A trip to PollyannaVille ..... and a suggestion to the Greens

[Stinky The Clown]

This thread is being posted in a honest attempt to look for some common ground. I do NOT intend it to be disrespectful. I know there's an enormous amount of sensitivity on all sides. If you're inclined to start a flame war, don't do it in this thread. Start your own. Don't hijack mine.

I have respect for Greens. In fact, I share many of your views. I would probably not be your ideal party member, but neither would I piss you off.

I will also admit to being pissed off at you over the 2000 campaign of your candidate. In retrospect, I was wrong. Your candidate did what he did for his own reasons more than doing it for your benefit. In the intervening time, from then to now, I have stopped being angry with you. I am again ready to embrace you as a friend and an ally. You see, before the 2000 campaign, I had great respect for you. While you were to the left of me on some issues, by and large, we were in synch.

I'd bet that there's a lot of other Democrats who feel the same as I do.

So here's what I want to talk about today .....

Reconciliation.

You see, here's the thing. The American political system is what it is. Look back at our history and you'll see that very few political parties have ever been 'major' parties. Ours is a two party system. All other parties are called, generically, 'third parties'. But the fact is, there are, even today, hundreds of parties. And only two 'major parties'. You may not like that. I may not like that. But that's the reality. I know you're well intentioned in wanting to change that. I appreciate that and, in fact, can see some benefit to it. But then reality breaks in again and I see where it simply won't work. It doesn't work with the American system, and maybe even more importantly, it doesn't work with the American mindset.

Americans are simply too impatient and too uninvolved to work to make a viable third party. Its hard work. Too hard for most people. Any critical mass that might be built soon fizzles. Too much effort and too little success. Too much being associated with 'lost causes'. Enthusiasm wanes. And then its back square one. Or maybe square two, at best.

So here's my heartfelt and respectful suggestion.

Join the Democratic Party. But retain your identity. Call yourselves the Green Wing, perhaps. Position yourselves as a counterbalance to the DLC, maybe. God knows we could use that!

I know many of you feel disaffected or disenfranchised by the Democrats. Well, I have news for you. There are times when I do, too. But I persevere because I don't see a viable alternative. At least I didn't. With you joining us and participating with the same enthusiasm with which you campaigned in 2000, we could effect some change.

Please, just consider this. The suggestion is made honestly and with nothing but good intent.

If you think I'm wrong, that's okay. Please tell me why. I'm willing to listen and I would bet that many other Democrats are, too. You guys are a credible force. You really are. Its the system that prevents you from more gains, though, not your basic views.

I think the Democrats are set for some change. I feel real hope that there will be more differentiation and far less triangulation. I think we'll see some sharp distinctions drawn between us and the Republicans. Your active participation in the party will help to sharpen even further those distinctions.

Do I think you'll get everything you want? Nope. Not a chance. But again, that's reality. But we have so much common ground that the differences probably pale in comparison.

So come on. Help us. We really need you. And I think you really need us.

Our argument with you was never with *you*. It was with your candidate. And not even his views so much as his tactics. In many ways, he was the mirror image of our dearly departed Joe.

But that's in the past.

I hope. On all sides.

Friends?

[Glorfindel]

1. Coalition-building? It SHOULD be the name of the game

We have far more in common with our Green brothers and sisters than in opposition. Dear Lord, the only "green" thing left after another 6, 8, or 10 years of monolithic Repuke rule will be kudzu! ALL Progressives, of whatever persuasion, should have ONE goal, and that is to take back our country from the monsters of the radical right, political and religious.

[Totally Committed]

2. Institutional features of our political system that insure Two Party Rule:

Again and again progressives step forward to remind us of how bad the Democratic Party, or at least its leadership, is. The point of the lament is to encourage the support of third party candidates and parties.

This type of analysis is troubling, not because its analysis of the Democratic party is incorrect, but because the analysis leaves unexamined the institutional arrangement that makes a vibrant 3rd party at the federal level impossible. Never in American history has a third party captured the presidency. The Republican success in 1860 was anomalous in that one of the two major parties was simply torn apart by the divisions that issued in the Civil War soon after.

The possible election of Bernie Sanders as an Independent senator from Vermont is also anomalous. Vermont, in terms of population is essentially a congressional district. Sander's Independent Party is not a national or oppositional party. In fact, it may be in virtue of Sanders' distance from progressive third parties - the nominal independence from politics - that wins him broad support in a small state.

So here is my point: our political institutions were designed to give the appearance of public participation while preventing its substance. The two party system is part of that design. Encouraging third party participation makes sense only if it is one element in a campaign to establish democratic institutions in the US. With that in mind, let's take a look at the three central institutional features of our political system that insures at the federal level that only two parties will ever have a real chance of governing. They are the Electoral College, single-member districts and plurality elections.

Electoral College

On four occasions in US history, the candidate with the most popular votes did not win the presidency. This is a feature of a republican form of government, a government that is intended to "check" popular participation and "leveling" or democratic impulses. The mechanism by which this is done is the Electoral College. The Electoral College also insures that the number of parties seriously competing for the presidency will always be and only be two.

Each State's allotment of electors is equal to the number of House members to which it is entitled plus two Senators (with the District of Columbia getting three). But here is the key element for our purposes: in order to win the presidency, a candidate must win a majority of electors.

By requiring that a candidate win a majority, the Electoral College guarantees that third parties must do one of three things. Let's assume a third party arises and is incredibly strong (the Perot candidacy that for a time was pushing 20 percent nationally), but has no realistic chance of wining a majority of electors straight out. Its first choice is to press forward, win a significant percentage of electors and deny either of the two major parties a majority victory. In this case, the election would be decided by the House of Representatives, already dominated by the major parties. Option 1: third party looses everything.

