Has The Green Party Become Irrelevant?

In light of the Democratic Party’s Green New Deal, I wonder if the Green Party has become irrelevant. The Dem’s Green New Deal in many ways goes farther than what I’ve seen from the Green Party. It seems like the Democratic party, or at least the left wing of the Democratic Party, has gone to the left of the Green Party. And the left of the Democratic party seems to be leading where the Democratic party is going.

What do IPR readers think? Is the Green Party still relevant? In what way?

Warren Redlich is the owner of Independent Political Report.

This entry was posted in Green Party on by .

About wredlich

Warren Redlich is CEO of SpinJ Corporation, which became owner of IPR in November 2012. He was the 2010 Libertarian candidate for Governor of New York, and has run for office as a Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Green, and Liberal.

37 thoughts on “Has The Green Party Become Irrelevant?

  1. Jake Leonard

    The Green Party has been pushing this “Green New Deal” since at least 2000 and honestly, they have no platform since the Democrats hijacked this “plan”.

    The party has gone downhill and lost major party status in more states than the Libertarian Party did in the 2018 midterms. It’s been downhill since 2008 with Cynthia McKinney to 2012 and 2016 with Jill Stein. After all, that’s part of the reason why the Green Party is no longer the top third party in voter support anymore.

  2. Fernando Mercado

    It is because:
    1. Nancy Pelosi called it the “The green dream or whatever”, so we need a party who’s leaders actually want it done (Though you can go the Justice Democrats route)
    2. Many Greens don’t like AOC’s Green New Deal because they feel it’s watered down (Not my opinion I love AOC’s Green New Deal)
    3. Progressives need an alternative option if the DNC pulls another 2016 on us

  3. dL

    What do IPR readers think? Is the Green Party still relevant? In what way?

    The better question might be Is the communist party still relevant with Trump and the republicans openly praising communist dictators and predicting great future success for the only economic system in the world where the means of production are entirely controlled by the state?

  4. TIM MCKEE

    While the author seems to be a confused candidate after rruunning in numerous and conflicting parties for vanity sakes, local, state, and internationally Greens are still the best hope for saving the planet and world peace.

    We were the first to call for gay rights.
    Single payer health care
    Rank choice voting
    And much more

  5. SocraticGadfly

    NO, because AOC’s Green New Deal is aspirational, not so concrete, and it’s still too capitalist-based.

    What risks the Green Party becoming irrelevant FOR ME is, in the light of Washington State’s measles crisis, the party nominates a clear antivaxxer vs. the “I’m personally sort of supportive with vaccines but OK with antivaxxers in my party” Jill Stein in 2016.

    In that case, my allegiance officially transfers to the SPUSA.

  6. TIM MCKEE

    DR. STEIN HAS made it clear over and over she is not an anti vaxxer.

    Over and over.

    Over and over.

    Sorry “gadfky”

  7. dL

    NO, because AOC’s Green New Deal is aspirational, not so concrete, and it’s still too capitalist-based.

    Any “New Deal” will be state capitalist, or political capitalist, as the new left historian Gabriel Kolko was partial to calling it.

  8. TIM MCKEE

    Gay rights as IN
    Legal protection in employment
    Government protection
    Marriage equality

    More than 1,000 federal laws and benefits?
    Ron Paul was for those?

    Empty promises

  9. dL

    Ron Paul was for those?

    I dunno, ask Ron Paul. I wrote the LP, not Ron Paul. The LP endorsed gay rights in it’s inaugural 1972 platform and marriage equality in 1976.

  10. SocraticGadfly

    Tim, I never said Stein WAS an antivaxxer.

    I DID SAY that Stein DID play political footsie on the issue in 2016 to placate those in the party who ARE antivaxxers.

    Thank you.

    Please don’t misinterpret what I say.

    ==

    dL? Tosh. A real Green New Deal will be socialist, anyway.

  11. dL

    dL? Tosh. A real Green New Deal will be socialist, anyway.

    State socialism is impossible at scale. Every economic system at scale is political capitalist. A “real” “Green Deal” is if and when renewable energy abolishes scarcity, and hence, economics, and hence, government. But I wouldn’t use Franklin Roosevelt’s political capitalist bargain moniker to describe that event.

  12. dL

    Warren: Has your prescription on how to beat a DWI ever been tried? Has it ever worked? I kind of doubt it.

    4.5 out of 5 stars on Amazon.

  13. Jim

    TIM MCKEE “We were the first to call for gay rights. Single payer health care”

    FDR tried getting universal healthcare through as part of the New Deal in the 1933. He pushed for it again in 1938, and Truman also tried when he became President.

  14. Jim

    The Democrats will have to put up a Presidential candidate who fully backs the Green New Deal in order to make the Green Party irrelevant. I’ve assumed that was the Democrat’s goal since Hillary lost. And I still think Elizabeth Warren will be their candidate to unite both the Hillary and Bernie factions, as well as absorb Green voters.

