members have to work with? A treasurer? How was that treasurer put in that position?
Then the flyers. Who wrote them? Who paid for their printing? Who decided which corners to pass them out on? Who decided which dates to do this on? These questions may seem banal to you. But for a party with “1 or 2 people in fewer than half the counties in the state,” they are if not profound, indispensable.
So your perspective is to create the app, and let others use it. But in my opinion, creating the app is the EASY part. Getting others to use it? Not so easy. It’s not like apps aren’t out there, but why are modern means of communication not made more use of?
Because using them, itself, requires a certain level of organization, and where such organization exists, a certain degree of organizing to get that organization to use it. So personally, I have no shortage of ideas. But getting them into action, that’s my constant struggle.
You avoid this.
Well, my suggestion in this diary is about a 99% club infrastructure, which I expect to provide a fertile ground for all sorts of other political activity, including party-centric activity. Not just Greens, but Tea Parties, Libertarians, etc.
I think I gave enough details for this idea, but I’ll elaborate. In particular, the funding and educational material would come from either PRN, InterOccupy, or NNU. It costs nothing to create a facebook page. Depending on how big, it either costs nothing to create a spruz website (which gives you social networking in a box), or else very little. That “very little” would initially come out of whoever cared enough to volunteer their time. (Eventually more people could chip in.) Also, the right to create meetups, via meetup.com, isn’t free, but is also very low cost. If PRN becomes the 99% club sponsor, they can guarantee that a pitch to attend a 99% club event will be heard by about half a million people in the US.
Now, when I say that “I expect to provide a fertile ground for all sorts of other political activity”, and I include Greens, I mean primarily provide recruiting opportunities. You and your Green friends would attend the non-party-centric, 99% club events, and in the course of conversation, mention that you’re looking to build up the Green Party. This will cost you nothing, except the price of a cup of coffee (e.g.). Even better, the local 99% club meetings will provide spokespeople an opportunity to give a 2 minute public announcement about the wonders of their organization, and extend invitations to join, or at least attend meetings, or get involved in some other way.
When you boost your local membership to 3 or more, than you have the potential to man a table of 3. :-) As for details of how your budding local Green chapter governs itself, funds itself, etc., I don’t think that’s a technology issue. It’s more of a group consensus issue.
If it so happens that every member of your budding, local Green group is so poor that springing for flyers, etc., is a burden that even the combined resources cannot carry, well, I’m sorry, I can’t help such a group. I’m pretty poor, myself. Also, if your budding, local Green group is, as a whole, unable or unwilling to volunteer their time, it will also fail to embrace my wonderful ideas for growing.
When I was a Boy Scout, we learned how to start fires with kindling and a rotating stick (don’t remember what it was called). If you don’t even have kindling, or no leather to rotate your stick with, rapidly, you’re probably not going to have a fire (absent our usual props, like friction matches).
You’ll get no argument from me that if you can’t amass 3 local volunteers, who can contribute at least $24.00/month between them, for their initial organizing activities, they likely won’t get far.
In this scenario, I recommend prayer; or, for non-believers, a good book that can distract you from your powerlessness. :-)
Overall, though, I don’t think we’re really powerless, excepting as we have accepted internalized constraints which are more imaginary, than real.
I mean primarily the funding to create the educational materials. However, PRN, InterOccupy and NNU could make an appeal for their better off, local members to spring for a meetup.com membership, e.g. They might even be willing to donate seed money to local groups, but I think that’s pushing it, and I fail to see where that’s necessary. $25 a month is not likely to be a crushing burden for an employed nurse, e.g. Hence, I don’t think I’d ask for that.
Nor do I think we’re powerless, or I wouldn’t be engaged in this at all. But you assume a certain level of development. I’m concerned with getting to that level of development.
You just don’t get it.
What “level of development” am I not getting? Development of what? You need to be more specific, if you want an answer.
As for what already exists:
PRN, with a listener base on the order of 1 million, which, judging by the popularity of Gary Null’s show, probably consists of 50% which are disenchanted with both the Dems and Repubs
PRN, other pluses: a) huge amount of video material ready to be turned into teaching material b) large amount of social capital invested in diverse groups, many if not most which would be happy to be labeled “progressive”
spruz.com, which gives you social networking in a box
meetup.com, which give you a leg up on local, face-to-face social networking, both as a creator of a new group, seeking to attract neighbors to the new group; but also as a neighbor who can now access the pre-existing social networks. The number one type of meetup.com group is stay at home mothers. Do you think that they’ll be happy to feed their babies and young children water that has fracking contaminants? Do you think they’ll be overjoyed to scrimp and save for the next 14-18 years, to help put junior through college, only to find out that junior has no job, and co-signers of the loan might be liable for a modern day debtor’s prison?
facebook.com, which provides a ready route to propagate new memes througout cyberspace. I view facebook as pretty useless as an organizing tool, but great as a grassroots messaging tool.