The second option, again assuming a strong third party, is to coalesce with one of the major parties in order to get something. Arguably the most powerful progressive political party was the People's Party during the late 19th century. In 1896, they had anywhere from 25 to 45 percent strength in twenty-odd states. Clearly unable to win the presidency as a third party, they felt compelled to coalesce with the Democrats and saw their more radical labor and socialist elements purged in a losing effort. Well, there you are. Option 2 puts you back inside one of the major parties.
The third option arises when a third party is not that strong, say a Nadar candidacy of 2000. We know what happens there. A weak third party, by taking votes away from the party closest to it ideologically will, in effect, help elect the major party most unlike themselves. Option 3: help the other guys win.

Single-Member Districts

Single-member districts simply mean that in any given district, the winner takes all. That is, if the Republicans get 42 percent in a congressional district and the Democrats get 36 percent and the Greens get 22 percent, the district will still be represented by a single member, in this case the Republican. This is not terribly democratic as you can see. The majority of voters (Democrat and Green or 58 percent) garner zero representation. Third parties loose, everything.

Single member districts, of course, stand in contrast to proportional representation which permits third parties to gain a foothold in proportion to their strength. Prior to 1842, we should note, single member districts in the House of Representatives did not exist in Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey and Rhode Island. In these states, the entire congressional delegation was elected at large by means of what was called a general ticket. A return to the election of state delegations at large might lend itself nicely to proportional representation. In any case, we can see that the current arrangement is not carved in stone.

At the city level, proportional systems of representation have encouraged greater popular participation. In New York City from 1936 to 1947, proportional representation resulted in the participation of the American Labor Party, the Liberal Party, the Communist Party and the Fusion forces. In addition to a number of blacks, two Communists were elected to the city council. That did it. Business forces restored the two party system, the only true "democratic" form of party participation as they put it.

Plurality Elections

Plurality elections mean that the candidate with the most votes wins. Unless the third party candidate is about to out poll the Democrat or Republican, supporters of third parties get no representation. Zero. Moreover, with this in mind, we are often told that voting our conscience is tantamount to throwing our vote away or electing "the other guy." For example, if George Bush, Bill Clinton and Noam Chomsky were to run (and could) for governor of California, the odds are pretty good that Noam would come in third. And there would be a very intense debate over whether or not we should vote for Clinton or Noam. This is the curse of plurality elections.

However, there are numerous mayoral elections where "majority election" rules obtain. Majority elections (sometimes called the "double primary") require a second ballot if no candidate gets a majority in the first round. This scheme encourages third parties because you are encouraged to vote your conscience in the hope that your party might at least come in second, in which case there would be a second ballot or runoff between the top two vote getters. And if the progressive party didn't make it that far, then one could choose the lesser of two evils in the final round. Majority elections have resulted in many progressive candidate and third party victories at the local level.

Conclusion

There are many different ways of organizing elections throughout the world. The electoral system in the United States has been shaped to both reduce popular participation and advance business interests. The impulse to create third party oppositional politics is natural, positive, and will persist until space for oppositional politics is created. However, to assume that our system is democratic and that the creation of oppositional politics turns only on a matter of will as opposed to a reform of our institutions is to advocate moral victory and political failure.
None of our rights have been handed down; they have all been won through resistance. So let's call the bastards on their professed support for democracy. Dump the electoral college, push for proportional representation and adopt majority elections, already in practice around the country at the local level, for federal office. Third parties yes, but not without a corresponding demand for democratic elections here in the US of A.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=9813

Until we get it through our heads that a Three Party system is impossible until and unless the above features of our present electiral system are addressed and changed, our best chance is to find concensus among all TRUE prgressives in order to unseat and disempower the other side.

TC

[welshTerrier2]

3. great message; very tough to do though ...

perfect tone ... perfect!!

first, this exact same message needs to be put before the key factions within the Democratic Party ... we all have our differences whether inside or outside the party ... if we could all become a positive force for change by unifying, it would be great ...

but there are severe roadblocks ...

the first is that it is not clear there is any willingness on behalf of our elected leaders or those at the top of the party to fight for a real "town meeting" ... look at CT ... we had to fight for what we won ... instead of having a sit down and a real exchange of ideas, it came to war ... not a good sign ... maybe the results will change that now ...

so job one is to call for meaningful reform inside the party so that average folks can get a real say on policy and strategy ... reform, reform and more reform is the message ... and no one is talking about that at all ... it's terrible ... when was the last time your Senators came to a public, free forum near you? mine NEVER do ...

and then you get the polarized divide between Dems and Greens ... it's a very, very tough issue ... more than anything else, i think Greens believe Dems have sold out to the big corporations ... they see a party that is "part of empire" and part of the military-industrial complex ... they believe that ALL of the Democratic Party's machinery is invested in a massive pro-defense infrastructure ... what exactly would a Green do as a Democrat? they might be calling for a 75% cut in the defense budget ... is it reasonable to expect a compromise with Democrats to say even 25%? the sad answer is "No" ... many Greens I've spoken to see Dems as nowhere, i mean absolutely nowhere, on environmental concerns ... Dems proudly announce their concern about global warming ... they oppose drilling in the ANWR ... well, that's fine ... Greens agree ... but Greens want much greater changes ... many of them are "anti-auto" ... i ran a thread about restricting the use of autos ... i was called things i had to look-up ...

so, there are real concerns on the issues themselves ... i think many Greens just can't see a reason to invest in the Democratic Party ... they're sick of the "lesser of the evils" ... they've crossed a line and decided to stop supporting "evils" ...

and this doesn't mean that temporary coalitions could not be formed ... Greens could still vote for Democrats, and vice versa, where appropriate ... the whole idea of those supporting third parties is to gain power, and visibility, by offering themselves as a "temporary coalition" ... effective? not so far ... ever? who knows ... the system is stacked against them ...

and that's another thing ... Greens see both major parties excluding them from debates and passing laws about signatures and money that stack the deck against them ... they see this as a form of tyranny ... if Democrats keep passing laws, with republican support, that discriminate against third parties, it's hard to extend a meaningful olive branch ...

but i really liked your post and your message and your tone ... i think it is a very welcome appeal to broaden the progressive wing of the party ... i only wish there were better ways to "negotiate" our differences and work toward compromise ... the sales pitch about "join us first" and maybe we can work together is DOA ... i think it has to start with specific issues and specific candidates and regular forums to negotiate in ...

you're off to a great start ... you've got a few billion miles to go ...

k&r !!

