[Peace-discuss] Pull a Green Party Ballot Today!

C. G. Estabrook galliher at illinois.edu
Thu Feb 4 16:47:37 CST 2010 

If one were to extrapolate from the history of the Greens in Germany, one would
conclude that it would be safe to take Bob's bet.

In fact, I think I will.  You're on, Bob.  --CGE


Robert Naiman wrote:
> I certainly agree with Mort that there is no "pat resolution" to the dilemmas
> that we face.
> 
> But some of the logic here escapes me.
> 
> Cheryle Jackson didn't fail because she was "caught in the Democratic party
> web." She failed because she didn't get enough votes in the Democratic
> primary. If more people had voted for her in the Democratic primary, she
> would have won. How people who are anti-war can be indifferent to this
> escapes me. Jackson was competitive in the City of Chicago. If there were a
> real statewide anti-war movement that was prepared to intervene in Democratic
> primaries, the outcome could have been different.
> 
> It seems odd to me to punish anti-war candidates running as Democrats by not
> voting for them, for the failure of other Democrats to be anti-war. Are the
> Green Party representatives in Congress doing a better job of opposing the
> war than the anti-war Democrats? No, because there are no Green Party
> representatives in Congress. And it is extremely likely that there will never
> be any in our lifetime. Is voting for the Green Party an effective strategy
> for ending the wars, when Green Party candidates are unlikely to ever be in a
> position of voting on it? I'll bet anyone on this list $100 that the last
> U.S. soldier will leave Afghanistan before any Green Party candidates are 
> elected to Congress.
> 
> If Green Party activists can figure out a way to undertake their long-term -
> and quite uncertain - project of transformation without getting in the way of
> here-and-now efforts to address the wars and other social ills, then I have
> no dispute with them. But if they insist on trying to obstruct more practical
> efforts, then they have to expect some push-back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 2:40 PM, Morton K. Brussel <brussel at illinois.edu>
> wrote:
>> One votes Green, as I did, with the hope (Always with hope, even if laced
>> with pessimism) that this party may gain in stature and be able to effect
>> future progressive change in the national politics. Yet, one regrets not
>> being able to also vote for candidates like Cheryle Jackson, who, because
>> she is caught in the Democratic party web, has small (negligible) chance of
>> winning.
>> 
>> Question: Is it important to keep the Green party going and to increase its
>> visibility, or is it more important to vote for possibly progressive
>> candidates in established parties that fail the test, over all, of
>> effective progressivism (anti-war, anti-militarist, socially conscious,
>> egalitarian, etc.)?  The evidence indicates that the Democratic party in
>> recent times has not been a counterforce, au contraire, to the conservative
>> corporate establishment. Can it be improved by voting for someone like
>> Cheryl Jackson  when even getting someone like her on the ballot is
>> unlikely, given the nature of the D-Party. This is a symptom of the utter
>> corruption of our political system.
>> 
>> We need a complete turning around, i.e., a revolution, of that political
>> system. Can voting Democratic achieve this? Can voting Green better achieve
>> this?
>> 
>> There seems to be no pat resolution to these dilemmas.
>> 
>> --another 2¢ worth.
>> 
>> --mkb
>> 
>> Incidentally, at a meeting of Gill supporters, Gill unequivocally stated
>> that he would not support the AfPac or Iraq wars/occupations…, or the
>> budgets that sustain them. He did this in the face of Democrats who were
>> uncomfortable with his position.
>> 
>> 
>> On Feb 4, 2010, at 11:41 AM, Robert Naiman wrote:
>> 
>>> Tom, do you agree with Matt's view that
>>> 
>>> "If Cheryle Jackson or anyone else on the corporate ballots was actually
>>> any good, then they had no realistic chance of winning in this rigged
>>> election."?
>>> 
>>> If so, does this statement also apply to Green candidates? If it doesn't
>>> also apply to Green candidates, why not? If it does also apply to Green
>>> candidates, does it apply forever, or only until some particular
>>> reform(s) of the "rigged election" are achieved? If the latter, what
>>> reform(s)? What is the Green Party strategy to bring such reform(s)
>>> about?
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 11:23 AM, Tom Abram <tabram at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Obviously, the Illinois Green Party, its candidates, and active members
>>>> are going to encourage their members to vote for Green canididates.
>>>> That's kind of the point of building a party.  To get candidates of our
>>>> values elected and influence public policy.  Just like the Dems and
>>>> Reps, but our values are far more progressive. Would you really expect
>>>> the Democrats to advocate their members voting for a Republican
>>>> candidate?  Why should we?  We gain absolutely nothing from this and
>>>> further distort the power dynamics between ourselves and the corporate
>>>> parties.  When Greens have stepped aside from an election due to
>>>> pressure from "progressive Democrats" they have gained absolutely
>>>> nothing, furthering the acceptance of such candidates and marginalizing
>>>> the Green Party.
>>>> 
>>>> If an individual wants to vote in a different primary to influence the 
>>>> outcome, I can understand that.  However, I personally feel it's a 
>>>> stronger statement to vote Green.  I have been criticized for 
>>>> advocating voters to pull a Green ballot.  To expect one party to 
>>>> kowtow to another and encourage their members, supporters, and the 
>>>> public to vote in another party is ludicrous.  When Republicans cross 
>>>> over in the primary to vote for Dems (like the 2006 District 9 County 
>>>> Board race and the silly Rush Limbaugh effort to nominate Hilary 
>>>> Clinton) they're called infiltrators by the Dems.  But these same Dems 
>>>> encourage Greens to cross over.  No thanks.  We are not a subset, 
>>>> splinter, or sect of the Democratic Party.  The law and media have 
>>>> already treated the Greens inferiorly  (even though we're now a 
>>>> recognized established party in Illinois).  We don't need our activist 
>>>> allies to do the same.
>>>> 
>>>> Tom Abram
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 2/4/10, Robert Naiman <naiman.uiuc at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> I find Matt's argument here quite striking. I wonder how many 
>>>>> activists in the Illinois Green Party share the views that Matt 
>>>>> expresses here. If it turns out that these views are widespread in
>>>>> the Illinois Green Party, I think it should affect the calculation of
>>>>>  folks who are interested in promoting progressive change in the
