Matt Reichel, the Green Party candidate in the special congressional election in Illinois on April 7th, published a diary on OpEdNews.com in which he reviews his experience during the brief special election season and the outcome. Reichel was a Democrat until he had to qualify for the ballot, when he was “recruited” by the Green Party. As such, he offers an interesting oustider perspective on the Green Party and his overall experience.
The transcript from Chicago Tonight is available here (http://www.wttw.com/main.taf?p=42,8,8&vid=040109b) . While I addressed the issues, and talked of the importance of electing an activist congressman in these dire times, Quigley talked about his favorite movies, which emphasize the themes of hope and courage, such as “Dave” and “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.”
I’m not making this stuff up. All of this actually happened.
This performance on Chicago Tonight, coupled with numerous other appearances on Fox, NBC, WGN, ABC, CLTV (the Tribune’s Chicago News station), and the entirety of the Chicago radio news circuit, saw the campaign explode in the final week. Our volunteer core easily doubled, our fundraising picked up enough to eat my debt away to under a $1,000, and more and more news media wanted a piece of the action. We put Matt Reichel signs up in people’s yards throughout the district, Ah the existential crisis, and showed up everywhere we needed to be in order to maximize exposure.
The movement exploded, but unfortunately it was all too little, too late. Running a third party campaign in just 5 weeks in the heart of the machine is no easy task. In the end, we registered an impressive 7.3% across the Chicago part of the district. In three full wards we passed 10% and even beat the Republican in two of them.
Now, if one ranting and raving peace activist with a campaign manager asleep on an inflatable air mattress alongside piles of campaign literature can register over 7% of the vote in just 5 weeks, imagine what could happen if the party had a little organization to it. Imagine if instead of hating the media, we learned to mingle a little with the corporate news hotshots and convinced them that Green is the future! Imagine if instead of always being negative, we were occasionally positive: if we smiled and said, “history is on our side!”
gravel
kucinich
paul
nader
mckinney
(ventura)
Why so secretive? Couldn’t you just tell us what racist remarks were made about Elaine Brown?
Dear Green Ferret,
(I think I know who you are, but I forget.)
If you e-mail me, votewilder at yahoo dot com, I will send you the e-mail in question.
When Brent McMillan wrote the e-mail, that he sent to the GP-US Steering Committee private list, it was one of those carefully crafted things, that if released, would cause Elaine Brown so much harm, she could not really release it to defend herself. It is yucky, nasty inuendo.
But, since you are a green, and you are interested, I would send you a copy of it. It has been published on the national list-serve. It has been in circulation but carefully and respectfully.
One Steering Committee member at the time realized it was unfair, and shared it with the larger body who McMillan and the SC SHOULD be accountable to, but are not, because they play such games of manipulations and secrecy…
That Steering Committee member was then clicked out of communications, removed from Personnel discussions, and eventually bullied out (think she quit..can’t remember.)
Then the SC created a more secretive Personnel Committee, which later allowed McMillan to be anointed “Executive Director” with no accountability or nosy questions from the National Committee.
Talk about “strike while the iron is hot”, McMillan cleverly used the chaos of his own mess to get a promotion. Brilliant maneuvers, really.
That should have been another of my recommendations for reform. Force the Steering Committee to create a fair Personnel Committee, that the NC actually approves of, and has representatives on. Instead of an incestuous faction of the SC trying to create a cloak of absolute secrecy and in-group thinking.
–Green Ferret // Apr 22, 2009 at 7:23 am
What racist remarks were made about Elaine Brown?—
Yes, the IL Green Party is not institutionally capable of providing much support beyond ballot access (which, we should recognize, is nothing to sneeze at…Matt probably would have gotten kicked off the ballot before the primary had he filed as a Dem). Additionally, Green candidates, through a number of established party channels (like meetings, listservs, membership lists, voter data), have access to a pool of people who self-identify as Greens.
