Strange bedfellows indeed!
Green Party Press Secretary, Scott McLarty, got a call yesterday from USA Today. Yup. Them.
Seems that “The Donald”, AKA Mr. Trump, is contemplating a 3rd Party bid.
USA Today’s reporter wanted to know what it would take (because, of course, why would a political reporter from the mainstream press know anything at all about getting ballot access outside of our current duopoly…)
Scott answered the technical questions, then was gobsmacked when asked what we’d think of La Donald becoming the Green Party US candidate for president.
(No kidding. You can’t make this stuff up.)
After a moment of stunned silence, Scott said, “He’d be laughed out of the room.”
Indeed.
Such is the disconnect between this reporter’s understanding of electoral politics, Green values, and La Donald.
But here’s the thing—USA Today called US. Us Greenies. He could have called any one of a dozen other 3rd parties. We got the call.
Our message is getting out. And this is just the beginning.
This weekend in St. Louis, we’re going to be talking non-stop about electoral politics. We’re also going to see the formation of the Latinx Caucus (the X is to include people of all gender orientations—isn’t that cool?), as well as our own Presidential Candidates Forum.
You can watch the action live-streamed here 24/7/365: http://original.livestream.com/greenpartyus
We’ll keep you updated with daily reports. Watch your inbox!
Go Green!
Team Green
Starlene Rankin | Lea Pierce
I think it would be closer to the goals they generally say their policies are meant to achieve.
JIm says
“For example, “federal retirement insurance” isn’t necessarily bad, but it became bad because over decades, the Congress gradually used that pot of money to add recipients who hasn’t paid in for the benefits. And as for “sociallized medicine”, perhaps one of the big reasons medical care is so expensive is that having created what amounted to a ‘right’ to it (in large swathes of the population) that enabled providers to raise their charges virtually without limit.”
If that were true, then why are medical costs so much less per capita in nations with single payer health care? Don’t get me wrong…doctors in Canada overcharge too (because of the monopolistic power their associations have to keep prices high)…but nothing like the situation in the USA. Part of the problem here in the USA is consumers have no leverage to bargain with health care trusts–most notably when it comes to the cost of pharmaceutical drugs (whose lobbyists have enormous power and control in Washington). In addition, the costs of medical education (also monopolized by health care trusts) are absurdly high.
People who have lived in nations with single-payer health care can tell you that not only does the consumer have way more choice to choose his/her doctor, the costs of medical education are way less (if not tuition-free), which means there are way more qualified medical professionals which brings prices down. In addition, when medical consumers have access to preventive care (as in single-payer healthcare nations) the overall costs of health care go down.
The major statistic that every American should know is not just that Americans spend more per capita on healthcare than any other nation…. The more striking statistic is that Americans spend more TAXPAYER money per capita on healthcare than any other nation except the wealthy and healthy nation of Norway. This tells you just how ridiculously inefficient the healthcare system is under the rule of our corporate masters.
Paulie said:
“There are plenty of Marxist sects and individuals that operate within Green Party campaigns, and it’s widely known in the Green Party. Camejo, Hawkins, Puryear – there are plenty of other examples.”
Camejo was once an SWPer but he had arguably become an anti-Leninist by the time he became active in the Green Party. Hawkins may or may not be a Marxist but he’s a democratic (non-sectish, non M-L) socialist from what I understand.
Puryear and Jones are good examples of people in M-L orgs who have run under the Green label. I suppose they are tolerated because they are gifted individuals who seem to keep their ideology under wraps when operating under the Green logo.
As far as my own experience goes, In my county party there are no M-Lers and we do not cooperate with the ISO. At a recent state meeting there was a good deal of anti-capitalist sentiment, but nobody mentioned Marx or seemed to be pushing a Marxist or M-Ler ideology. So based on what I’ve seen I believe Marxist ideology is at best a marginal influence within the Green Party. From what I’ve observed on the net and in real life, people in M-L sects are mostly hostile to the Green Party (calling it either petit-bourgois or capitalist), and among the M-L sectlets, only the ISO and Socialist Alternative are (somewhat) friendly.