>>>>> world in which we actually live about whether the Illinois Green
>>>>> Party is an institution whose influence in public affairs they want
>>>>> to promote.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Matt argues that it actually doesn't matter who Cheryle Jackson is or
>>>>>  what views she espouses:
>>>>> 
>>>>> "If Cheryle Jackson or anyone else on the corporate ballots was 
>>>>> actually any good, then they had no realistic chance of winning in 
>>>>> this rigged election."
>>>>> 
>>>>> Presumably, Matt is acknowledging here that he actually doesn't know 
>>>>> anything about and doesn't care to know anything about Cheryle 
>>>>> Jackson, a remarkable position for someone who presumes to educate 
>>>>> others on public affairs. But in Matt's worldview, that information
>>>>> is irrelevant, so why bother acquiring it? All you need to know about
>>>>> the world is that you should vote for the Green Party.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Furthermore, one presumes that according to Matt's logic, so long as 
>>>>> the election remains "rigged," no Green Party candidates will ever 
>>>>> have a realistic chance of ever winning any election.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Therefore, in Matt's worldview, the call to vote for the Green Party 
>>>>> is essentially a call for a boycott of the election. The only 
>>>>> difference between voting for the Green Party and staying home is
>>>>> that if you vote for the Green Party, there is an official record of
>>>>> how many people participated in the Green Party-initiated boycott.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Note the similarity between Matt's argument and the old anarchist 
>>>>> slogan, "if voting changed anything, they'd abolish it." Of course, 
>>>>> anarchists with this view are generally electoral abstentionists. The
>>>>>  only difference is that the anarchists generally don't exhort you to
>>>>>  go the polling place on election day and vote anarchist.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Other folks here are more familiar with the Illinois Green Party than
>>>>>  I am. Are these views widespread in the Illinois Green Party?
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 3:35 PM, Matt Reichel
>>>>> <mattreichel at hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Of course, I couldn't disagree more with the analysis that it is 
>>>>>> worthwhile pulling a corporate party ballot. If Cheryle Jackson or
>>>>>> anyone else on the corporate ballots was actually any good, then
>>>>>> they had no realistic chance of winning in this rigged election.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The act of pulling a Green ballot in itself was a vote against the
>>>>>> system of corporate bribe-taking candidates.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> In the end, over 5,000 people in the state pulled a Green ballot: a
>>>>>> 60% increase over 2008 numbers, despite turnout being about 1/3rd
>>>>>> of 2008 across the board. (Champaign County was the only major
>>>>>> county that saw a decrease, in large part due to the graduation and
>>>>>> relocation of several active GP activists from there)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Most of the increase occurred in inner-city Chicago, where
>>>>>> residents have the benefit of clarity that those of you in the
>>>>>> cornfields might not have: choosing among corporate bribe taking
>>>>>> candidates in one of the corporate bribe-taking parties is an act
>>>>>> of futility. In the land of Blago, Rahmbo, Stroger, Daley, Burke I
>>>>>> and II, Dick Mell, and so on, this couldn't be clearer.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Solidarity,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Matt
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 15:39:31 -0600 From: galliher at illinois.edu 
>>>>>>> To: kmedina67 at gmail.com CC: Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net 
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Pull a Green Party Ballot Today!
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> My experience exactly. Without the kiss.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Karen Medina wrote:
>>>>>>>> Election judge to Karen: "Would you like a Democrat or a
>>>>>>>> Republican ballot?"
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Karen: "You are not offering a Green ballot?"
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> EJ: "Would you like a Green ballot?"
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Karen: "No. But aren't we offered a Green ballot?"
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> [... ] [Karen was voter 110 at her precinct at 10:30am today.]
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Karen to 3 EJs in an otherwise empty poling place: "Have a
>>>>>>>> wonderful day! Hope you have a great turnout!"
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> EJ1 blows a kiss. A heartfelt good-bye.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous
>>>>>>> content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss
>>>>>>> mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net 
>>>>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>>>>> ________________________________ Hotmail: Trusted email with
>>>>>> powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now. -- This message has been
>>>>>> scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is 
>>>>>> believed to be clean. 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss
>>>>>> mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net 
>>>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> -- Robert Naiman Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org 
>>>>> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org
>>>>> 
>>>>> Change.org: End the war in Afghanistan Timeline for Withdrawal and
>>>>> Political Negotiations 
>>>>> http://www.change.org/ideas/view/end_the_war_in_afghanistan_establish_a_timeline_for_withdrawal_and_begin_political_negotiations
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by
>>>>> MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing
>>>>> list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net 
>>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- Robert Naiman Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org 
>>> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org
>>> 
>>> Change.org: End the war in Afghanistan Timeline for Withdrawal and
>>> Political Negotiations 
>>> http://www.change.org/ideas/view/end_the_war_in_afghanistan_establish_a_timeline_for_withdrawal_and_begin_political_negotiations
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by
>>> MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing
>>> list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net 
>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

More information about the Peace-discuss mailing list