[Prairiegreens] RE: [UCprogressives-discuss] Re:
[Peace-discuss]Fw: Election Commission
Claudia Lennhoff
claudia at shout.net
Thu Oct 28 08:38:24 CDT 2004
Molly Ivins is right -- we should "rejoice in all the oddities that
freedom can produce."
And the discussion on these lists has been pretty odd.
In fact, I am ready to take myself off these lists. I find the
current discussion unproductive, and in some instances,
condescending, insulting, hyper-theoretical, and flat out wrong.
The only reason that I am inserting myself at all into this
discussion is because some things have been said that I think reveal
some misconceptions about LOCAL politics and the role of political
parties at the local level, and also because I think some of the
comments made have been disrespectful of fellow community members
(including some running for office for County Board on the Democratic
ticket) who have dedicated themselves to community-based work to
improve the lives of people in Champaign County, and to engage
Champaign County residents in the democratic process.
In addition, I very much believe that what happens in these elections
at the local level does matter and does impact the lives of community
members -- it's not just theoretical or a matter of rhetoric. For the
issues on which I have organized, there is no doubt that there IS a
difference between a Republican and Democrat dominated County Board,
and the difference translates into real and meaningful impact on the
day-to-day lives of people who live and work in Champaign County, and
in particular, on the lives of low-income Champaign County residents.
I don't want Champaign County to return to the "Bud Barker" days of
the County Board.
Many who have spent time working on county-level issues in this
community (actually working on the issues, not just running for
office or party-building), to try to influence county-level policy,
know that our two-party system at the community level is not a
"duopoly/monopoly." Furthermore, locally, the two parties are not
just pursuing "corporate" agendas -- at the County Board level there
are real community issues to be dealt with (many quite tedious and
boring) and many of these fall outside any semblance of a "corporate
agenda."
Many of the progressives who are working with and for the Democratic
party locally, and in particular by serving on the County Board, have
gotten there as a result of - not political or party-building
aspirations, but - actually working on progressive issues in order to
make some positive change in this community. For example, County
Board members (Democrats) like Jan Anderson and Nancy Greenwalt
became County Board members AS A RESULT of their experiences working
on real issues determined at the county level -- issues like public
health, where real concrete improvements have been made in people's
lives. These women activists and organizers were not engaged in the
issues through the Democratic Party, but through their
community-based work. It impacts the day-to-day lives of Champaign
County residents. Now these folks are part of the Democratic party as
a result of the Democrats' response to those issues, and now have
some influence on the agenda of the local Democratic party -- and
this has not made them "the man" and they are not "dupes," and I am
also not a "dupe" for recognizing and supporting their contributions
to our community.
Tony Fabri, who has a long involvement with the Democratic party, has
also been involved in real community-based work and has worked for
many progressive causes while serving on the County Board -- that
work is real, and it is not simply party-building work.
I think some of the work that we, as progressives, need to do, is to
engage people to participate in the democratic process. And there is
far more to the democratic process than just voting or running for
office, and there is more to being progressive than just preaching a
"pure" line on some issue. Progressives should be careful not to
alienate people or condescend to them. For example, my support of a
Democrat for County Board who has a proven track record of work for,
and commitment to issues that are important for the health and lives
of our community members does not make me a "dupe" and does not mean
that I am "working for 'the man'." I have my own critiques of the
two-party system, but I am not going vote Green just because I have
critiques, and especially not when I have an opportunity to help
elect someone who has worked for our community and has been
accountable to people on the issues. The parties, at the local level,
are not monolithic unresponsive institutions; but it does take work
to engage in the democratic process and work for change and
accountability.
John Wason suggests: "one of the Democratic candidates, in each of
the County Board districts where Greens are running, could graciously
step aside in the spirit of progressive harmony and let one Democrat
and one Green run for the office." This is ridiculous. Candidates
have to earn the people's votes and their positions. Why suggest that
a true progressive like Jan Anderson, with decades of demonstrated
work and commitment to Champaign County residents step aside for some
theoretical "progressive harmony"? I hear and read some of what the
Greens are saying, but frankly, at the level of the County and on the
issues involving County Board governance, I have not seen much work
or involvement by the Greens, beyond running for office.