[acmavm]

4. wT2, you confused me. You said that ...

<snip>

...they've crossed a line and decided to stop supporting "evils".

<snip>

How is that? They know that their candidates draw votes from the democratic runner (at least have so far). So knowing that, they know that they are ensuring the defeat of the dem. How is that not supporting one side against the other?

[welshTerrier2]

5. but they don't see it like that ...

at least not the Greens I've spoken to ...

Democrats like to say things like Greens are "throwing away their votes" or "they're just helping republicans" ...

the Greens I talk to (i'm not one btw) don't argue that there is "no difference between the parties", they argue that, in the end, both parties are totally in bed with big corporations and that our government has been sold to the highest bidders ... they argue that by voting for EITHER PARTY, you are expressing your support for a system that is totally corrupt ... they argue that the only path to change, even if it takes forever, is to live, and vote, by example ... they argue that until political parties fight for the average citizen rather than the special interests, nothing will change ...

you argue that they are "ensuring the defeat of the Dem" ... they don't see it that way ... my guess is that they hope to grow powerful enough to have the Dems come to them and offer something in compromise to fulfill a part of their agenda ... if Dems see that they need Green support or they will have their defeat "ensured", the hope, i believe, is that Dems will seek some common ground on one or more issues ... will it ever happen here? again, who knows ...

i can tell you i did all i could in 2004 to convince Greens to vote for Kerry ... i can be very persuasive ... i made a very strong case over and over and over ... i didn't change a single mind of any Green I spoke to ... they see the parties as different but still two sides of the same coin ... it's a really tough sell ...

[acmavm]

14. It's not that I don't understand their position, I really do. They

are taking what the see to be a stand on principals.

When I was young I sacrificed a hell of a lot just because I was took a principaled position and believe me, I stuck to it. No matter if it was to my advantage of not, that's exactly what I did. And I can sit here today and say that while I feel really good about SOME of my decisions, some of them ended up kicking me in the ass. That's why I agree with you, comprimise is necessary if not imperative.

But the Greens that I know are like the ones you seem to know. And like I was when I was young. I always told myself conscience was EVERYTHING. Little did I know that I didn't have all the answers, I was not all knowing and all seeing, and everything on this planet did not revolve around what made me feel good or what I felt was best.

Good luck with you plan. You'll need it.

[welshTerrier2]

21. i think we have to be careful here ...

if we're too quick to paint third party voters as "voting on principles", too many quickly migrate to criticisms like "selfish", or "purist" or "non-pragmatic" ...

too many quickly jump to negative stereotypes ...

i think the whole modus operandi of third party voters is "compromise" ... too many Dems don't see this ... the problem third party voters have, and many on the progressive left in the Democratic Party, is that nobody is offering any compromises ... they, and we, are cut out of the decision making process ...

it's wrong to paint the progressive left, regardless of party, as intolerant and inflexible ... if winning their support is a goal, and for some it is not, you can't start off with that attitude ... third party voters do not see themselves as rigidly adhering to an ideology ... they consider the politics and the pragmatics of the situation they're facing ... they just reach different conclusions than we have ...

the argument is that it is not at all practical or pragmatic to continue to "just go along" with a party that gives you absolutely no voice and no representation ... sounds pretty practical to me ... and the cheerleaders who argue "yeah, but what have you really won" miss the point ... at least they are banding together with people of similar beliefs ... they are the "seeds" and the pioneers ... is there a guarantee they will someday become an effective political force? of course not ... but to say it's impractical makes no sense at all ... they are "going towards where they hope someday to arrive" ... it certainly doesn't make any practical sense to remain somewhere you don't want to be ...

again, i'm not making a case for third parties ... i strongly agree with the OP that all progressives would benefit from more cooperation and communication ... the only way that will be productive is to start with some fundamental respect for our differences ...

[LynneSin]

6. We need a Green Wing of the democratic party

Look, on paper we're pretty much on the same team living under the same tent even if we have plenty of opinions variation.

Ultimately we want to fight the corruption and send to DC the type of politicians that remember the people not the power.

The Green Party serves no purpose other than to divide the left. Ned Lamont should be proof that we can work together to get quality candidates on the ballot instead of relying on republican money & fake signatures for your candidate.

I don't know what else to say

[Stinky The Clown]

7. Lynn, you and I agree on a lot ......

..... and on this post of yours, I again agree. But only with the facts, not the opinion.

Results and history aside, I think we need to take the Greens at face value. The 'purpose' of the Greens isn't divide the left. It is to influence the left.

For me, I'd rather confine my quarrel to their 2000 candidate. The rank and file Green supporter or party member is likely as fair and honest as I'd lkike to believe I am myself. I can deal with a perosn like that.

[LynneSin]

10. So tell me what they have influenced

:shrug:

Taking Republican Money and putting candidates in races with democrats who are just as liberal shows they serve no purpose other than attention grabbing stunts that give them some quick publicity.

But never once have I seen any major change where those involved say "And thanks to the Green Party"

You're not going to change anything until you win a few offices and last time I checked how many offices do Green Party people hold?