As it stands right now, the ILGP can’t as an entity bring these resources together very well and devote them to a specific task. It’s up to the candidate to motivate these people to volunteer, give money, etc.
In the same way that the party institutionally doesn’t offer a lot of direct support, it’s not a hindrance, and is much less of a hindrance than the Democratic and Republican parties. They have a way of preventing reform candidates from getting very far.
Thus all of our more successful candidates are self-made, and they are necessarily going to have to bring new people into the party, and their campaigns are going to be made up of more new people relative to party regulars. Matt did a good job of bringing new people to the campaign and that is a good thing, not a shortcoming.
Finally, there’s this concept that because the party isn’t where it should be, that it needs to get its act together. Well, what is “the party” right now but a collection of volunteers like both me and Matt. We’re all equal members. So Matt has as much of an opportunity/obligation to help improve the party as I do (or anyone else). And I think many people do look to successful candidates like Matt for leadership, and are willing to listen to what he has to say about how we can improve. But what happens more often than not is that candidates just kind of fade away from the scene after they run — instead of bringing their ideas and critiques to others in the party. I hope Matt takes the opportunity to improve the party so that it becomes more capable of supporting a campaign like his — and not just walk away.
What racist remarks were made about Elaine Brown?
Zeleni – thanks for casting some light on the situation in Illinois.
It is not war crimes versus a few e-mails.
Some of the crimes – for which the ones in power at national would have people “bury the hatchet” while they do nothing, make no apology, and carry on – include:
-Writing an inflammatory and racist e-mail about Elaine Brown, which they thought under their “gentleman’s agreement” would go by without detection.
-Throwing out many women from the National Women’s Caucus – kicking people off list-serves, and removing their membership rights as women tried to assert their democratic right to build their own caucus.
-Keeping to this day the wrong people on the roles as the voters in the Black Caucus, so that the clique has more votes, and the real circle of black greens have NO VOICE on the National Committee.
-Discouraging and disorganizing the national Green Pages paper, so that it is a shell of what it once was, and could be.
-Making a “banished forever” proclamation against me, forbidding me from ever being on the national newspaper again, over the wishes of NY. (The reasons alternated between saying I was not competent to I was rude [after two men cursed at me on the list-serve. One of whom has since gone to jail for a spell.])
Burying the hatchet is best done by the people who own the hatchet.
The Illinois Green Party cannot legally donate to congressional candidates because we do not have a federal committee. This is being worked on, but hampered any ability to donate to Reichel. A balance of winnable races (like the Aldermanic race in Urbana where we received nearly 40%) and high profile races (like Reichel’s) is important. Although I wasn’t going to abandon my local races for Reichel, I was glad to provide an individual donation, as were many others.
I think he underestimated the organization as well. We do need to build on that and I hope Reichel sticks around to help.
There’s a big difference between war crimes and a few emails…
Green Ferret:
Below are some quotes that you are either saying, or suggesting that the folks at national think should be followed.
Now, put these same words in the mouths of say the Democratic Party talking to a third party activist, and think about the implications:
“If someone’s writing mean emails, then I’m sorry to hear about it, but there are much more important things to deal with.”
“Do you know what causes volunteers and activists to flee? Bickering.”
“I like your blog…. I see you lashing out at folks without anything to back it up.”
“just bury the hatchet.”
I like the “just bury the hatchet one. I think that is what Obama is saying about Bush and war crimes and torture.
I am not the one who has the hatchet to bury. The hatchet is in the hands of the paid staff and elected Steering Committee at the national GP-US. If there is bickering, or ego, or bad blood, it is their responsibility to try to fix things. They could start with apologies where needed. They could also consider creating a harmonious work environment where volunteers are appreciated. And/or provide actual “Dispute Resolution” instead of sticking that task in a typical, top-down committee that then does not get it done.
Frustration and finger pointing is not unusual after an election. I agree with a lot of the comments here.