It could certainly go very wrong in the short term, although I think that it would still be a lot better in the long term than continuing with a statist set-up. I’d like a soft landing too, although I don’t know whether it will be feasible.
You said, “I suppose it comes down to whether one thinks socialized medicine, federal retirement insurance, and so forth are “stupid ideas”. That’s why there is more than one political party.”
But it’s not merely whether those a “stupid ideas”: It also has to do with whether non-stupid implemention of those ideas is possible, and whether those ideas are actually being implemented well.
For example, “federal retirement insurance” isn’t necessarily bad, but it became bad because over decades, the Congress gradually used that pot of money to add recipients who hasn’t paid in for the benefits. And as for “sociallized medicine”, perhaps one of the big reasons medical care is so expensive is that having created what amounted to a ‘right’ to it (in large swathes of the population) that enabled providers to raise their charges virtually without limit.
For example, if the government declared a “right to milk”, some large segments of the population might be drowning in (free) milk, and the price for anyone not privy to such a ‘right’ would fly through the roof. As the price for medical care already has.
All of that is way before you take into consideration the effects the state has in holding back innovation, from binding it with red tape to holding back creativity with standardized education. The problem with even beginning to slap a number on it is that we can’t een fathom how the innovations that the state is slowing down would transform our world, our concept of what words like human and wealth even mean at all. I would say that over the course of a decade or two we would be dealing with multiple orders of magnitude, not numbers like 7/8, but even that is not even an apples to apples or apples to oranges comparison… more like an apple from a tree to an Apple computer comparison, even though that is still not an adequate explanation.
Agreed.
I see no indication from what GwoA said that GwoA considers anyone who disagrees with GwoA to be trollish. Trollish is a matter of style, not of opinion per se.
You said, “On Reddit (where I prefer to hang out these days) the trollish comments get downvoted so they are easier to ignore….you can just pick the good comments to respond to and ignore the rest. But on forums like this it can be quite hard to have a decent discussion… It can be very difficult to determine who is a troll and who is an adolescent and who is simply ignorant…which makes it hard to know how to react to people.”
This makes me wonder what your definition of “trollish” is. If it’s close to “Anyone who disagrees with me”, your problem is obvious. http://www.wolfgangsvault.com/your-problem-is-obvious/posters/poster/ZZZ002360.html
If you can’t deal with being opposed, why participate in discussions at all?
AC, I think the distribution starts to become important. While I certainly have no particular problem with a system that allows a person to amass huge wealth, I would also say that the stats I see regarding how the 1% and high end is so disproportionately growing their share of wealth is a bit disturbing to me.
It feels rigged.
Any sort of estimate is going to be a wild guesstimate, with part of the point being we can’t even know exactly how much. But I think it’s closer to Smith’s 7/8ths than than just the 30-60% people most visibly pay in taxes.
My sense is rolling back the State would pay significant dividends, but I could also imagine that things could go very wrong if such a rollback were not handled with some degree of tact.
Putting a number to it would be another form of fatal conceit. Too many variables!!!
“My estimate is that the economy would be completely transformed and look nothing like what we consider the economic system we live under today. The distortion effects of state intervention permeate a lot more than direct, linearly observable state interventions would indicate.”
I agree with this, to a point. L. Neil Smith estimated it at 7/8ths of people’s potential wealth destroyed or stolen by the state. I always thought that was a revealing perspective, wrapped in an otherwise humorous story (The Probability Broach).
However, that doesn’t mean (as some often take the argument), that a freed market civil society would be particularly closer to the world envisioned by anticapitalists, socialists, progressives, and greens. In some respects perhaps, and on particular matters there’s a case-by-case argument to be made. But I wouldn’t argue for it on the grounds that it will invariably lead to, for example, the radical abolition of all large businesses, the end of banks and stocks and capital markets, parochial economic localism, reduced consumption, worker cooperatives, and the other laundry list of usual complaints and aspirations along those lines. Just like I’m not much for the paleo argument that a free society would re-enforce and strengthen socially conservative religious norms, because I don’t think that’s very likely and it’s certainly not inevitable.