Personally, when I decide to give my vote or support to a particular
candidate, I look at someone's work and track record and not just
their rhetoric or their party affiliation.
Sincerely,
Claudia Lennhoff
At 9:31 PM -0500 10/27/04, Ken Urban wrote:
>Mort,
>
>You can't seem to see that the corporate parties will just continue to
>persue corporate activities. Can't you see that this is just another
>political ploy to gain power for the Democratic Party in the false name
>of progressive policies. I pity you if you can't see the difference; you
>end up another dupe to be ignored by the millionaires running the
>country.
>
>And yes, there are some quite progressive Democrats, and my question to
>them is: Why are you working for 'the man'? What good will it do you in
>10 years, 20 year or 30 years.
>
>Ken
>
>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>Ken Urban
>Assoc. Prof., Computer Science
>Parkland College
>
>Office: B129A
> (217)-353-2246
>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
>>>> Morton K.Brussel <brussel at uiuc.edu> 10/27/2004 11:54:19 AM >>>
>The Greens are being self destructive here. In some places, Greens do
>agree to join with Democrats if the "progressive cause" will be
>advanced in doing so. This would seem to apply here. It has applied
>elsewhere (Germany, France, e.g.). Don't hold your breath for the
>current electoral system to change while we revert to Republican
>domination of the County Board.
>
>I understand that the current candidates of the Green party feel
>undercut by Fabri's argument, and resentful, but for the voter who
>wants to see progressive policies continue on the County Board, Fabri's
>
>argument has merit. Will progressive issues advance or retrogress if
>indeed the vote is split on the Green-Democrat side of the ledger? That
>
>is the question in this particular election.
>
>mkb
>
>On Oct 27, 2004, at 11:19 AM, Dawn Owens-Nicholson wrote:
>
>> Tony Fabri wrote:
>>
>>> In my relatively short time participating in local politics (12
>>> years), I've come to the opinion that splitting the progressive vote
>
>>> between two or more parties will only improve the already strong
>odds
>>> of electing conservative Republicans in Champaign County.
>>
>> This is only true under the current two-party system. But if both
>> democrats and republicans are able to get themselves elected under
>> this system, there is no incentive for them to change the electoral
>> structure to something more fair to other parties (instant runoffs,
>> proportional representation, etc.) In every election, democrats are
>
>> able to discourage progressives from voting for progressive third
>> party candidates by alleging that the republican alternative is SOO
>> horrible that it is irresponsible to vote for the candidate you
>really
>> want. But are democrats moving us toward alternative election
>> structures? No. Why should they? They can get themselves elected
>by
>> scaring progressives into not voting for progressive candidates. It
>
>> is not in their interest to make it possible for non-democrats to win
>
>> races.
>> The ONLY way we will ever get instant runoff elections is if one of
>> the two power parties can no longer get its members elected because
>of
>> third party pull. It is the democrats and republicans who would have
>
>> to be the ones to introduce and pass the legislation needed to change
>
>> the system. To do this, they would need an incentive. If they are
>
>> able to get elected under the current system, they have no incentive.
>
>> If democrats find it difficult to get elected because the
>progressive
>> vote is split between the democrats and the greens and the
>socialists,
>> only then will they work toward a fairer election system--because it
>
>> will be in their interest to do so.
>>
>> --
>> Dawn Owens-Nicholson
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>> Peace-discuss at lists.cu.groogroo.com
>> http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Prairiegreens mailing list
>Prairiegreens at lists.groogroo.com
>http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/prairiegreens
>http://www.prairienet.org/greens/
>_______________________________________________
>ucprogressives-discuss mailing list
>ucprogressives-discuss at lists.cu.groogroo.com
>http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/ucprogressives-discuss
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list