====================================
There are huge negatives which work against social and democratic progress, many of which I mentioned above, but that’s nothing new. What’s new are mostly the good stuff, I mention above.
As for the level of character development of your typical American, that is something that activists don’t have a lot of control over. I’m not even sure that this is what you mean, though.
So, I ask again, what “level of development” are you referring to? Development of what, precisely?
should be:
spruz.com is a multi-faceted social networking platform, that give you:
blogs
forums
(I believe:) ‘pinnable’ or ‘arrangeable’ content (so that important stuff can remain on the top of the home page)
email
Also, I forgot:
twitter: which gives you “push” micro-messaging
You are mainly stating that there is a potential mass base for independent progressive action. Of course! If there weren’t, I wouldn’t be in the business at all.
I’m talking about, specifically, the level of development of the Green Party in Florida, and in many other areas around the country. You come up with things that can be done, but if you don’t engage who the fuck is going to do them, they do not, cannot gain traction.
Who are you writing for? Me? Sorry, I’m in no position to do any of them. My goals are much more mundane. You state:
I am trying to create the conditions, out of very little, where more advanced tactics could be carried out. Give me a group with the capacity to carry out your ideas, I could spin out a dozen tactics a minute. But it doesn’t exist here.
Again, who are you writing for? I’m writing about the Greens. We may not meet your standards, yet we are on the ballot in 43 states. If you know of a better independent progressive party, please clue me in. So if you’re serious about your ideas, you should make them specific to the Greens as they actually exist. I personally cannot make them happen.
If you were serious about the GREENS carrying them out, then I would suggest you draft a formal proposal and send it to the Green Party national leadership. But of course, everything with the Greens is mediated through its state organizations. I fear your idea would die at the national level. Or you could send it to the leadership of each state Green operation. But of course, the state parties operate through their county organizations. So maybe you could send it to each Green county organization in the U.S. Then you’re sending it to me, and my response would be, how about sending me $300 for printer ink and gas, and oh yeah, some yard signs, and then I could start working my list of registrants to put together that group of 3.
See the problem? Suppose some people at each level liked your ideas. Would they fight to win other Green leaders to that perspective? Then you would have an organizing issue within the party. But you won’t get in there and fight for it. You want me to. And I won’t because I need gas money, printer ink and yard signs, before I can mess around with that. Do I sound overly personal? I think my situation is more typical than what you are writing for.
The left is atomized, thousands of progressives all saying remarkably similar things, yet incapable to transforming that into united action. Everyone is committed to doing their own thing. Your ideas have the ring of those of a corporate consultant, but corporations have money, and people, and a COMMAND STRUCTURE that can make things happen. Win over the Vice President of the Publicity Department, and he or she will maybe make it happen. But with the Greens? There is no point with such leverage. My struggle, throughout my Dump Capitalism series, is to address the atomization that prevents coherent action.
You want to remain a lone wolf, that is your privilege. But it doesn’t get it done.
And do I take comfort in you being poor? Certainly not. First, I would never wish that on a friend. Secondly, if you was rich, I could ask you for money!
My audience for my variation of growing a 99% club infrastructure is basically all Americans who care about their country, and all its citizens’ welfare.
Now, it happens to be the case that, IMO, Greens, Tea Partiers, and other anti-mainstream D and R types have more to gain by supporting the growth of a 99% club infrastructure, as compared to D and R loyalists. Be that as it may, by encouraging local political involvement, it would, I believe, help reformers of all types (including those afraid to vote against their closest legacy party).
Now, let’s take somebody who is interested in growing the Greens, starting from no involvement, at all, on September 10, 2012. What is the best way to support an enduring, expanding Green movement? Is it to
A) simply focus on a Green Party agenda, as I challenged in my recent diary, Note to disorganized progressives, Jill Stein, etc. Tea Party Nation is using the 2012 election to grow the Tea Party.
OR
B) support the 99% club idea, as I outlined in Comment #1, the purpose being “to grow a face-to-face-networked, progressive ecosystem.” (I did “not say “to grow a face-to-face-networked, Green Party ecosystem.” ) And THEN, to leverage that progressive ecosystem, to grow the Green Party, as per my challenge diary?