[Luminous Animal]

12. At least 220.

At least 220 Greens in 28 states and the District of Columbia hold elected office as of early July 2006.

http://www.feinstein.org/greenparty/electeds.html

[mainegreen]

18. 1 green in our state house, and he's a needed swing vote.

It's forces many a compromise here. Our school board is 4 green to 5 dem. Through manuevering they forced the opt-out military policy to an opt-in policy.

Of course there is no republican party in my city. It's a two party system: Green and democrat.

[OnionPatch]

8. I think you make a lot of sense

I almost registered Green a few years back because I really identify with their positions more so than the modern Democratic party. However, what you said was right and I saw that back then. So I registered Dem and got to work with the local party. I was amazed....almost everyone I met there was doing the same thing as me! So I think there's hope. And as soon as we get ourselves out of this GOP-control nightmare, the next thing on the list is Instant Runoff Voting. If that succeeds we can all finally register according to whatever our hearts tell us.

[mainegreen]

9. A lot of us Greens ARE Dems for national votes.

I vote pretty much straight dem for anything national. But I have no intention of changing my party affiliation. Why? Because I care tremendously about local politics, at the school board and water district level! Thats where a tremendous difference between democrats and green candidates come out. I am a green, not a democrat. It's just that I don't see there as being a national role for us. Lets be honest, we're not really a national type party. Half the people in our party see it more as a vehicle for protest action as a political machine. I think you will find it hard to get us to join the democratic party.

But you are right in preaching reaching out as opposed to the vitriolic nonsense spouted by some members of this board and of the democratic party. If you court us with flowers as opposed to rants about how we steal votes (as if anyone other than me owns my vote) you might find more of will agree to vote democratic nationally, and even compromise our votes to ensure no republican wins. I emphasize compromise as that's what it is. Its just that you must meet us part way. Demands and screams for votes don't work. If more people take the tone and method you take, I think you will find more success than by having a hissy fit.

Nice post.
:grouphug:

[Luminous Animal]

11. I am not sure I am up for this discussion...

but here goes.

I am a Green Party member because I have always been an alternative party member. Why? Because the Democratic platform does not do it for me. It is weak on economic justice, weak on labor, weak on the environment, and becoming weaker on reproductive rights. There are many individual Democrats that I admire both nationally and locally and many I have voted for but the party, as a whole, has ceded too much power to the wholly rightwing propaganda created "center". If Democrats truly desired to work in coalition with Greens, then they would be working with us for electoral reform (succinctly illustrated in post #2 here .... http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2773710&mesg_id=2773748 ). And yet, based on my experience in San Francisco during the fight for Instant Runoff Voting, the Democratic party actively fights against bringing 3rd parties to the table. Third parties can only work in coalition when they are in the position to wield political power.

[Stinky The Clown]

13. I'm going to wait a bit for others to weigh in on this thread ... but ....

... I want to highlight you closing sentence: "Third parties can only work in coalition when they are in the position to wield political power."

A 'third party' by definition, is an opposition party. An 'opposition party' is, by definition, adversarial.

It is my view (and that's what it is ... my own personal view and no more or less accurate than anyone else's) that there won't be much in the way of political power until you're on the inside.

That said, imagine your numbers when you form an internal coalition with the left of the Dem Party .......

Anyway .... I prefer to wait a bit before weighing in.

[Luminous Animal]

15. I disagree

In most other democracies, third parties are seen as possible coalition parties. And it is in that capacity that smaller parties are able to wield power. For example, a parlaiment being comprised of the following proportions: 38% Democrat, 32% Republican, 15% Green, 15% Christian Coalition. The Dems are working towards some sort of reform, the Greens (the Dem's logical allies) do not think it goes far enough. This forces the Dems to negotiate with the Greens. The most pragmatic outcome, of course, is that they reach a compromise.

There is near zero political power afforded a caucus under the Democratic wing given our current 2 party political domininance. Once Greens are subsumed under the Democratic mantle, there would be zero initiative for the Dems to take any of the Greens platform seriously. Or even view them as a political threat in any way and thus enable the Greens to exact concessions. As an example, see how little clout the Congressional Black Caucus has.

[Totally Committed]

16. Our form of "democracy" (it really isn't...) doesn't allow for "coalition"

Parties. So, all that happens is the Greens end up splitting off the Democratic Party vote. If we could get rid of the Electoral College (see my post upthread), we could, perhaps form those Left Coalitions that would benefit both Parties.

TC

[welshTerrier2]

17. the CBC ... that's a very interesting example ...

i'm probably more of a socialist than anything else ... i am fiercely opposed to the insanity in Iraq ... i couldn't be more disgusted with the tap-dancing we've seen from Democrats in the Senate ... i do not feel that the top tier of the party represents my deepest beliefs ...

and yet, i'm a Democrat ... i don't criticize third party voters at all ... i respect them ... people need to make their own decisions ... frankly, if this war business (pun intended) doesn't change very, very soon, i will be casting a vote or two outside the straight ticket ...

and i have no issues whatsoever with the "coalition" argument that for me sits at the core of third party political strategy ... if you have no representation in one party, it makes no sense at all to endlessly support their candidates ...

on the other hand, let's take a realistic poke or two at your example of the CBC ... i don't know what you think of John Conyers but i think he's the real deal ... check this out: http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/index.html

and perhaps you see him as a really good guy with zero power ... ahhhhh, but therein lies the rub ... Conyers, IF the Dems take back the House, could become Chairman of the Judiciary Committee ... and that is some serious bona fide power ...

there are endless problems in all political parties ... for far too long, the wrong sorts of politics have poisoned the Democratic Party ... and the changes we may be on the brink of will not reflect the kinds of radical change i believe we desperately need ... the OP makes a strong point though ... even absent the "platform you prefer", there are many of us all up and down a continuum who need to find a way to work together ... and sometimes that work should clearly involve tipping the scales in the Democrats' direction ... this does not mean Greens should "become" Democrats necessarily or register as Dems; it means that party labels should not prevent us from working together and sometimes voting the same way ...

i wonder how many Democrats would vote for a Green here and there if Greens would vote for Democrats in key races ... we need to get beyond the Democratic Party cheerleaders on DU to have a more sober discussion on this ... otherwise, all we'll hear is a steady stream of Nader insults ... not much productive, or progressive, about that ...