However I do want to address the issue of National races versus Local races. True that city councilors and Mayors can’t end the war, but the impact that an elected Green at the local level can have on their community is greatly under-estimated. Local sustainability, land use, ecological restoration, controlling the use of herbicides and pesticides in local water which we drink and in parks where our children play, shining a light of transparency on often closed governments – these are all issues that aren’t as glamorous as universal health care and an end to war, but they improve the communities we live in.
And it is easier to make a difference if you can get elected, and Greens get elected at the local level.
However I fully support Greens who choose to run for Congress and other higher offices, they bring to the table and debate issues the corporate candidates won’t touch and we need that.
My two cents.
If there’s something rotten going on, by all means expose it. If someone’s writing mean emails, then I’m sorry to hear about it, but there are much more important things to deal with.
Do you know what causes volunteers and activists to flee? Bickering. Bickering and personality conflicts that are all about ego. They may once have been about issues, even legitimate issues, but by now they are all about ego.
“Because the issues are so important, we deserve the best leadership, and the best teamwork we can muster. And, that means self-reflection and accountability.”
Yes, I agree with you. Look, I’m just a dude who wants the Greens to succeed. I like your blog and respect the work you put into it. But I’m gonna be honest here: I see you lashing out at folks without anything to back it up. I’m not saying you have nothing to back it up, but if you’re going to accuse people of stuff, you really need to back it up. Or here’s a better idea: just bury the hatchet.
@12
As far as “worker bees” becoming leaders, a lot of the best people don’t want to be leaders. The same is true for a lot of the smartest people. People who are driven to achieve a goal aren’t necessarily personally ambitious, and so leadership roles often fall to those who are, whether or not they actually have any real drive to accomplish the goals set forth by, say, a political party. Such drive is not the same thing as personal ambitions, and not a lot of people have both.
You are looking it from a funny (and defensive) angle.
When Republicrats in Washington are dropping bombs, torturing, assassinating, and writing blank checks…
Should we be so lazy and self-indulgent as to allow the only group who may be able to challenge or stop them, to carry on with its incompetence and/or corruption?
If we understand the importance of the issue at hand, shouldn’t we realize that it is worth correcting and/or firing a few bad apples at national who can’t do their job, or do their job in a way that drags the organization down and causes other activists and volunteers to flee?
Your argument, Green Ferret, reminds me something of what I used to hear in churches a lot. The mission is so important, we should all act like Jesus, so don’t criticize the Pastor when he… (creates a slush fund, makes undemocratic decisions, is mean to the organist, refuses to assist the Ladies Aid), etc.
The fact is that it is a struggle. And, in the struggle we should all reflect on our own actions, and expect the people and organizations around us to act with integrity.
Because the issues are so important, we deserve the best leadership, and the best teamwork we can muster. And, that means self-reflection and accountability.
When Republicrats in Washington are dropping bombs, torturing, assassinating, and writing trillion-dollar blank checks to their corporate paymasters, is it really a priority to spend so much time exposing how GPUS staffers write nasty emails?
On Matt Reichel –
I tend to agree with the analysis that part of the problem was that Reichel was primarily a Dem who switched to use our line, and did not understand how it was going to work.
That happens a lot, with Dems and with new candidates, that their expectations are confused.
Though, I think that the national party should have learned by now better ways to communicate and/or compromise when that particular misunderstanding happens.
And, by the way, the thing where someone yells at Brent McMillan, McMillan handles it poorly, and then things get hairy, is a pattern.
It is kind of what happened at the Pennsylvania annual meeting, when a local green got frustrated, yelled at Brent, Brent ignored him and ran upstairs to the meeting, until they both got so mad the “calling the police incident” began…
(And, at the time, the person’s main problem was with the Media Director, and the staff overall.)
So, that is two times when Brent should have been wise enough to: solve the problem, listen better and/or call for backup. (Pick one.)
If Brent could not solve the Matt Reichel web problem – which I believe he may not have been able to do – then there should have been a way to suggest to Reichel the correct person or path to make his case.