I think there are a lot of important arguments to be made that libertarian means can better serve the ostensible goals of non-libertarian schools of thought, such as greens, or social conservatives. But it isn’t always true that we share common goals and only disagree on the means. Sometimes, indeed often, it’s a matter of different visions of what a better future looks like, not just how we get there.
Eeryone a millionaire doesn’t even begin to scratch the surface.
PF, makes sense to me. Are we talking Mad Max different, or everyone a millionaire or something else?
My estimate is that the economy would be completely transformed and look nothing like what we consider the economic system we live under today. The distortion effects of state intervention permeate a lot more than direct, linearly observable state interventions would indicate.
PF: The bottom line is that both a lot of self described socialists and a lot of self described capitalists vastly underestimate the degree to which state intervention distorts the economy.
ME: OK, what’s YOUR estimate?
Another good point!
The core ideology of libertarianism is nothing like the celebration of corporatism, but it’s true that Koch money (and a few others) pushes the ideology of the libertarian movement to be more closely aligned with neoliberalism and with economic ideas that conflate free markets with existing state corporate “capitalism” far too much. The bottom line is that both a lot of self described socialists and a lot of self described capitalists vastly underestimate the degree to which state intervention distorts the economy.
You just have to figure it out on your own over time. It’s not for everyone, granted.
Largely agreed, except that
1) There are plenty of Marxist sects and individuals that operate within Green Party campaigns, and it’s widely known in the Green Party. Camejo, Hawkins, Puryear – there are plenty of other examples.
2) You draw a good distinction between different kinds of socialism, but fail to make the same distinction with “capitalism” – conflating state-corporatism with free markets and everything in between. Granted, however, many modern American style libertarians also mistakenly conflate a lot of economic arrangements that are largely on the corporatist end of things with free markets, and believe that free markets would come up with something similar absent state intervention, whereas I think the economic arrangements absent intervention would be radically different from the state corporatist and state socialist models we see at work in the modern world.
To Paulie and the rest…..this is part of why I get exasperated with this site so easily. On Reddit (where I prefer to hang out these days) the trollish comments get downvoted so they are easier to ignore….you can just pick the good comments to respond to and ignore the rest. But on forums like this it can be quite hard to have a decent discussion… It can be very difficult to determine who is a troll and who is an adolescent and who is simply ignorant…which makes it hard to know how to react to people.
JIm,
It seems like our worldviews are so far apart that there isn’t much point in trying to reason with you. But I guess I’m a glutton for punishment so I’ll briefly explain my position, though I probably won’t engage you further, so don’t take it personally if I don’t reply.
I do not condone the policies of the Soviet Union in any way. I don’t consider the Soviet Union socialist–I think the Soviet economy can best be described as state capitalist. The essential feature of socialism is worker management and control of enterprises and that never existed in the Soviet Union. The closest Russia came ‘soviet rule’ (eg rule by workers councils) was in 1917, before the Bolsheviks took power). I don’t support the Bolsheviks or Marxism-Leninism. And I’m not familiar with anyone in the Green Party who does, except for a few members of the ISO who run campaigns in the Green Party. But these ISO members are barely tolerated and their viewpoint is marginal. Greens favor decentralization as well as direct democracy and the government of the Soviet Union was the opposite of that.