[Luminous Animal]

24. RE: the CBC ... that's a very interesting example ...

on the other hand, let's take a realistic poke or two at your example of the CBC ... i don't know what you think of John Conyers but i think he's the real deal ... check this out: http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/index.html

and perhaps you see him as a really good guy with zero power ... ahhhhh, but therein lies the rub ... Conyers, IF the Dems take back the House, could become Chairman of the Judiciary Committee ... and that is some serious bona fide power ...

I am a great admirer of Conyers. I think he has done most of the important work as an opposition party member during than any other member of Congress. But, time will tell about how much political sway he and the CBC will have in a Democratic congress. In any case, one person's ascendence to a position of power probably will not result in the Democratic party making coalition deals with progressive Democrats or Greens.

[welshTerrier2]

26. "one person's ascendence"

that's certainly true that no coalition deals are likely to result anytime soon ...

i would only argue that getting a guy like Conyers into such a key position could go a long way to fighting back against corporate tyranny ... and maybe a bit more justice for those of us in favor of such things ...

look, i'm kind of in the same boat you are ... would i actually vote for a candidate i don't like just to get Conyers into a key role? my real answer is that if my own party keeps voting for the damned war, and they have (at least in the Senate), i cannot vote for those who do ... i mean, at some point, you have to draw a line ...

[KaptBunnyPants]

23. True enough, but Green strategy is disheartening...

I agree completely that Democrats ought to come on board to proportional representation, or at do something about the broken electoral system which defines our country's political process. I have more specific complaints, like running a candidate against Ned Lamont. Lieberman is one of the most vile examples of pro-war "Democrats" who have been running the Party in years past; of all the issues I thought there would be consensus between liberal Democrats and Greens it would be for the need to remove him from office. Lamont, on the other hand, wants to with drawl troops from Iraq, create a universal health care system, and believes in fair trade. He may not be perfect, but he does represent movement in the right direction for the Party, something which I thought the Green Party would encourage.

And of course there is Casey. I can understand running a campaign against Casey, he doesn't well represent my politics either from what I understand of his platform. I just don't know why the Green Party would be working with the Republican Party on the campaign. Santorum's people are all but entirely funding the effort, and they are ones who collected the signatures for his ballot petition. I just don't know how good people can associate themselves with a known psychopath like Rick Santorum.

[inthebrain]

51. The Liberals in the Green Party VS the Liberals in the Dem party

are two entirely different animals.

The difference is the Dem Liberal is willing to tolerate some war vs the Green Liberals will not tolerate any wars. I am pretty active in the Green party and lend support to some Democrats I think are worthy candidates. I don't particularly buy the Democrat platform on some issues.

I'll support Lamont to kick Lieberman's ass. I think that's a step in the right direction just as I supported Kerry.

As far as the Greens poaching Democratic voters I haven't seen much of that. In the campaigns I've worked on we've focused on the traditional non-voters. Greens are not trying to grab Democrats and make the Greens. Greens are out to build their own party with their own set of voters.

Dems and Greens are two different animals but Greens do not endorse the Republican manner of attacking Democrats. Greens will critize Democrats for endorsing right to work laws, Welfare Reform, NAFTA and Taft Hartley. Republicans will go after Democats on stupid issues like screwing interns rather than the issues.

You are more likely to recieve constuctive critisism from a Green.

[LWolf]

19. Friends.

Of course, I'm not a Green. I never have been. I spent my entire career as a voter as an independent, until '03, when I joined common cause with Democrats to oust GWB.

I still have that D next to my name. As somewhat of an outsider, I can tell you that I am less happy with the Democratic Party since I became one than I was before. While I never got to participate in primaries, most of my general election votes went to Democrats, with some 3rd party votes thrown in.

If I were to pick the party with the platform that best represents me, it would be the Green party, without any competition. I'm happy to work with Greens to get the best candidates, Dem or not, elected. The biggest issue, frankly, I'd like to work with them on would be the dismantling of the 2- party system you refer to. Without the narrow holding of power this creates, I think we'd get more honest representation, regardless of party.

I haven't left the Democratic Party behind, but I'm an "issues before party" person. I'm still here, and will be happy to reach across the aisle to work with the "party before issues" Democrats when that work directly benefits issues. This last statement leaves me with an "aha," which I will put in another response, since my 'puter won't upload any more than a few paragraphs at a time.

[LWolf]

22. "Aha."

I'm an educator. My "aha" sees a professional parallel. Interestingly, I'm on the opposite side of the fence, so to speak, professionally and politically. Not the D/R-L/C fence, though.

Education is a political profession. There is as much polarity in education as politics, and it's not a coincidence. How about the "phonics/whole language" wars...it tends to be polarized between the "phonics is the only right way" and "whole language is the only right way" camps. In reality, those are political buzzwords that have very little to do with instructional methodology, and everything to do with the conservative(phonics)/progressive (whole language) divide, although this is a gross simplification.

These days, under the NCLB gun, we give many ed theories, practices, and methodologies new labels, but they come from the same folks, the same divide. Hence "direct instruction." A new, nice label. A methodology that says kids don't pick anything up without being directly told. They'd never figure out that 2+2 and 3+1 were the same thing, if the teacher didn't point it out. Direct instruction, while a necessary part of teaching, is also, when "mandated," a political weapon to make sure that inquiry and higher-level thinking doesn't happen. Obviously, I'm not a fan of the current focus on "direct instruction," although I've always included it in my repertoire for use when necessary and appropriate.