Instead, McMillan handled it poorly and left an open wound, that spilled out into bad press at Op Ed News for the GP-US.
I thought Matt Reichel was a good candidate, and I hope he stays active with the Green Party.
I agree with Mike Indiana, that Reichel probably overestimated the amount of resources that the state and national GPs had to offer. Someone should have told him when he switched: if you want something done in the GP, best to do it yourself.
His article may seem harsh, but his criticism of the Kucinich campaign and “progressive democrats” were just as harsh, if not more so.
If activists like Matt roll up their sleeves and get to work organizing the Greens in Chicago, they can build the GP into Chicago’s second party. If this election were any indication, the GOP is more and more becoming a club for xenophobic right-wingers.
An effective challenge to the machine will come from the grassroots up, not the top down.
Why the GP-US fails comment:
I did want to point out that Michael Cavlan mentioned some folks that did a lot of work in GP-US, but just got discouraged.
And, I wanted to say…
A lot of the problem is the structure of the party. It is not supportive of new people (very cliquish, and there are these founders that keep in close). And, it has strains or white privilege/racism (those in charge subconsciously think their judgments about black people trying to get work done are true. So, on a one-one-one basis, they only pick black people to work with who are trying to “pass.”) And, there is underlying sexism. So, women are treated with some respect. Until the women want to be independent leaders, or change the pecking order.
But…
Some folks inside the party ruin it for themselves. Or, make it worse.
Some of the people who were the worker bees, were working for the wrong people. And, believing the flattery, etc. on their way to get co-opted. So, some of the worker bees, if they had more confidence would have A. Become the leaders and B. Taken more moral stands to thwart bad guys and bolster up and coming leaders.
Just my two cents.
Because, there are people that got burnt out inside GP-US, who if they took time to learn and heal wounds, could start the next, good thing…
“While I addressed the issues, and talked of the importance of electing an activist congressman in these dire times, Quigley talked about his favorite movies, which emphasize the themes of hope and courage”
To be fair, the moderator asked them to tell her something noone would know by reading their homepage, or something to that effect. So actually, Quigley answered the question and Reichel strayed. Now, why in damnation the moderator should want to know that in your spare time you knit sweaters for your cat, is certainly a valid question. But the fault lies with the moderator and not with Quigley. He stayed on topic there.
I found this part most instructive of Matt’s tale.
————————————————————
While the rank and file helped the best they could, the party [Green Party] gave me not one dime and were reluctant to provide organizational support: I had to engage in the email version of a shouting match with National Green Party Political Director Brent McMillan in order to get a link placed for our campaign on the party website. Brent obviously comes from the cooky strand of Greens that believe all resources should be dispensed on local races, because somehow we are going to “make war obsolete” as alderman of the middle of nowhere.
———————————————————–
Matt has come face to face with what I have observed as well. There is a strand of the GP that seems to think that ONLY small, local races should be mounted. Now while there is some understandable rational to this, the simple fact is that some in the GPP seem determined to ONLY run races for City Council, Dog Catcher etc etc. As Matt points out, these kinds of races will not address the big issues, like war funding, Impeachment, Healthcare, Enviornmental crisis etc etc.
To believe that strategically to build from the ground up is commendable. But to actually block or attempt to block political races that challenge the pro-war corporate corrupted two party system on the national level is unforgiveable.
I have heard this logic on growing the Green party before.
From Democrats. Enough said.
As a side bar, it is fascinating. There is another thread where those of us who have left the GP is continueing. A real old fashioned debate. Without censorship of any kind.
Yet with out any of those who still believe in the GP National saying anything. Even after they had said “well Cavlan, make your points. tell us what problems you (and others) have with the GP.
It had been said by one of the Green Meanies that we “dissenters” were just complainers, with no good ideas to put forward.
That is and has been patently false. In fact, our message was crystal clear.
