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

[C. G. Estabrook]

I agree entirely: the wort thing that happened to the US anti-war movement in 40
years was its co-option by the Democrats and particularly by the Obama campaign.
(And I do mean 40 years: showing my age, I'm counting from the self-destruction
of SDS in the summer of 1969.)

That said, I still think that the appropriate thing for US anti-warriors to do
in November for 2008 was to vote for Obama *in states where the outcome was in
doubt*.  (In Illinois, where it was not in doubt, I voted for Nader.)

I yield to none in my contempt for the Obama administration: the IMPEACH sticker
on my five-year-old car has been there all along and continues to be. But
"strategic" voting in 2008 meant doing what would best tend to mitigate the
killing - and on that prudential judgment honest people could differ.  Some (not
me) even recommended a vote for McCain on "the worse the better" analysis.

The situation repeats, mutatis mutandis, in this week's primary.  Jackson was an
indifferent candidate, but the important thing was that she was the only R or D
candidate who spoke against the war.  Elections in the US are generally rigged,
as Matt describes, but the rigging is not complete. (That itself may be a sort
of higher rigging, a matter of "repressive tolerance.")

In fact however the US anti-war movement does not suffer from a surfeit of
initiatives, so it can't really afford to ignore any. Oppositional politics in
this country are a matter of 'bricolage' - whatever comes to hand. And that
(even) includes voting.

And it even includes the Green party in the US, even though it has not too
rarely shown a fatal desire to be a party like the others. --CGE


Matt Reichel wrote:
> I obviously meant to refer to the exciting candidate from 2004: Barack Obama.
> What a tragedy it was to see the anti-war movement completely fall apart as
> people went and rallied behind that phony
> 
> - matt r
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
> From: mattreichel at hotmail.com CC: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net Date: Thu,
> 4 Feb 2010 16:50:28 -0600 Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Pull a Green Party
> Ballot Today!
> 
> I am not convinced that a victory by Cheryle Jackson would have been a good
> thing for the anti-war movement or progressives, in general. Is there any
> reason to believe that she was any better than the "exciting" candidate for
> this seat in 2010 who drained the anti-war movement of its soldiers in order
> to get him elected, so that he could ultimately move on to the White House
> and become one of the most ineffectual presidents this country has ever
> seen??
> 
> She didn't even bother to have an issues page on her website (rather common
> these days; why bother the people with issues?). Ben Joravsky also wrote a
> pretty damning article about her in the Reader (he is an excellent crusader
> against the Chicago Democratic machine and reliable source for progressive
> views in Chicago), though I am not finding the link to this article online.
> 
> I wonder why Robert wants the anti-war movement to spend what little energy
> it has left rallying behind a corporate backed candidate? This happened in
> 2004 with Kerry and Obama (locally), with devastating consequences. The
> movement still has yet to recover.
> 
> The Green Party is almost wholly built of citizen activists, so that the 
> activist movement and electoral movement become essentially one and the same
> thing. There is no conflict of interest and no strings attached, owing to the
> refusal of corporate donors.
> 
> How many more years should we continue to fail with supposed "liberal 
> Democrats" or "reformers" or those promising "change," or, worse yet, 
> "hope"??
> 
> Blagojevich said it best: "This guy gets catapulted into the White House 
> based on what people hope he's gonna do. What kind of shit is that!?"
> 
> Why don't we stop settling for inane soundbytes and start demanding 
> substance?
> 
> Also, I called these elections "rigged," because they are almost always won
> by whoever has the biggest bankroll, rather than who has the positions most
> resonant with the general public. Furthermore, corporate party primaries are
> largely decided by backroom deals that take the form of "endorsements" by
> party bosses who agree to help out in return for favors down the line. They
> "turn out the vote" not out of any patriotic sense of duty, but rather with
> an eye to the betterment of their personal careers. None of this happens
> within a Green Party primary.
> 
> And Robert's disparaging words about the potentiality of the Greens building
> over the next few decades in the states reeks of the logic of someone who
> feels threatened by the Greens, which can only mean that his career depends
> on selling out progressives to the Democrats in some way. In my experience,
> this is usually the case with someone who is that hostile to the idea of
> helping to build the Green movement.
> 
> The Green Party is the world's biggest party, unless you create an arbitrary
> connection among center-left Socialist or Social Democratic Parties that
> doesn't really exist. They have grown to the same size as le PS de France,
> and have long held significant power in Germany and elsewhere in Western
> Europe, Australia and New Zealand.
> 
> Of course, states-side, we have an authoritarian "first past the post, 
> pluralistic" election system that benefits special interests and big capital,
> so it is difficult for third parties to win major seats. However, telling
> yourself that it is impossible will only ensure that we are forever stuck
> with what we got now: clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right . .
> 
> Best,
> 
> Matt
> 
>> Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2010 15:31:15 -0600 From: naiman.uiuc at gmail.com To:
>> brussel at illinois.edu CC: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net Subject: Re:
>> [Peace-discuss] Pull a Green Party Ballot Today!
>> 
>> 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


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