In any case, if you read about the history of socialism, you’ll find that socialism before 1917 (the advent of Lenin) had 2 main wings–a libertarian one and a state socialist one. And neither of these advocated an ideology or governing philosophy anything like Lenin’s—both of these movements were primarily concerned with maximizing liberty through solidarity and collective action against oppressive forces (capitalists and the governments they relied on). The libertarian wing of socialism opposed WW1 and was crushed by state repression (the last gasp of this classical libertarianism was the CNT-FAI in the Spanish Civil War). The state socialist wing mutated into the social democratic movement (the 2nd international today) and eventually became a capitalist reformist ideology. The Bolshevik/Trotskyist wing was entirely its own thing and anticipated many of the developments of fascism, and spread its brand of totalitarian socialism all over the globe as a direct competitor to Anglo-American style capitalism.
It is in of course in the interest of TPTB to spread disinformation about not only the history of socialism, but of libertarianism as well (which is recast in late 20th century America as a capitalist ideology, when in fact libertarians had traditionally opposed capitalism because of its association with statism, violence, and coercion).
You said:
“With the end of the cold war, the 2008 financial crisis, the ongoing recession, and quickly escalating inequality and class war, it seems like the younger generation is no longer subject to the same conditioning as the old, and is earnestly investigating whether the capitalism and government they were taught to revere is actually consistent with the ideas of liberty and self-determination.
Yet, on a Bloomberg View subject, I found an appropriate riposte: (from another person)
“Are we really going to have to reprise every stupid idea from the last 75 years, just because people under the age of 35 didn’t actually experience how awful they were, and their school systems’ history curricula were lousy?”
BINGO!
“If libertarians are actually just carrying water for the oligarchs, then why don’t these oligarchs support the LP? Why did they go to such great lengths to oppose Ron Paul?”
Obviously oligarchs don’t overtly support the LP or RP. But oligarchs are also invested in controlling the ideology of the opposition. So if the most prominent opposition movement (until recently the LP, RP, and related) is promoting an ideology that celebrates free-market capitalism, then dissent is even easier to control. That is, when even the dissenters advocate the same core economic ideas as neo-liberalism (which IS the oligarch ideology or at least the cover ideology for their power grabs since the mid 70s), then.there is no real public opposition at all.
Of course there are always wings of established capital, such as “new money” players like the Kochs (and the “new” “Western money” that supported Goldwater back in 64), who make use of the classical liberal and/or libertarian ideology to obtain more power and influence.
Anyway, libertarianism is not the only ideology that elite monied interests are determined to control and shape. Control of leftist political movements and ideologies is a high priority. The classic example is promoting big government social democratic bandaids (modern day Poor Laws) to provide cover for TPTB in times of crisis (these helped neutralize labor’s emergent power in the 30s-60s), before these elite monied interests can recover and reassert their position (neo-liberalism since then). The Democratic Party plays a crucial role in this respect, as all throughout the 20th century it helped domesticate and neutralize popular opposition movements, partially by orienting radicals towards statist reforms, where corporate money ultimately rules the roost, and partially via divide and conquer tactics.
Yes, although it’s not just ire necessarily; e.g., “Green Party Voter.” (If you haven’t noticed, he’s back).
…you might say that Libertarians (as well as Tea Partiers) support the interests of the 1% behind the facade of supporting liberty.
If libertarians are actually just carrying water for the oligarchs, then why don’t these oligarchs support the LP? Why did they go to such great lengths to oppose Ron Paul?
Going by the logic that the comment related to the thread just because it is in the Green Party category you could post the same comment on any and every Green Party thread. I hadn’t said that you in particular had done that, although we have had problems with commenters doing similar things over the years.
We actually have one or two people who are currently doing that, except the object of their ire is the Constitution Party, rather than the Green Party.
??
What’s Warren Redlich have to do with GwoA’s comment?
in response to wredlich:
From a Green Party email blast: Strange bedfellows indeed! Green Party Press Secretary, Scott McLarty, got a call yesterday from USA Today. Yup. Them. Seems that “The Donald”, AKA Mr. Trump, is contemplating a 3rd Party bid. USA Today’s reporter wanted to know what it would take (because, of course, why would a political reporter […]
>>“Libertarians, at least, do not try to conceal their motives: Libertarians, liberty, etc.