  15. wredlich Post author

    “Warren: Has your prescription on how to beat a DWI ever been tried? Has it ever worked? I kind of doubt it.

    dL: 4.5 out of 5 stars on Amazon.”

    Thanks dL.

    I don’t know how a simple post turned into a hate Warren fest for leftists but I’m flattered by the personal attention. It’s odd because I got along quite well with Howie Hawkins in 2010.

    The specifics of the attacks are familiar and not what I’ve ever heard from Greens before. Vanity? I guess Roger Stone has fans in the Green Party too.

    I don’t recall talking about how to beat a DWI. I wrote a book about how sober people can protect themselves from the dangers of traffic stops. And my later flyer has been used in several checkpoints, successfully almost every time.

    The funny thing is you all missed the obvious answer. The Green Party is anti-war. I think. And anti-drug-war. It still is, right?

  16. wredlich Post author

    The funny thing is Tim McKee is openly supportive of AOC on Twitter.

    Check out Timothy L. McKee (@TimMcKee321): https://twitter.com/TimMcKee321?s=09

    Especially if you include the replies and retweets.

    https://twitter.com/TimMcKee321/status/1093898184127066112?s=19

    He retweeted this: https://twitter.com/davidhogg111/status/1082831820557832193?s=19

    And this:
    https://twitter.com/RalphNader/status/1081956039405244419?s=19

    And another retweet of a Democratic leftist
    https://twitter.com/RashidaTlaib/status/1081190513691246592?s=19

    Even AOC herself gets a retweet
    https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1081234130841600000?s=19

    So it seems Tim McKee himself is ready to leave the GP for the Left wing of the Democratic Party.

    Funny Tim but if you hadn’t attacked me personally I wouldn’t have bothered to look you up on Twitter. You should have seen that coming. It’s my vanity.

  17. Gene Berkman

    Actually, the first party to put “Gay Rights” in its platform was the California Peace & Freedom Party, founded in 1967 and ballot qualified since 1968.

    Apparently the first gay political group was “Bachelors for Wallace” supporting Henry Wallace, Progressive candidate for President in 1948.

    The first national party to include gay rights it its platform is The Libertarian Party, founded in 1972, with a gay rights stand since 1975. The Libertarian stand on Gay Rights focuses on ending government restrictions on behavior, and discriminatory policies by government. Libertarians oppose prohibitions on private discrimation, viewing freedom of association as an important freedom, and seeing that private enterprises have moved to end discrimination more quickly than government has.

  18. William T. Forrest

    “In light of the Democratic Party’s Green New Deal,”

    This is a proposal by some Democrats which falls far short of what the Green Party proposes and nevertheless has been ridiculed by some in the Democrats’ top leadership. The fact that some Democrats have picked up a watered down version of one of their key proposals is a victory for the Greens but not one nearly big enough to declare themselves to no longer in their opinion be needed as a party. If I was them it would inspire me to fight harder, not to go home or to switch teams.

    ” It seems like the Democratic party, or at least the left wing of the Democratic Party, has gone to the left of the Green Party.”

    That’s an exaggeration at best.

    ” And the left of the Democratic party seems to be leading where the Democratic party is going.”

    Maybe, but too early to see. Let’s see the left of the DP actually claim the nomination, win the presidency, and follow through on their rhetoric before we consider such grand pronouncements. Let’s see them claim the speakership, Senate leadership, party chairmanship and on and on. Then let’s see if they do what they say. And even then: in what way would they be to the left of the Greens?

  19. William T. Forrest

    ” It’s been downhill since 2008 with Cynthia McKinney to 2012 and 2016 with Jill Stein. ”

    That’s a curious claim. What metrics are you using?

    “After all, that’s part of the reason why the Green Party is no longer the top third party in voter support anymore.”

    It’s doubtful that they ever were and certainly not in some time now. However, that’s only partially their fault. The rising and falling fortunes of other parties is hardly under their control, after all.

  20. paulie

    if and when renewable energy abolishes scarcity, and hence, economics, and hence, government.

    You make a few logic leaps. Supposing renewable energy ever abolishes scarcity, there would still be people fighting over land or over the best views or the best parking spots or whatever else. There would still be couples, neighbors, co-workers or collaborators of some sort, people drinking at the same bar or attending the same sporting event or whatever who would find reasons to get into fights. There would still be criminal gangs fighting for extortion turf, engaging in back and forth cycles of revenge, and trading in any kind of contraband that remained outlawed. We’d still have rapists, murderers, and the criminally insane.