The short answer is: I don’t know. However, I didn’t post comments in this diary for my health. I believe that this newish proposal has merit at least as an experiment in democracy. And frankly, except for the limited time frame aspect, I think B) is a better option for Green Party favoring activists. The way to deal with the fact that there’s less than 2 months until election day is for Green Party favoring activists to bifurcate their efforts quickly – let’s say, no later than October the 4th, 2012. So, 99% club ecosystem from Sept 10, 2012 to October 4th, 2012; 99% club ecosystem plus Green Party only activism from Sept 11, 2012 to November 6, 2012. And beyond, of course. That was the point of my challenge diary – use the election to grow the party, not stimulate mediocre party growth during election season, and let it dribble away starting the day after Election Day.
There’s not much time to follow the B) scenario, but 2 months isn’t a whole lot of time to pursue just the A) scenario, above, either. That is what it is. There’s only so much that can happen in 1 or 2 months, but clearly, a lot more could happen if you got complete buy-in from Progress Radio Network, even if only for A). Remember, PRN is going to have a lot of voters who already leaning Green. If PRN went further, and allowed the Green Party to pitch during Oct 4 – Nov 6, well that could really put the Green Party on the map.
Also, I reject the idea that you can’t “do any of them (ideas)”. You could, in fact, contact PRN, NNU, and InterOccupy, and ask them to create educational material, ASAP, as well as contact all their members to attend the 99% club events. In the very likely event that educational materials – education being, I propose, the hook which will be used to keep reeling in fresh recruits – the meetings will simply have to discuss the plan for the 99% ecosystem, and people would just hang out and talk more socially. This is not unlike what the Coffee Party did (though I note they seem to have devolved into Democratic Party shills; the forum is no more, so dissenting voices can’t be heard).
If they say “no, thanks”, then “no, thanks” it is. I don’t guarantee results with my suggestions, if they’re largely rejected – and even if they’re not largely rejected!
I believe most of the base of PRN, NNU, and Interoccupy would support the idea of 99% clubs.
The domestic (US) base of PRN is approximately 500,000.
The base of NNU is approximately 185,000
I have little idea of the base of InterOccupy, but I’ll assume 40,000.
Those figures total 745,000 Americans.
I guesstimate that 90% of these 745,000 Americans would support the idea of a 99% club. That might translate into, I’ll guesstimate, 12% of these actually attending, at least once per month. That equals .9 * .12 * 745,000 = 80,460 Americans.
From 3rd Party Anyone? How to Make the Transition From Fringe to Center Stage, Nader, running as a Green, took 1.7% of the vote in 2000.
I believe PRN, NNU, and InterOccupy will ALL favor the Green Party much more than an average sampling of Americans. So, let’s calculate how many of the new 99% club attendees can be shepherded into Green Party activism, by taking 3x 1.7%, or 5.1%. That would give you new Green Party activists recruits numbering 5.1% * 80,460 = 4,103.
That’s not very many, nation wide, but it’s nothing to sneeze at, either.
FL is about 16% of the US population. So, you get only 656 of these new Green activists to seed your 2012-2014 growth process. There are 67 counties in FL, so your ‘fair’ share is only about 10 activists.
That’s much better than 3! :-)
Seriously, though, the main question to be entertained is can those 10 activists agree on a reasonable effort for growth of the Green party in their neighborhoods. If they have faith in a common vision, that can happen. If they don’t, well, perhaps somebody else can inspire them, even if I can’t. It’s not really my job to inspire them, as I am not a Green. But that is where Jill Stein and other dynamic Greens come in. That’s where you come in.
I’m too tired to write more, today. I may, or may not, write more tomorrow, but I hopes this helps clarify things.
You somehow manage to completely and utterly miss my point.
Well, that’s not very encouraging for my going on. Nevertheless, I think I will continue responding, at length. Then, hopefully, you will tell me how I have completely and utterly missed your point.
=========================
Nobody is going to “give” you such a group. However, I have outlined a plan whereby you could acquire such a group, with very, very small outlay of your own cash. It’s not a sure thing – I have calculated, using reasonable assumptions, that you could acquire a group within 2 months, if you got buy-in from all of PRN, NNU, and InterOccupy, of a whopping total of 10 Green worker bees (i.e., activists), for the cost of sending a few emails to those organization, buying a few cups of coffee, setting up a facebook page (which is zero $). I suppose you might consider it overly optimistic to get buyin from all 3 organization, but in that case you would have to do without their aid. You could try and find similar organizations, to replace them. You could also try and find organizations with less than national scope, using Google. Or organizations that are purely online, but might be amenable to solicitations for face-to-face meetups. The organizations may be virtual, but their flesh and blood members have to live somewhere. (PRN is mostly online, though individual listeners have been urged to support pre-existing activist groups. Some of these groups have a geographical bias, which would be useful for organizers in those areas. Even the ones without geographical bias might be resistant to solicitation for either transpartisan 99% clubs and/or Green groups. No way to find out, but to ask. Asking via email will cost you nothing). And yes, you could fail at all these, at which point your job becomes much, much harder.