>From a hostile perspective, you might say that Libertarians (as well as Tea Partiers) support >the interests of the 1% behind the facade of supporting liberty.
Clearly you have a strongly leftist bias. You’d do better to act as if you are less biased.
>But that isn’t exactly fair to
>those Libertarians who honestly believe that Libertarian policies will lead to more liberty and >equality, however misguided these beliefs are in practice.
You’re obviously making things up. You said, ” however misguided these beliefs are in practice.” Since a libertarian society has never actually been practiced, you have no way to know if libertarian beliefs are “misguided….in practice”. You’re simply attempting to justify your own opinions…with your own opinions! Called a “circular argument”, usually.
“The Green Party has hidden behind a facade of environmentalism. Now, don’t try to take my assertion of “concealing their motives” too literally: It’s not like people today don’t KNOW who the Greens are. It’s just that they’ve given themselves a phony label that I think was initially important to conceal their true motives. They should have just started out with the name, “The Socialist Party” and be done with it.”
And it DOES “have to do with the subject at hand” to the extent that the motives of the Greens are primarily socialist.”
>This isn’t completely mistaken insofar as many Greens are watermelons and the GP seems to >be trending watermelon.
Lately, the Greens (at least, some of them) seem to actually have taken this as somewhat of a badge of honor. It’s not like they could deny it.
> “However, alot of these watermelons got to that position by earnestly reflecting on the origin >of ecological crisis as well as nature of capitalism and its relationship to oppressive >government,
Let me address that: After the breakdown of the Soviet Union, we found out how bad they were concerning environmental issues. Now, if you merely think of them as being a type of “oppressive government”, that all makes sense according to what you just said. But remember, the socialist/communist line on the Soviet Union (by those in the West, especially in the 1930’s) was that it was (or, at least, was someday going to be) some sort of utopia. Clearly, it didn’t turn out that way.
I suggest that the concept of “socialism” is INHERENTLY flawed: It won’t do what you want, and to ‘fix’ things you (and every other socialist) will simply argue that “with a little more pressure on the reactionary elements” things will turn out fine. Which, of course, is precisely what the Soviet Union did. Thereby, you will eventually reach an old-Soviet-Union level of oppression, whether or not you started out hoping for it, or believing that it will ever occur. Eventually, they developed a hidden society of ‘haves’ (those that were allowed to go to the secret stores, the ones with low prices and where those shelves were always fully stocked.)
“and finally concluding that capitalism, and the statist structures that maintain it, are inherently unsustainable. ”
I really have to stop laughing! Were you born after, say, 1980? Do you not remember what actually happened to Eastern Europe in 1989, or after 1991 in the Soviet Union? Your ignorance is truly palpable. Or maybe you’re just pretending. You may be trying to convince people who you know never knew about the Soviet Union.
“In other words, their motives are relatively pure–they want peace and sustainability as well as liberty, democracy, and self-determination for American citizens, and their minds are open enough to investigate all possible avenues towards those goals.”
I have no doubt whatsoever that the people who eventually went on to found the old Soviet Union after the 1918 Revolution were similarly benevolent…at first. Look how that turned out, huh? But millions died in the Gulags, and starved to death when they resisted collectivization. Your kind of people so hated them, it was all covered up as being fully justified. And don’t forget Stalin’s show-trials in 1937, Comrade.
” I’m hoping that political discourse in America will eventually mature to the point where the media has to do more then simply point out that alot of Greens are watermelons…”
Actually, the biased news media tends to ignore this flaw of Greens.
“instead they’ll have to actually investigate whether these watermelon ideas are right or wrong and why (rather than just relying on cold-war conditioning and fearmongering).”
I’m afraid you never knew (or forgot long ago) why your ideas can never work.