    Or maybe we wouldn’t have any of those things, but getting beyond them would require technological advancement that would allow us to evolve into an entirely different species or type of being, getting rid of the reptile brain that is the product of a very long process of evolution and remains the core of the physical human brain today despite any much more recent advances in technology. I happen to think such an evolutionary step is entirely possible, and that we are on the brink of having such technology, but it’s not an automatic consequence of solving energy scarcity and or energy related pollution, and we could very well screw up the transition and destroy ourselves and/or the planet in the process.

    And even if the consequences of the reptile brain embedded in the human one remain with us, there are non territorial monopoly solutions to such problems, but that’s far from automatically obvious and many people do not agree with us that such solutions can work, especially globally. Thus, even if energy scarcity was no longer an issue, many people think there would still be a need for government.

  21. SocraticGadfly

    Tim, I never said Jill Stein was an antivaxxer.

    I DID SAY that she played political footsie with the many Greens who ARE antivaxxers.

    Please don’t misinterpret what I say again.

  22. dL

    There would still be criminal gangs fighting for extortion turf, engaging in back and forth cycles of revenge, and trading in any kind of contraband that remained outlawed. We’d still have rapists, murderers, and the criminally insane.

    I don’t think you get the meaning of no scarcity. No scarcity implicitly means no need for any exchange. There is no exchange economy. There is no bargaining. So you really can’t outlaw some forms of exchange when there is no exchange to begin with. No scarcity is generally different than post-scarcity, which usually is limited to basic needs. A post-scarcity world would not eliminate economics.

    Of course, the better question would be is “no scarcity” even possible. A lot of libertarians pooh pooh no scarcity as a socialist fabrication, typically claiming human wants are infinite but the universe(resources) are finite. But that’s no true. The universe(energy) is practically infinite and human wants over a human lifespan are finite relative to the energy available. It’s just that converting that energy into useful work at present is extremely inefficient. Still, yet others will point out that even if everything is free, there are still opportunity costs(do I play a video game or do I go out and pick my free food). Well, that assumes there is no work being done. But there would be work being done in a no scarcity situation. Lots of it. It just wouldn’t be done by humans.

    No-scarcity begins with an assumption–vis a vis renewable energy–of very efficient solar battery storage powering AI self-replicating nanotech bots. So everyone would have their own personal labor force at no cost. So, one can imagine what that entails. The debate in that scenario is whether society(i.e, social cooperation) is needed. Everybody retires to be their own gods in their own personal virtual reality matrix.

  23. Seebeck

    The better question is, “Was the Green Party ever relevant?”

    The correct answer is “No.”

  24. paulie

    I don’t think you get the meaning of no scarcity. No scarcity implicitly means no need for any exchange.

    I don’t think you are being realistic about no need for exchange. Even if there is an abundance of energy and goods and replicators to create any material thing you want there will still be things to fight over – the best real estate with the best views. Sports teams. Religion. Nationality/ethnicity. Material abundance does not solve the issue of the criminally insane, non-consenting sexual sadism, or people who like to run other people off the road for fun but don’t have what it takes to make it in NASCAR – and that will be no less true if we all have flying vehicles. The point isn’t which things people would fight over but that we have a reptilian brain core that directs us to be territorial over something, anything – even if there is an absolute abundance of material goods.

    And it’s likely there would still be a means of exchange. Someone wants to have the best concert seats, the best looking and most skilled prostitutes, the most unique original works of art – again it does not matter what those things are, but the general idea. There is going to be scarcity of something and thus in all likelihood exchange, currency, and economic activity of some sort.

    The universe(energy) is practically infinite and human wants over a human lifespan are finite relative to the energy available.

    I don’t think so. Some people want to own the whole earth. Not just any planet will do. Some want the moon and the stars too, literally.

    So everyone would have their own personal labor force at no cost.

    Great, so now many people would have all the time they used to have to spend working – and behaving in certain ways so they don’t lose their job or their clientele – doing other things like seeking sex, getting in fights, getting high, perpetuating conflicts, engaging in malicious mischief etc – and some people would combine those things into vicious cycle behavior patterns.

    Everybody retires to be their own gods in their own personal virtual reality matrix.

    This supposes everyone would want to do that. Some people may not.

  25. wredlich Post author

    William Forrest writes:

    “This is a proposal by some Democrats which falls far short of what the Green Party proposes”

    The FAQ calls for banning cars, trucks and airplanes within 10 years. And then cows.

    That’s more extreme than anything I’ve heard from Greens.

  26. dL

    The FAQ calls for banning cars, trucks and airplanes within 10 years. And then cows.

    It didn’t exactly say that.
    https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5729035/Green-New-Deal-FAQ.pdf

    “Totally overhaul transportation by massively expanding electric vehicle manufacturing, build charging stations everywhere, build out highspeed rail at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary, create affordable public transit available to all, with goal to replace every combustion-engine vehicle.”

  27. Just Some Random Guy

    @ SocraticGadfly

    Tim, I never said Stein WAS an antivaxxer.