Politically, though, I'm on the other side of the fence. I don't want to hear that if I just make sure that everyone in congress has a "d" next to their name, that somehow the issues will solve themselves. I want direct action and focus on issues.

This may not make any sense to any but the educators out there, but it helps me. It helps me to understand, if not agree with, the other side of the political and professional fence, and to see if we can't find some common ground to meet on.

[theanarch]

20. The real problem here is our "winner-take-all"...

...electoral system, which artifically compresses choice to an overly simplistic "either-or" proposition...which is all fine and good, so long as that choice is meaningful (a genuinely liberal Democratic Party v. a genuinely conservative Republican Party). Sadly, this is NOT the case at present, and hasn't been, ever since the DLC became the majority faction within the Democratic Party.
WT2 (post #5) comes closest to describing the actual nature of the Green-DP divide; to illustrate it further, consider how each side views the CT senate race:

To Democrats, Lamont is a liberal, a progressive, taking back the party for the people, from the kinds of corporate/ideological interests represented by Leiberman. For Greens, Lamont is simply the third Republican in the race: the "official" GOP nominee (Schlesinger (sp?)--so inconsequential that no one knows what his platform is); the preferred-by-the-WH Republican (Leiberman); and a Chafee-like moderate Republican (Lamont--who was a registered Republican until a year ago). To many here, the differences between Lamont and the Green candidate may seem microscopic; but apart from the occupation of Iraq (and note that Lamont is far closer to Lieberman's support for Israel's war on Lebanon, than Greens who are far more opposed to it), and (presumably) most 'social' issues, the ECONOMIC differences are quite significant. To cite just two issues: Lamont supports a modest increase in the minimum wage--one the Chamber of Commerce can live with; Greens support a living wage--one that working people can actually live on. Lamont favors an employer-based, for-profit health insurance system; Greens support a universal (e.g., if you have a job or not), non-profit, single-payer system (which is actually more business-friendly). I'm not making any value judgements here, but simply suggesting this is the gap that has to be bridged for there to be any serious rapproachment between the DP and Greens. And as long as the DP is a corporate-subsidized Party, that isn't likely to happen.

One final note: for those who contend (or demand) that Greens automatically defer to ANY Democrat in ANY election, i would suggest you're missing a more important point about Green candidacies (yes, even Romanelli's in Pa): a friend once commented that, historically speaking, liberals are at their best when challenged from the Left (as they were in the 1930's and '40's--when we got the New Deal out of them; and again in the 1960's and early '70's, when we got civil rights and a host of other reforms out of them); and at their worst when challenged by the Right (as they were in the 1950's, when they went along with the Red Scare, the cold war, and segregation; and since the 1980's, when they abandoned the legislation of the New Deal, and the "have-not" constituancies that benefited from it). Something to think about...

[Stinky The Clown]

32. For me, your 'final note' says a lot

"...... liberals are at their best when challenged from the Left."

Today's Greens have a bona fide independent organization and an in-place infrastructure. That's serious stuff. I don't care how little or how much it is. It simply 'is' and it got candidates on the national ballot for the US Presidency in most jusrisdictions.

That's an admirable and enviable amount of horsepower. But it isn't (and likely never will be) enough to challenge two deeply entrenched national parties.

From my view, I'd like to see the Greens use those same independent resources to come into the Democratic Party as full partners and challenge the Democrats to move to even more progressivity.

I get that Ned Lamont is not your ideal candidate. And that's fine. No argument from me. But what is encouraging to Democrats -and ought to be encouraging to the Greens - is that he *did* mount a credible and utlimately successful challenge to a big name, high powered, well entrenched Dem of national prominence. Had Greens been a part of the Democratic Party, they would have had a serious say in whether it was Lamont or someone else. I don't know who would have won, but it would have been good for everyone. Lamont gave voice to the strongly anti Iraq War constituency in the Dem Party. And until he came on the scene, few others were able to do that. And now we see the full weight of the party - a few renegade refusals notwithstanding (Salazar, Akaka, Pryor, you listening?) - to his candidacy. He and his anti Iraq War views have been legitimized and at least by inference, endorsed.

I see the Greens as having more power to effect some change in the Democratic Party than they think they do. And I see a party that is open to listening. Some may listen while kicking and screaming the whole way .... but at least they're listening. That's kmore than can be said of the party even a few short months ago.

Someone in another thread about avoiding a purge but working for change (I know who I'm speaking about here) said we need to strike while the iron's hot.

The iron is hot.

I would ***welcome*** the day when I can, for all the world, and keeping my current views fully intact, be seen as a moderate to conservative Democrat instead of a lefty loon as I am now seen. The Greens might be able to help me meet that goal.

[theanarch]

40. a lot to reply to, and not much time...

...so here's the Cliff Notes version: first, thank you for a thoughtful and articulate response; whenever the subject of Greens pops up, too many here freak out...in many ways, the GP has become a kind of Instant Denial Service for Democrats: instead of examining the structural deficiencies in the Party (its corporatism, militarism, renunciation of its liberal/New Deal roots, abandonment of the working class, the working poor and the poor as valued constituancies, its less-than-admirable environmental record, etc), it's much easier to scapegoat Greens for most, if not all, the DP's problems. Unfortunately, this seems to be the biggest effect Greens have on Democrats.