In this case, you will be reduced to working craigslist, and facebook, and posting ads on local supermarket bulletin boards, etc. Those will cost you nothing, except the cost of printing up, say, 10 pieces of paper (for the supermarket bulletin boards), and the cost of getting around to those supermarkets. If you have a car, that might cost you $30 in gas. If you don’t, maybe it’ll cost you $45 in bus fare.
The one sort of indispensable cost, that will hopefully be borne by all facilitators looking to implement the 2 step plan I’m suggesting, is meetup.com. I just checked, and meetup.com’s fee for organizers starts at $12 per month. I’m sorry if you personal situation is so marginal that $12 per month is a real burden, that might literally take food out of your mouth. Happily, $12 per month will not such a burden to most Americans who have a job. Minimum wage is about $7 per hour. So, working for 1/2 hour or less, per week will pay the meetup bill.
In your eager solicitations to PRN, NNU, and InterOccupy, you could mention the fact that you, personally, have a willing spirit, but are extremely stressed for cash, and if they’d consider sponsoring meetup organizaer fees for people in your situation, at least during a trial period, it’d be greatly appreciated.
The worst they can say is “no”.
If you connected with 10 Green activists in your county, the odds are that most will have jobs, and most will have jobs that pay more than minimum wage. If they really believe in the Green cause, they will be happy to part with some of their income to pay for yard signs and printer ink.
Again, the 99% club idea is basically for all Americans – Greens, Tea Partiers, Democrats, Republicans, independents, etc. It is supposed to be transpartisan, though I expect that it would have a strong progressive component, if not orientation. If you define “progressive” the way Gary Null does, then it will be progressive, and fully trans-partisan.
The Greens should help create such a democratic ecosystem partly to help in the growth of their own party. Again, getting neighbors in face-to-face situations, who are obviously concerned about their country, provides recruiting opportunities for the Green Party, for the Tea Parties, for Democrats, for Republicans. Do you agree with this specific point, or not? If not, why not? To me, it’s an almost obvious point, but if you don’t dispute it, I’m baffled as to why you think the Greens could not benefit.
Another reason that the Greens (as well as the other partisan groups I mention) should be eager to create 99% clubs is because, sooner or later, we’re all going to need allies – even allies that we disagree with 90% of the time. So, if you’re a Green, and disagree with your Tea Party brothers and sisters 90% of the time, you may nevertheless require each others’ help to defeat fracking in your county. That’s a reasonable scenario – who wants to risk giving contaminated water to their children? Do the tea partiers really not care if their own childrens’ kidneys get damaged? Or if their municipality has to import bottled water to drink, from now to the Second Coming of Jesus?
Here we may be getting to the crux of our misunderstanding. While I have no objection to sending proposals to national, state, and country Green organizations, in this diary’s comments, at least, I have made no such suggestion. My target was the “lone Green”, such as yourself, who is looking to acquire a group of fellow Green worker bees (activists). What those Green worker bees do with their new found buddies – most of whom will be employed and be able to chip in $$$ to further the growth of their seed group – is a matter for them to decide.
If you know of some reason why Greens shouldn’t be approached via a non-Green network, or via some form of public solicitation, such as I have explicated, then please tell me what that reason is.
There is no reason why Greens, or Green sympathizers, cannot listen to PRN, cannot belong to NNU, cannot be on InterOccupy’s mailing list, cannot join meetup.com for free, cannot become meetup.com organizers (if they can cough up $12/month), cannot read craigslist, cannot read supermarket bulletin board notices, cannot read facebook, cannot belong to any of the activist organizations that PRN lists in the link I gave, previously. Well, none that I can think of.
Ditto for Tea Partiers, Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, anarchists, etc.
HENCE, THERE ARE, IN FACT, LOTS OF COMMUNICATION PATHWAYS TO SOLICIT ATTENDANCE AND OTHER SUPPORT FOR 99% CLUB EVENTS.
Once the 99% clubs are having regular meetings (yes, IF they’re having meeings. Failure is always an option, and my idea can fail) there is no reason, or SHOULD be no reason, why Greens cannot recruit into their organization.
Ditto for Tea Partiers, Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, anarchists, etc. We still have some free speech rights in the US. As long as various individuals’ solicitations aren’t disruptive, and don’t dominate whatever conversation and presentations are occurring at 99% club meetups, I for the life of me, don’t see any problem that could arise, that would make this unworkable.