Not disenfranchising Nader supporters and others will ensure that this party can grow and remain sustainable. Because many of these people (like Danene Provencher from Minnesota or Kat Woods from California) have been the worker bees, doing the very necessary work of building, phone calling, setting up tables etc etc
There response. Cheering when Nader supporters and others leave is
To cheer and talk of how the cancer had been cut out.
For me, I am now committed to warning any progressives who want to build a VIABLE progressive alternative to the two party system is
Stay away from the GP.
As a close follower of Green Party politics especially Midwestern I have a significant degree of knowledge about the Illinois Green Party and how they operate. So when I noticed that Reichel claimed he has “recruited” by the Green Party to run for the IL 5th I knew he was vastly misrepresenting the facts. Several Green Party members, local activists, and progressive democrats suggested to Reichel that he should run in the Green Party primary. This was because his chances of making an impact in the shorter (under 5 weeks), democratic primary process were small if existent at all. Reichel and his early supporters knew that there would be a limited number of voters in the Green primary, and his chance of securing the nomination were strong (thus allowing him to appear on general election ballot) . So to say he was ‘recruited’ by the party is just plain wrong (he switched on his own, so as to improve chance of making an impact in election). There were 5 candidates on the primary ballot (one dropped out of race but name was still on the ballot) and the state party as a collective unit believes strongly in the independence of the primary process. As for his claim that “the party gave me not one dime” that was about the only true statement in his comments about the role of the party in his campaign (the state party has minimal funds and was reluctant to go into debt with 2010 elections and ballot status looming) . As for his complaint that the party was reluctant to provide organizational support (state party has roughly 1,000 members) the real issue was that he believed the party was larger in number especially in the Chicago area, due to the number of McKinney voters in the general election (11,838), and the 2006 campaign of Rich Whitney (who received over 10% statewide) when that level of support failed to materialize Reichel felt the party was being reluctant in providing organizational support to his campaign (support the party doesn’t have). This attitude was fueled by his view of being a stronger candidate then McKinney (crazy conspiracy theorist) and Whitney a former socialist workers party member who in campaigns prior to 2006 had failed in two previous runs for the state house of Reps. to break 10% of the vote (believed since they did so well He’d do even better).
Additional comment by Reichel:
1) “imagine what could happen if the party had a little organization to it” – does have organization just not numbers this takes time, can’t do much without bodies (Just ask Kucinich)
2)”I had to engage in the email version of a shouting match with National Green Party Political Director Brent McMillan in order to get a link placed for our campaign on the party website” – link to website was included in elections section well before primary. Reichel wanted link on homepage but GP doesn’t have a full time position (employee) responsible for maintaining and updating the website, so changes (Of the variety Reichel sought) take a little bit of time, something his short campaign was lacking. As for shouting at Brent McMillan, this was a waste of time because McMillan’s lacks the skills to make the changes Reichel requested. McMillan does update elections database on occasion, as he did with the primary election results. Since primary election results were able to be added so quickly Reichel didn’t ( apparently still doesn’t) understand homepage link request was a separate issue.
Like many candidates who switch parties from one of the two major parties to a third party in order to run for office, Reichel approached his campaign as though it was a Major party campaign. In this case a left of Dems. campaign similar to the ones he worked on for Dennis Kucinich in 2008 (Presidential campaign, and congressman’s re-election campaign). While these campaigns were ‘on the cheap’ by democratic party standards and reliant on Dem. grassroots supporters (instead of paid staff) who are dependent on top down direction by the professional (paid) staff, this type of campaign doesn’t translate well to third party politics. When applying this style to third party campaigns the results have historicly been lackluster. The funding is much smaller, and while there may be similar grassroots support the lack of a full time staff makes the top down model without individual initiative very difficult.
Despite his proclamation that ” Green is the future!” – one must wonder if his future includes the Green Party.