” With the end of the cold war, the 2008 financial crisis, the ongoing recession, and quickly escalating inequality and class war,”
I happen to believe that the real-estate bubble was CA– USED by the CRA (Community Reinvestment Act), which was passed by a Democrat Congress and President Carter, to reward his natural constituencies. It was strengthened in about 1993, and eventually it crashed the system in 2008. Naturally, it was intended to REDUCE inequality and “class war”. But I suppose you never knew that, huh?
“it seems like the younger generation is no longer subject to the same conditioning as the old, and is earnestly investigating whether the capitalism and government they were taught to revere is actually consistent with the ideas of liberty and self-determination.”
Except that “the younger generation” has never been taught how bad the socialist and communist governments ever were. What’s YOUR excuse?
Which is not at all.
Others are just long standing Marxist sect members exercising time tested popular front strategies.
“Libertarians, at least, do not try to conceal their motives: Libertarians, liberty, etc.”
From a hostile perspective, you might say that Libertarians (as well as Tea Partiers) support the interests of the 1% behind the facade of supporting liberty. But that isn’t exactly fair to those Libertarians who honestly believe that Libertarian policies will lead to more liberty and equality, however misguided these beliefs are in practice.
“The Green Party has hidden behind a facade of environmentalism. Now, don’t try to take my assertion of “concealing their motives” too literally: It’s not like people today don’t KNOW who the Greens are. It’s just that they’ve given themselves a phony label that I think was initially important to conceal their true motives. They should have just started out with the name, “The Socialist Party” and be done with it.
And it DOES “have to do with the subject at hand” to the extent that the motives of the Greens are primarily socialist.”
This isn’t completely mistaken insofar as many Greens are watermelons and the GP seems to be trending watermelon. However, alot of these watermelons got to that position by earnestly reflecting on the origin of ecological crisis as well as nature of capitalism and its relationship to oppressive government, and finally concluding that capitalism, and the statist structures that maintain it, are inherently unsustainable. In other words, their motives are relatively pure–they want peace and sustainability as well as liberty, democracy, and self-determination for American citizens, and their minds are open enough to investigate all possible avenues towards those goals. I’m hoping that political discourse in America will eventually mature to the point where the media has to do more then simply point out that alot of Greens are watermelons…instead they’ll have to actually investigate whether these watermelon ideas are right or wrong and why (rather than just relying on cold-war conditioning and fearmongering). With the end of the cold war, the 2008 financial crisis, the ongoing recession, and quickly escalating inequality and class war, it seems like the younger generation is no longer subject to the same conditioning as the old, and is earnestly investigating whether the capitalism and government they were taught to revere is actually consistent with the ideas of liberty and self-determination.
Going by the logic that the comment related to the thread just because it is in the Green Party category you could post the same comment on any and every Green Party thread. I hadn’t said that you in particular had done that, although we have had problems with commenters doing similar things over the years.
That’s the original definition of socialism. State “socialism” came along later, with the state understood to be the proxy of the workers. I think reality has demolished that theory.
Yes, that’s called state “socialism,” which is a distortion of the original meaning along the lines I have explained.
>>>I simply question if every post about the activities of a fairly large alternative party is an >>>appropriate forum for a general discussion of that party’s ideology. I suppose we just >>>disagree on this. >I’m with PJO on this. It’s at the very least obnoxius to use […]
>>Neither I, nor anyone else I’ve seen
>You haven’t been around here enough then. We’ve been doing this for over seven years, >have over 15,000 posts and over 250,000 comments. Trust me, it happens.
Now you’re back to ‘it happens’. Before you said,
“I simply question if every post about the activities of a fairly large alternative party
is an appropriate forum for a general discussion of that party’s ideology.”
Do you see how you overstated your position? You shouldn’t object if merely some posts criticize the Green party.
>>Socialists, virtually by definition are (and, dare I say, SHOULD BE) hostile to libertarianism.
>No, they shouldn’t. Socialism is supposed to mean workers owning the means of production.
In whose book? First, do you mean workers are ALLOWED to own the means of production, or alternatively, workers are REQUIRED to own the means of production? (IOW, a business cannot hire workers.) See the difference? BIG difference!