    I DID SAY that Stein DID play political footsie on the issue in 2016 to placate those in the party who ARE antivaxxers.

    Thank you.

    In fairness, your phrasing was a bit confusing.

  28. SocraticGadfly

    Warren … not hating on you … just think that idea on DWIs is silly.

    A couple of side points.

    1. I know I’m nowhere near alone in thinking your book is about trying to help people beat the rap, not just for sober people
    2. As I’m sure you’re aware, other defense lawyers say your ideas don’t cut the mustard https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/breaking-news/os-viral-video-dui-checkpoint-loophole-20150120-story.html
    3. Why don’t you just go Radley Balko and call for elimination of DWI as a criminal offense?
    4. I don’t agree with every stance of MADD myself; that doesn’t mean I agree with your book.
    5. As for the Internet arrest mugshot sites you lament? Yes, they are a problem. But, they’re just people trying to make a buck. Isn’t that good libertarianism?

    And, relating all this to the newer post about Maine Greens and Libertarians shaking hands on civil liberties issues? Setting aside my rejection of antivaxxer Point 10, this is why, even on things like 1-9, if I shook hands on something like that, I’d probably have my fingers crossed on my other hand.

  29. wredlich Post author

    dL – From the FAQ:

    “Yes, we are calling for a full transition off fossil fuels and zero greenhouse gases. … We set a goal to get to net-zero, rather than zero emissions, in 10 years because we aren’t sure that we’ll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast”

    So the proposal is to get rid of fossil fuel cars and boats within 10 years. I guess you’re correct that some airplanes would still be operating at 10 years out.

  30. wredlich Post author

    SocraticGadfly: The defense lawyer in your article did not clearly disagree with the method.

    —Stuart Hyman, an Orlando lawyer who specializes in DUI law, said Redlich makes an “interesting argument.” Officers have a right to information, he said, but not to search without cause.
    “What more do they need to know, other than you have a driver’s license, you have a registration, you have insurance?” he said. “What right do they have to go further than that?”
    But he added it’s likely not a “practical” concept, given the likelihood that the flier will attract greater scrutiny, “because it’s like raising a red flag.”—

    Likely not practical is a bit vague. Attract greater scrutiny? You’ve been pulled over. The eye of Mordor is already on you.

    But the real problem with what he says, and he’s not alone, is he offers no better approach.

    Does he think drivers should roll down their windows? That’s consenting to a search of the car (the officer smelling the air inside) rather than asserting your rights.

    Does he think drivers should answer police questions? Because I keep hearing defense lawyers say you shouldn’t talk to the police.

    The practical issue is that cops will claim they smelled alcohol (as they did with Tiger Woods even though he had no alcohol in his system) and they will claim the driver had “impaired speech” (as I’ve seen them do with many sober people, including a Japanese client – how the hell would they detect impaired speech in someone who barely speaks English?).

  31. dL

    But the real problem

    I suppose the real problem is that they will simply slap you with a 1 year drivers license suspension if you refuse a breathalyzer…on any grounds.

  32. dL

    So the proposal is to get rid of fossil fuel cars and boats within 10 years. I guess you’re correct that some airplanes would still be operating at 10 years out.

    The proposal is for a government action that will obviate any need for fossil fuel transportation. A fantasy but the “get rid of” would supposedly not by done by means of making fossil fuels illegal.

  33. wredlich Post author

    “I suppose the real problem is that they will simply slap you with a 1 year drivers license suspension if you refuse a breathalyzer…on any grounds.”

    The Fair DUI method is not about refusing a “breathalyzer”.

    For one thing the term “breathalyzer” is out of date and unclear in meaning. There are two types of common DUI breath tests. The handheld one at the scene used pre-arrest is typically called a Portable Breath Test (PBT). It is not admissible at trial because it is not considered reliable.

    The one in the police station, after arrest, is admissible at trial. There are a variety of brand names, such as Intoxilyzer, Drager, and DataMaster.

    People often use the term breathalyzer for either or both, or they’re not even sure.

    Refusing the PBT might lead to a fine but in the states I follow it does not lead to a suspension.

    Refusing the post-arrest test often does lead to a suspension or revocation.

    The Fair DUI method is mostly about a moment before you even get to the PBT, when the police officer first approaches the driver’s window.

    Most critics of the Fair DUI method don’t bother to pay attention to what the method actually is.

    You can read the police training manual here.
    https://www.nhtsa.gov/document/dwi-detection-and-standardized-field-sobriety-test-sfst-participant-manual

    The method is about Phase Two of the officer’s investigation:

    “In Phase Two: Your first task is to observe and interview the driver face to face. Based on this observation, you must decide whether there is sufficient cause to instruct the driver to step from the vehicle for further investigation. Your second task is to observe the driver’s exit and walk from the vehicle.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *