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

Thu Feb 4 17:54:51 CST 2010

Matt,

The anti-war movement - whoever that is - should not "spend what little energy it has left rallying behind" any candidate.  The anti-war movement should "spend what little energy it has left rallying" behind ... the antiwar movement.  

In general, the Democrats will not end the war without a deep, disruptive anti-war  movement demanding that the war end.  In general, the Greens will not win anything of consequence beyond the local level any time soon - and even the local level seems to be a pretty tough fight - so it is immaterial what they would do in the Senate or the White House, etc.  

It is good to support Greens, or to support Democrats, as the situation makes sense to do so.  We have already wasted too much energy talking about this.

Ricky

"Speak your mind even if your voice shakes." - Maggie Kuhn

--- On Thu, 2/4/10, Matt Reichel <mattreichel at hotmail.com> wrote:

From: Matt Reichel <mattreichel at hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Pull a Green Party Ballot Today!
To: 
Cc: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
Date: Thursday, February 4, 2010, 4:50 PM

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
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> 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
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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

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.

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20100204/e3179a5f/attachment-0001.html>