Generally, in the European world, “socialism” means taxing the private sector to support ‘the worthy poor’, or some rot like that. That happens without regard to whether workers own the means of production.
>Only under libertarianism can this actually happen in reality.
The grocery store Winco claims to be “employee owned”. America is not (yet) a libertarian-run country. Where is the inconsistency? I agree that under libertarianism, “this can happen”. But it doesn’t necessarily happen.
You haven’t been around here enough then. We’ve been doing this for over seven years, have over 15,000 posts and over 250,000 comments. Trust me, it happens.
LOL, seriously? Obviously you are very new here, and it shows. I have criticized them quite a bit in these very pages.
Well, that’s at least certainly true.
Correct. See http://aaeblog.com/2006/11/24/greensleeves-was-all-my-joy/ for details.
No, actually I meant exactly what I originally said.
No, they shouldn’t. Socialism is supposed to mean workers owning the means of production. Only under libertarianism can this actually happen in reality. The last century of world history amply demonstrates that the state is a very poor proxy for the interests of workers in controlling the means of production. Workers’ rights and interests suffer horribly under socialist regimes. As with environmentalists, the ostensible goals of socialists – improving the lot of the poor and middle/blue collar/working classes – is far better served by liberty than by state “socialism.”
You said (and quoted):
in response to PJO:
>>I simply question if every post about the activities of a fairly large alternative party is an >>appropriate forum for a general discussion of that party’s ideology. I suppose we just >>disagree on this.
>I’m with PJO on this. It’s at the very least obnoxius to use any and every Green Party post to >comment on the Green Party in general.
Clearly, you are overstating this. Neither I, nor anyone else I’ve seen, “use[s] any and every Green Party post to comment on the Green Party in general”. So far, I’ve only done it ONCE, and I rarely see it done by others. But nevertheless, it should occur at times.
You probably don’t want ANY criticism of the Green Party, but you recognized that it would sound quite weak to say something like that. What you did was to set up a straw-man argument, overstating what I was doing. I criticized the Greens; moreover, I criticized them in a way that’s far from new. That means that I don’t get any ‘points’ for originality, but on the other hand I don’t lose any ‘points’ for implausibility.
>And the Green Party is in fact primarily focused on environmentalism. They even have some >libertarian-leaning environmentalists, although they are definitely a minority.
There is nothing inherently inconsistent about libertarianism and environmentalism. However, what you probably really mean is that there are few libertarians who are attracted to a forum which is primarily socialist in background. Socialists, virtually by definition are (and, dare I say, SHOULD BE) hostile to libertarianism. Libertarianism includes ‘freedom from socialism’, to coin a thought that I can’t claim to be original. A libertarian who was also in favor of environmentalism would certainly be attracted to a different venue, not that of socialists.
>There are several Socialist parties, and many of them criticize the Greens for being what they >consider capitalist, or downplaying economic issues and placing other concerns above the >class struggle.
In other words, Greens are not necessarily ideologically pure socialists. Quite true.
>>Libertarians, at least, do not try to conceal their motives: Libertarians, liberty, etc.
>Many people who don’t like libertarianism have suggested that those aren’t our true motives, >although they don’t all agree as to what our true motives in fact are.
If they are honest about it, they presumably admit that there are, indeed, many genuine libertarians. They are just focussing on what they suspect are ideologically inconsistent libertarians. I don’t deny there may be such in the world, but they don’t seem particularly common to me.
I’m with PJO on this. It’s at the very least obnoxius to use any and every Green Party post to comment on the Green Party in general.
And the Green Party is in fact primarily focused on environmentalism. They even have some libertarian-leaning environmentalists, although they are definitely a minority. There are several Socialist parties, and many of them criticize the Greens for being what they consider capitalist, or downplaying economic issues and placing other concerns above the class struggle.