In my opinion all his ties to the party will be over within a year at most, returning to the Democratic fold (which he may have in his heart never truly left, only ‘using ‘ the Greens for his own personal gain). He may also stay in the party, or return to it (only to leave again) till post November 2010 if his future plans include an all out run and he needs ballot access. Though his criticisms of the party may make a future GP campaign impossible because of member resistance.
So did the other Green candidates just sit on their hands after the primary?
PEACE
“Why are you running, Matt?”
“Because my generation will be the one paying off this $20 trillion in debt.”
So his answer to debt is to add another entitlement program? Don’t get me wrong, if I was in his district I would vote for him solely for the anti-war and anti-establishment stance but with the Ron Paul movement supplying most of his ground troops, its very disappointing that they couldn’t unite to win a GOP primary in a weak district or recruit an LP candidate.
The question of whether the Greens should have focused resources on winnable local races or making a splash in a high profile Congressional race is one I’d be interested to hear those more knowledgeable than me weigh in on.
Well, Greens and Libertarians do not have the patronage to reward their supporters. So I’ve never really expected much help in the way of money or volunteers.
And democrats and republicans hardly ever talk issues. They just try to get people to like them by talking about inane irrelevant pieces of their lives.
They do this because apparently it does work. I have seen folks enraptured with one of my opponents from ten years ago who never talked about issues, but talked about how she had overcome adversity by being an Olympic gold medalist!
In my last campaign, the democrat talked about how his mother got cancer and he took a bike ride across the country, and my republican opponent talked about how he had to work at McDonalds when his father got laid off.
It is only when we (Greens and Libertarians) talk about the issues that the democrats and republicans will also talk about the issues of the day. And they are stumped, they don’t know what to say.
OTOH, it is gratifying when the democrat agrees with you by name and repeating your opposition to bailouts as “privatization of profit and the socialization of loss” and the republican also agrees with you by name and repeating what I’d already said “there is nothing more permanent than a temporary government program”. While neither candidate would oppose the war(s), they both said they opposed torture, after I had brought up the issue.
It helps to have a lot of good one-liners, or sound bites.
I have to be one that is thankful to Matt and his campaign. Without his campaign, there would have been no talk about the issues.
PEACE
LP has that some issue.
On the one hand it does make sense to develop a farm team and actually be able to implement something. But on the other hand the big national/international issues are what motivate a lot of people, and what gets media coverage.
In reality I think both kinds of races have value for different reasons.
Okay, well, I am not sure it was fair for Matt Reichel to expect much help from the national party. Candidates don’t get that small parties do their best just to keep their communcations networks up. But, still, if the “Executive Director” of the GP-US was a little more graceful, maybe this would not have to be part of an Op-Ed story:
–quote from Matt Reichel: While the rank and file helped the best they could, the party [Green Party] gave me not one dime and were reluctant to provide organizational support: I had to engage in the email version of a shouting match with National Green Party Political Director Brent McMillan in order to get a link placed for our campaign on the party website. Brent obviously comes from the cooky strand of Greens that believe all resources should be dispensed on local races, because somehow we are going to “make war obsolete” as alderman of the middle of nowhere. Here there is one congressional race occurring in the entire nation, a high profile district en plus, and the party leadership was too worried about the mayoral races in Racine, Wisconsin and Urbana Il to pay attention to me and my tight, though under-funded, campaign. — end quote
Well, I wonder how much money the State Greens had to offer.
Also, had this been a normal election would this candidate have been able to get on the ballot, and raise money and get more free press?
Hopefully you learned your lesson Matt; no endorsement of the Catholic Trotskyist fringe alliance strategy = another third party loser. Not the first, not the last.
Remember Doubting Thomas, the twin, John 20:28.
I found this little tidbit from the remainder of the article quite interesting:
“My ranting and raving about how the left needs to get its act together hardly hurt my movement, as the majority of door-knockers and petitioners came from the Ron Paul movement.
Upon securing the Green Party nomination on March 3rd and declaring that voters were now faced with a decision to “Go Green or Go Machine,” the party offered me absolutely zilch to run an effective campaign.”