As for the more positive role Greens could have vis a vis the DP, there's Norman Thomas and the Socialist Party of the 1930's and '40's: Thomas never came within 35 or 50 million votes of becoming president, but virtually all of his Party's platform found its way into law...albeit in a watered-down, made-acceptable-to-Wall St. kind of way. Were the Democrats willing to steal our platform and ideas, and make a reasonable attempt to legislate them, i think most Greens would be satisfied (if not necessarily pleased) with that much. Again, most Democrats don't have the stomach, or intelligence, for even that little. In this context, i believe Greens do Democrats a better service OUTSIDE the DP than WITHIN it--where we would be marginalized and ignored, much as the congressional Black Caucus, Hispanic Caucus and Progressive Caucus are. It IS our very independence that gives us whatever influence we may (or may not) have.

None of this argues against Greens cutting deals with genuinely progressive Democrats regarding electoral contests. I know for a fact that Greens have formally presented the DP with such proposals (e.g. Greens tacitly supporting acceptable Democrats in competitive races; and Democrats tacitly supporting Greens in non-competitive races against GOPs)--hell, it's what Nader has been trying to do in ALL of his presidental campaigns (i know, heard him say it himself on more than one occasion)...and the DNC has ALWAYS refused to acknowledge that such offers were made, much less taking them seriously as a basis for mutual accomodation. It isn't only Republicans who have a "you're either with us or your with the enemy" mentality; this mindset adequately describes the opinion most Democrats have of Greens, and accounts for much of the animosity between the two.

Again, thanks for the objective, constructive post.

[Luminous Animal]

25. I'd like to take a moment.

And thank everyone in this discussion for being completely civil.

:)

[welshTerrier2]

27. that figures ...

i was just waiting for one of you stupid Greens to get all sappy ... sheesh ...

i mean, um, er, yes, i've enjoyed our discussion ...

[Totally Committed]

29. You are very welcome...

This is something that really needs to be sorted out.

TC

[Tom Joad]

28. so you hate Nader more than you hate Bush and his war.

Got your priorities right. NOT

It is hard for those of us who care about peace in the Middle East that every Democrat in the Senate has stood by in support of US/Israeli bombing of Lebanon.

It is hard for us when it took years for Kerry to say he was wrong in not opposing the Iraq war in the first place. And still only calls for partial withdrawal by the end of this year, rather than full withdrawal.

It was wrong of Gore to stand silently as Clinton bombed targets in Iraq, called for "regime change" and supported deadly sanctions.

It was wrong for them to support the corporatization of the media (telecommunication act). The ending of economic rights of poor people by signing the welfare "reform" law.

It was wrong when the Dems supported corporate power at the expense of workers rights by supporting the WTO and Nafta and so on.

[Totally Committed]

30. So, are you ready to talk all this over and see if we can't find a way

to get the Greens and the Dems on the same page???

I am a Dem, and I agree with 99% of things you cite as wrong in your post. Doesn't that mean we have a lot in common? I think it does! Let's talk about this rationally and see if we can't get a few things (at least) worked out.

TC

[welshTerrier2]

31. same here ...

i agreed with that whole list ...

here's one of mine: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2740194#2740509

it's totally satirical but it does represent some of the critical changes i think we need ... the likelihood of seeing these changes called for by either party anytime soon is probably pretty close to zero ...

i'd be especially interested to know what Greens think of my "Top 10" list ...

[Luminous Animal]

36. It's a lovely dream.

Even I'm not that crazy! :)

[Luminous Animal]

35. There are things that we can work on.

On the grassroots level, of course. And the best place to start is on the local level.

1) Wresting corporate influence in elections.
2) Expanding representation through electoral reform.
3) Allowing 3rd parties into electoral debates.

I doubt if even 1% of the people on this board would disagree with any of the above three. And they are all part of the Green Party agenda and yet the Democratic party has fought all three.

[Tom Joad]

37. We can talk together. I don't hate Dems. We can work together.

But don't expect me to send $$ to a Senator who just voted to supported Bush/Olmert's plans in Lebanon (that would be all 100 of them).

We can protest together, hold candlelight vigils together. We can work for Bush's impeachment. We can protest the Iraq war and praise those that resist it.

But i'm gonna vote for Todd for Senate. He is a good candidate (where many green candidates are not)
http://www.todd4senate.org/

And you should too, I think the Republican may come in third, here.

[Totally Committed]

38. He sounds good -- And Cindy endorses him, too...

What's not to like? I agreed with 100% of his stated goals on his website, too.

TC

[Stinky The Clown]

39. Now you see ......

.... you plug Todd Chretien admirably. But you lose some people before you even start to talk with that first line. IT isn't the sentiment. Its the tone.

As for Todd ..... from his web site here are hbis essential positions:

Bring the Troops Home NOW | Abolish the USA Patriot Act | Build Schools Not Jails | Create Decent Jobs with Union Rights | Defend Abortion Rights | End the Death Penalty and Three Strikes | Equal Rights for Immigrants | Legalize Gay Marriage | National Health Care | Punish Corporate Polluters | Raise Taxes on the Richest 1%

I can get behind them 100%. Indeed, at one time or another I have advocated for every one of them.

[Totally Committed]

41. Agree with these 100%:

Bring the Troops Home NOW | Abolish the USA Patriot Act | Build Schools Not Jails | Create Decent Jobs with Union Rights | Defend Abortion Rights | End the Death Penalty and Three Strikes | Equal Rights for Immigrants | Legalize Gay Marriage | National Health Care | Punish Corporate Polluters | Raise Taxes on the Richest 1%

TC

[Stinky The Clown]

33. If you agree to eliminate the vitriol, I'll talk to you.

If you won't, I won't.

I said in my OP that if you want a flame war to start your own thread. I have been civil to everyone who's posted here and the posters have been civil to each other.

Don't spoil that.