I have no idea, and frankly, I’m not concerned. If they see merit in my ideas, then I would hope they would “fight” for them, though again, I’m mostly thinking of “lone Greens”, who would find it more expedient to ask for forgiveness than for permission. (Not that I have much idea why they’d have to ask for forgiveness. If your efforts directly led to 4,000 new Green worker bees, collaborating within local groups, would that really ruffle anybody’s feathers? Anybody that matters feathers?)
I’m not sure what you mean by “an organizing issue” – do you mean a stepping on somebody’s toes, threatening their ‘authority’. Or do you mean that Green organizations will now have divisive fights over how to spend limited resources?
In either case, I don’t particularly care. I’m big on being disruptive. If an organization is not living up to it’s potential, it’s membership can keep being restrained by whatever constraints the leadership believes is necessary, or they can organize without the official blessing of the organization. In it’s most pathetic form, conformity to group norms means being a more or less useless member of a veal pen group.
Do the members of the AFL-CIO do anything that empowers working people, in general? Does their leadership even allow them to? If the answer is “no”, I say ignore the leadership, as much as possible, and organize for the benefit of working people, in general, anyway. Tools like spruz.com, meetup.com, etc., make that particularly easy, nowadays.
I just spent over a year of my life, AT NO PAY, working on a democracy friendly application. I don’t feel obligated, IN THE LEAST, to divert any time, or attention, or money, to the Green Party cause. For one thing, as I’ve mentioned earlier, my efforts as sympathetic inventor will probably help the Green Party more than being a gung-ho Green could ever be.
If you are representative of “lone Greens”, and have no interest in exploiting the tools that are already available to you to grow the Green Party, in a grass roots fashion that I’m suggesting, for little and often no money of your own, then you probably won’t be interested in my invention, either. Well, so be it, though I’m baffled as to why.
If you don’t have money for yard signs and printer ink, do you seriously think that 10 Greens, put together in your county, will collectively STILL not have money for printer ink and yard signs?
If Greens are disproportionately drawn from a very poor demographic, well, I’m sorry! That just means that, in this particular aspect, I would make a very good Green, at this point in my life!
I get that you’re frustrated, however I would kindly ask you to consider whether getting 10 Green allies will lessen or decrease your frustration? It’s quite possible that my ideas have no merit, and would not lead to even new 10 Green worker bees in your FL county.
Well, one thing that definitely did NOT cost you money was my free advice!
Also, I’m not really asking you to fight for anything. Rather, I’m describing – in enough detail to make the process clear, I trust – a “happy path” that somebody in your situation could, in fact, pursue. If you don’t choose to walk through a door that I point to, that’s your right.
I must say, though, that I’m still not convinced that, given your own stated desires to help the Green Party grow, there’s anything truly preventing you from pursuing the strategy for acquiring fellow 99%’ers, and then fellow Greens, that I’ve been describing.
How much will it cost you to write emails to PRN, NNU, and InterOccupy? I’ve already told you that you can acquire facebook organizer privileges for $12 per month. There’s only 2 months until the election. Are you really so hard up for cash that you can’t do 2 months?
Just to show you what a swell guy I am, I’ll give you $24, myself, though that honestly is a sacrifice, at this point in my life.
Oops. I meant meetup.com organizer privileges.
(I think there’s a premium facebook option, but I don’t know anything about it.)
First of all, you have a misunderstanding.
Of course nobody is going to give me such a group. However, I am not without ANY resources. I have a list of Green Party registrants, and I have a phone. I have a plan for reaching out, one-by-one, to recruit to his county operation. I have some support from folks in Tampa and St. Pete. I think it will work.
I don’t think your app will work for Pasco County right now. During our good work on the Full Court Press, you saw the problems with consolidation, how we quickly picked up supporters but couldn’t get them to do regular, disciplined work, and they drifted away to the next shiny object. I used Facebook hard, very hard, when I was trying to do something with the Union of the Unemployed, and with Paladinette’s group, which did some serious work, but couldn’t consolidate anything once the progressive Democrats we were pushing finally said NO.
I think you seriously underestimate the gap between verbal support and disciplined work, the conditions required before it can happen. I’ve been wrestling with it hands-on for getting on 40 years, with a lot of failures and a few significant successes. I know of what I speak.
You outlined a plan in commenting on a previous post, for leafletting teams every two months. I thought it a better plan, but your projections of how many activists could be culled from x number of voters was seriously, seriously off. You yourself have an activist mentality, but I fear it leads you to over-optimism. And my problem with over-optimism is that it can lead you to bypass the smaller moves that are required in getting from here to there.
What I am trying to create here in Pasco is not a mass organization. I am trying to create an organizing committee. With an organizing committee, plans such as yours could be used. In its absence, you won’t have the kind of organizational cohesion needed to SUSTAIN anything.