[philly_bob]

34. I'd love a Green Wing in Democratic Party! /nt

[NMDemDist2]

42. historically speaking, that has been the power of third parties

to make one of the major parties change their platforms to incorporate the 3rd party issues. The Greens and the Dems are a good match, we have a long history of Environmental support. the Greens would just make it more "front and center"

I, for one, would welcome them wholeheartedly

here's an interesting timeline of 3rd party politics in the US

http://www.edgate.com/elections/inactive/the_parties/

[Stinky The Clown]

44. That middle column is interesting .......

... and kinda makes the case against third parties.

I note, too, that the Greens are not even mentioned.

[theanarch]

46. an utterly useless list...

...where is the Socialist Party of Eugene Debs and Norman Thomas? The Progressive Party? The Populist Party? Strom Thurmond's State's Rights Party? George Wallace's American Independent Party? Hell, the original GOP began as a third party...and yes, where are those universally despised/hated/scapegoated Greens? Oh, and (hope you're all sitting down) where's the Communist Party?

[petgoat]

43. Why should Greens be a Green Wing

when, with instant runoff voting, they could have their cake and
eat it too?

Green party candidates could then speak with the authority
of their millions of votes, but those votes wouldn't be thrown away. Democrats and Republicans might cast their 1-st round
votes for Greens too. The reality of a true opposition
might help make Dems honest. Too few of them today are
willing to embrace controversy and take on the Bush regime.
Feingold couldn't even get support for a censure resolution.

[Zodiak]

45. An excellent thread

I voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 out of Wichita Falls, TX. I knew what I was doing, but I wanted the Greens to have their 5% so they had a voice in future politics.

Why? Because populist lefties had no voice for far too long (although social lefties go to stay at the table). We were ignored by the Democrats and relegated to the far, far fringe. The Republicans made "liberal" a bad word, and the Democrats ran away from the liberal wing because of it (many falling in love with Reagan), so this country went right-wing for 20 years straight. At least economically.

The idea of helping the little guy died and did not seem to be coming back to the Democratic party, which was writing legislation to destroy some of the underpinnings of fairness in our system. Voting Green in 2000 was a wake-up call to the party that had embraced the DLC enthusiastically as the ONLY political voice.

I knew Bush was going to suck because I was from Texas, but I had no idea he was going to be THIS bad.

On my own and without the infuence of DU or any other Democratic group, I decided that the only way to stop Bush from turning this country into a fascist police state after 9-11 was for me to join with the Democrats fully and work to make them into a true opposition party. Bush had stolen the election, and I expected that the Democrats would be really mad about that and ready to go after him. When I got into the party, I was floored with the vitriol for the Greens and the blame for the election theft. Frankly, it turned me off tremendously how vehemently some spoke out against the Greens without even trying to understand the motives behind their movement. Also, the strategic excuses for right-wing betrayals by the party wore thin with me. But I stayed.

In 2004, everyone I knew who voted for Nader in 2000 voted for John Kerry. There was a REAL attempt at working with the Democratic Party from many Green supporters (Nader aside, who embarassed himself and even ran over the REAL Green party in California), and the result was much the same.

Now, the netroots of the left have risen up within the Democratic party and have struck a blow in the heart of the DLC. If anything, it showed the Democratic party (or at least a wing of it) that they had triangulated too far. The left FINALLY has a voice in the party again after 25 years, and it is growing louder. Now is the perfect time for the Greens to come home if the party is willing to embrace them and their ideas enough to give them a place at the table. That is happening, now, I believe, as the fringe right-wing elements of the party peel off to support Leiberman and isolate themselves (Slazar, Pryor come to mind)

A new wing has opened in the Democratic party....on the left, and I, for one, would welcome the Greens into our little leftie coalition with the CBC, the 30-somethings, and the progressive caucus. As an equal voice in the party, I think we have a chance at being large enough and forceful enough to stop Bush, regain power, and set this country on the right track again.

Thanks for starting this thread, Hubs2Sparkly. I agree with much of what you say, especially the WAY you say it.

[MrBenchley]

47. I have no respect for the Greens

"Americans are simply too impatient and too uninvolved to work to make a viable third party. Its hard work. Too hard for most people."
What a load of malarkey. The plain fact is the Greens are as welcome to voters as an onion fart. Their extremism is out of touch with what Americans want.

"You guys are a credible force. You really are."
On what planet? They got caught in Pennsylvania witht their hand in Dog Sex Ricky's pocketbook. In liberal New York in 2004, they couldn't get enough signatures to get their loony ON the ballot (the Socialist Workers party had no such problem, which says it all)....Who thinks of the Greens as anything but a sour joke?

[Stinky The Clown]

49. "I have no respect for the Greens"

I'm sure they're broken hearted. They've waited years for your endorsement.

Were you on vacation yesterday when this thread hit? Down the shore surfing, maybe? I expected your one note tune in here way earlier.

[MrBenchley]

50. Hey, if you want to suck up to a Republican dirty trick, be my guest

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Wolf]

52. I'd gladly side with Dem. candidates in elections...

I actually plan to vote for some this November, such as Jack Carter in the Senate race (I also despise Ensign, but mostly respect Carter's position on Iraq) as well as Jill Derby in the CD-2 race. I'll also vote the Green candidate Craig Bergland in the Governor's race, especially if Gibson takes the Dem. primary. Like I've said on other posts here, I'll back any progressive Dem. that can help get this country back in order and take out any sick Neo-Con fuckers that may pop up in the Fall.

Will I become a Democrat? I doubt that. Although I respect many Democrats like Conyers, Feingold, and Kucinich, my thought process falls more with the Greens than with the Dems. It's not a hatred of Democrats at all, just a different way of seeing things. The spirit of a Green wing in the Democratic party is one that sounds cool on the surface, but I doubt would be embraced warmly by my Green brothers and sisters for reasons already well explained in prior posts. Democrats trying to negotiate compromises with different state Green parties on key races is a great start. Going out of that...who knows!