This is telling:
Perhaps you have a narrow view of what being a “gung-ho Green” might be. I think you have a certain aversion to the nasty organizational work required to make things happen. After all, building the Greens is what this post was all about.
Has the Green Party seen any bumps in membership from Occupy Wall Street? I would expect Greens located near encampment sites to know the answer to this question.
If the answer is “yes”, then I think it’s a slam dunk that reviving Occupy, in the form of more dispersed 99% club events, would also give the Greens a boost.
OTOH, even if the answer is “no”, I still think that it’s worth trying to build a transpartisan meeting place movement, for just the recruiting opportunities that I’ve mentioned.
The worst that can happen is that the idea does absolutely nothing for the Greens, but you get to meet a lot of your neighbors, that you wouldn’t have met, otherwise. I see little downside – the amount of $$ is typically trivial for Americans that have jobs.
Because the election is only 2 months away, you might decide that pushing 99% clubs, partly for reasons of serving as indirect recruiting of future Greens, can wait for after the election. That certainly makes sense.
Would you be amenable to the idea of 99% clubs after November 6? I mean, of course, not just as remedies for democratic ills, but specifically as an aid to building the Green Party, even if indirectly?
BTW, if you punch in ‘Manhattan, NY, USA’ into meetup.com, which sets up a default refined search within a 50 mile radius, and search for ‘Green Party’, you get exactly 1 relevant hit, and it’s for the Connecticut Green Party.
If you punch in ‘Democrats’ you get 41 hits total, but what looks like only 7 relevant hits.
I’m not surprised to see the Greens totally not using a tool like meetup.com, even in a place like densely populated NYC. I tracked the campaigns of Rocky Anderson and Jill Stein, for a while, at votizen.com, and Jill Stein’s numbers stayed frozen, day after day, while Rocky’s made frequent increases.
Unfortunately, votizen stopped listing total number of campaigners associated with each candidate. They’re also no longer showing the amount of people in such campaigners’ networks. I wish I knew the thinking, there. I’ll guess that the numbers were growing too slowly to impress people.
I was surprised to see the Democrats not making more use of meetup, in Manhattan. Perhaps that’s a sign that it’s not a particularly powerful political organizing tool.
It’s not a matter of before the election or after the election. It’s that I hope to create certain conditions to locate myself before I can make any other moves.
Meanwhile, where are the Coffee Parties of yesterday? Worth some serious thought.
Based on my experiences with local greens in my state, I don’t hold out much hope. I’ll happily donate to Jill Stein, help raise money, go door to door for her. But the local Green Party in my area has no interest in party building. Leaders pass off responsibility for organizing onto individual members who haven’t the knowledge or the resources to do it, and they offer little or no help from the local or statewide party. The result is that people come to a few early meetings and end up leaving discouraged. There is a sense of elitism: most of the Green Party members I encountered were aging hippies grown too tired and cynical to bother, were all middle class, and not a one of them was Black or Hispanic.
Furthermore, none are concerned with going head on against Democrats and Republicans on their level. They won’t “lower” themselves to the rhetorical methods of their opponents, and they insist on believing that conservatives are basically good at heart and are merely misguided—not the pathologically lying monsters they really are. Listening to both major parties conventions, I was reminded of the Nuremberg rallies of the 1930s. America isn’t drifting toward fascism. It isn’t rushing headlong into it, either. America has already completed the transition to fascism, while most of us were busy living in denial. How does one fight an enemy he can’t acknowledge is an enemy? How can one fight something he doesn’t understand because he refuses to see?
There is absolutely no difference between Democrats and Republicans in terms of policy. They are identical in every way, shape, and form. The only “difference,” if you can call it that, is one of style. We who are old enough to remember the ’96 election may recall that the GOP went over the top in its behavior that year, too. And Bill Clinton was able to use the Republicans’ behavior as a shield to make his own right-wing extremism look like sensible politics by comparison. But it was Clinton who gutted Welfare and repealed Glass-Steagall, and passed NAFTA and the Telecomm Act of 1996, and it was Clinton who perfected the art of triangulation: saying one thing while doing the exact opposite.
I was reading a magazine article lately about the success of the Progressive Part of Vermont. Perhaps in this organization we may find the answers we seek as we try to build a viable third party through which to grow a strong progressive movement.
Thoughts?
Two points:
1) It’s quite possible (though not necessarily practical) to stay within an organization, and yet not be loyal to it’s fossilized, corrupt leadership. I have often claimed that it’s not necessary to abandon the Democratic Party, lock, stock and barrel. Rather, it is necessary to abandon loyalty to the Democratic Party. It’s very important to pick some of Dem incumbents out, each and every election, declare you’re going to work to primary them, and furthermore, declare that you’re going to vote against them even in a general election. (Nobody on lefty blogs seems to accept this, but mathematically speaking, in close general elections, it’s quite legitimate to vote for a Republican in a general, to guarantee that you end the career of an intransigent Dem.) It’s primarily loyalty to corrupt leadership that I’m thinking of.
Similar thoughts apply to the Green Party. As I wrote, earlier,
I.e., once again, I suggest being a disloyal member, if you’re going to be a member, at all. If some “aging hippies grown too tired and cynical to bother” are standing in the way of progress, why respect them? E.g., if you can get enough sincere Greens together for tabling at a local supermarket, and your official cadres of “aging hippies grown too tired and cynical to bother” say to you “Stop that! We didn’t authorize that! We didn’t vote on that!”, then why listen to them? Why not table at the local supermarket, anyway? Don’t you have free speech rights that transcend their sense of fossilized self-importance?
2) Should not Jill Stein, who is dynamic and charismatic, be called upon to not only declare (and act as if it were so) that she will prioritize using her campaign for GP growth, as much as for (if not even more than) electoral victory in 2012, also be called upon to acknowledge the dysfunctional, fossilized elements within the Green Party power structure, and also to call upon people to work around those fools?
There’s a website called democraticunderground.com, that, I’m told, used to tolerate a lot more dissidence within it’s membership. (Apparently, it’s almost totally coopted now, after many purges of dissidents.) However, the basic, original concept (as I understand it, anyway), was good. I have previously written about how there should be something like a unionunderground.com, to openly discuss corrupt and lackadaisical union leadership, and other such topics.
Why not a GreenPartyUnderground.com, that speaks openly about Green Party ‘bad boys’? You say that
Well, if I lived in your area, I’d have a few questions. Such as: What were the names of these cynical GP leaders? How, exactly, do they “pass off responsibility for organizing onto individual members”? I mean, what is asked of them, exactly, and what do they say?
When you say, .
that suggests to me that there should be a website (preferably with an organization behind it, even if somewhat informal) that tells individuals who their local Green dissident-reformers are, what they are doing, and how to start a group of local Green dissident-reformers if one isn’t available, already. They need to readily find out about spruz.com and meetup.com, e.g..
Considering all the praise that Jill Stein gets, I’d say that the “happy path” (best scenario) is for Jill Stein to create such a website and organization. But what if she has not the vision, or the interest? Why wait on Jill Stein, unduly? OK, you seem to have given up on the Greens, but there are many, like jeffroby, who have not. What is preventing Greens with similar sentiments as jeffroby from organizing both their dissidence, as well as organizing to spread “best practices” in overcoming the local Green obstacles?
Since voting for a Republican – even in a smallish percentage of cases, which is all I’ve ever recommended for lefties – is so roundly rejected in lefty blogs, I usually challenge the unimaginative and strategically-impaired lefties like so: “You can work to primary your local Dem, and then vote 3rd party in the general election.”
I respectfully disagree about abandoning the Democrats. We’ve tried to work within the framework of that party for thirty years. It hasn’t generated positive results, not on any level we can claim real success, and there is plenty of evidence to suggest that we have actually been dragged backward in terms of organizational capacity.
Voting for a Republican accomplishes nothing except to send the wrong message to Democrats: move even further to the political right. In order to get them to move left, you must vote for leftist candidates. Greens, Socialists, Progressives, Working Families and the like. We want to move the Democrats to the political left, not give them more excuses to move further right.
A major and, I believe, crippling flaw in the Green Party overall is that most members appear to be single-issue types who will not unify around a platform that includes their pet issues. They want their pet issues to take precedence, almost to the exclusion of all others, and very often to that exclusion. And the worst is that these pet issues are usually local matters, that affect local populations, and while those issues might have national or worldwide implications that can appeal on a broader scope to Americans in general, this is never pursued. The party in my state is divided up into various (and few) local parties, and there is little or no organizational coordination between them. Whether this is by design, or is a consequence of the leadership’s inability to more effectively organize, I do not know. Whenever I brought up ideas for getting mobilized, I was met with various excuses for why the others would not do this or that, and the onus was put on me to get them done (I once suggested getting the electronic voter database so we could have a list of voters to contact with phone calls and door-to-door campaigning, but this was rejected on the basis of there not being sufficient money to pay the fee to obtain the software). Having neither the knowledge, the time, or the financial resources to go out and do any of the things I suggested, I left feeling frustrated. The state party leadership appears to be the same. I can only guess that this is all because the Green Party in my state hasn’t the resources or the manpower to effectively organize political campaigns, so the responsibility is foisted onto individual members.
All this says to me that the Greens in my state aren’t serious about running an effective organization that attracts new members. Jill Stein, on the other hand, seems to be genuinely interested in building a viable campaign, and therefore offers some hope of organizing disillusioned leftists to vote for her. But I fear that, once this campaign season is over in November, what structure is there will collapse as the Greens become lost in their own factionalism and pettiness.
I suggested the Progressive Party in my first comment in this thread because, unlike the Greens, they appear to have overcome the challenges of organizing from nothing and have grown to the point where they are now competitive on a statewide level, even gaining a small but significant number of seats in the state legislature. Their local officeholders are many, so I believe the structure is in place to make it a viable political party. After doing further research, I have discovered that the party exists now in Washington state, Oregon, and to a limited degree, Wisconsin. I am hoping to bring the party to my state with the Vermont organization’s blessing and assistance.
One thing I left out of my other comments was the tendency of candidates to get lost in over-the-head college lecturing when talking to voters. I recall one candidate forum a couple of years ago in which the Green Party candidate for a county level office tried and failed to make his case to the audience of Asian Americans. He was pushing a local, publicly-owned bank as part of his platform, but it was too, what’s the word, disconnected? from the day-to-day stuff people care about. The Democrat taking part in the forum dominated the discussion and even challenged the Republican by calling him out for lying — something no Green I have met will ever do, since it’s not “lying” but “being wrong” or “misinformed.” No, the Republican was clearly lying, and the Democrat by getting up in his face (rhetorically speaking) showed he was aggressive and in command of the situation. Asians respect aggressiveness and leadership ability in their leaders. The Green Party candidate was obviously not aggressive, nor were any of the other candidates except the Republican, and he was not up to the task.
I believe the Progressive Party succeeds in large part by speaking to voters on a personal level, that is, talking to people about issues that directly affect them. Greens are too abstract and their image as being devoted almost exclusively to environmental issues without being very concerned about economic matters that directly affect voters doesn’t help. There is a way to speak out on environmental issues so that people understand how they directly affect voters’ economic well being, but no one was listening.
A lot of people say this, and I think giving up completely on the Democrats is an OK strategy. If you’re correct about how hopeless the Democrats are, it’s more than an OK strategy, of course.
I’ve never seen or heard of any group of aggressive progressives dealing with the Democrats in the way in which it deserves to be treated, so when you say “We’ve tried to work within the framework of that party for thirty years.”, I would still question the “how” of that. But, I don’t want to take any more time to argue the point. You can google “metamars” and “voting strategy” and/or “voting bloc” for more of my thoughts on this, if you’re interested.
This is an illogical statement, as progressives voting for a Republican can indeed cause a Democrat to lose a general election, in a tight race. The questions of attribution, and motivation, however, are not given. That’s why, though I didn’t mention it here (but you can see for yourself from my other writings), it’s essential that this be done as a) part of a group and b) the group do everything in it’s power to make it’s stated purpose clear. Plus c) the group needs to have a means for reasonably documenting it’s strength (numbers) publicly.
This is not a strategy for an individual, all by him or herself to pursue. It is a logical strategy for a voting bloc to pursue. Even if progressives were already organized into aggressive voting blocs, though, I’m not sure that enough of them could wrap their heads around the strategy. In which case, for reasons of ‘human factors’, it would be a bad idea. Since progressives are so disorganized, there’s no point in wasting a lot of energy in defending even a logical voting strategy that might well be rejected by progressives, even if they were organized.
I note with amusement that in MoveOn and Lesser Evilism, which I read this morning, after writing my previous posts in this diary, the author also refers to progressives as lacking imagination:
My default, 1-liner voting advice that I give nowadays is to vote against Dem (and Repub) incumbents in primaries (unless they’re exceptional), and to vote 3rd party in the general election.
Someday soon, hopefully, forming voting blocs will be easy: see ReinventingDemocracy.net.
There are many people at MyFDL who write diaries in support of the Greens, and also Rocky Anderson’s Justice Party, but I don’t recall any re the Progressive Party. You should consider writing such diaries.
Has any part of the Progressive Party endorsed the Unified Progressive Platform?
Did you even read my piece? Rather than supporting Stein’s new direction, which could draw new blood into the party, your complaints could only deter that.
You argue by definitionalism. You define terms in such a way as to support your argument, in this case your definitions of completed, transition, and fascism.
There are drastic and negative changes in motion, however you amuse yourself with your definitions. I call for dealing with the specificity of those changes.
Indeed! That’s how it works. Why do you think they have any more energy, time, etc. than you do? And you are clearly smarter. So yes, it’s on you.