Many people who don’t like libertarianism have suggested that those aren’t our true motives, although they don’t all agree as to what our true motives in fact are.
This is a good address of the subject of the Green Party:
http://beaveronline.co.uk/watermelons-my-scepticism-of-the-green-party/
Sample:
“Unfortunately, I cannot take credit for the term “watermelons.” It is was coined in reference to the Green movement, including the Green Party, by journalist James Delingpole in his book, ‘Watermelons: The Green Movement’s True Colours.’ Described as a party with green exterior and a red interior, it has been suggested that the Green Party represents a juxtaposition of superficial motives and traits wrapping around the political engine inside. In essence, Delingpole argued that the Green Movement was an earth-loving, Marxist machine. Analysts suggest that Natalie Bennett fits this description, although with a slightly softer, but no less green exterior.”
“There does seem to be a collectivist impulse that runs through the Green consensus. In the beginning, it may have taken the form of a soft identification with communism and the statist impulse, and more recently it has ridden on the same saddle as the Occupy movement, calling for “real change” from the culture of privatisation that is seen as increasingly apparent under the current Tory-led government; Green policy concerns itself with this, citing policy initiatives ranging from and end of austerity and welfare cuts to investment in, quoting from the Green Party website, “decent jobs.” If there is one good quality in any political party, please, I beg, let it at least be clarity.”
“Yes, I am aware this is a Green Party-related article. But the comment in question is not about the story itself. It’s as if one were to go to that story about the LP logo and comment that “Libertarians have been amusingly described as hippies of the right.” It’s a pejorative with nothing to do with the subject at hand.”
Libertarians, at least, do not try to conceal their motives: Libertarians, liberty, etc. The Green Party has hidden behind a facade of environmentalism. Now, don’t try to take my assertion of “concealing their motives” too literally: It’s not like people today don’t KNOW who the Greens are. It’s just that they’ve given themselves a phony label that I think was initially important to conceal their true motives. They should have just started out with the name, “The Socialist Party” and be done with it.
And it DOES “have to do with the subject at hand” to the extent that the motives of the Greens are primarily socialist.
>>The Green Party has been amusingly described as watermelons: Green on the outside, and red on the inside.
>What does this have to do with this article?
Because the source of the press release is the Green Party. Duh.
GP voter is not affiliated with the national Green Party. He is affiliated with the Independent Green Party of Virginia, which sells its ballot access to the highest bidder and endorses candidates from various other parties. There’s no support for Trump in the national Green Party, as the release makes clear.
It sounds like the Green Party is afflicted with some of the same problems that have plagued the Libertarian Party — too many opportunists ready to get suckered by someone like Trump who comes along with a big name or the prospect of big money become excited at the lure of big easy gains. Kind of like the person who thinks some miracle pill is going to help them lose 50 lbs. and get in shape without exercising or eating healthier. The LP, sadly, went down this path in 2008 with Bob Barr. It didn’t work out very well for us.
It appears the Greens also have their share of people with inferiority complexes about being in an alternative party, who are always looking for an opportunity to pump up the party’s image by bragging about every minor victory du jour as if it were a big deal. Be wary of elevating folks within your ranks whose need to be “taken seriously” leads them to focus on “winning” instead of standing by your principles. These are the same folks who will sell your party out to the likes of Donald Trump, given what looks to them like an attractive offer. All with good intentions and high hopes, naturally!
As for Green Party Voter…..are you trolling us? Donald Trump has very little, if anything, in common with the GP ideologically.
As far as the article goes, the more interesting question would have been whether the Greens would consider Jesse Ventura as a potential candidate. While the official answer is probably yes, the practical answer is probably no. This is unfortunate as the Greens have to find a way to expand the tent and stop letting sectarianism and/or preconceived judgements get in the way of that. For example, virtually everyone in the GP is determined to find ways to appeal to minorities and/or people of color. But one means of reaching out to these communities is to recruit more populist candidates who will get the media attention we need to actually be on their radar.
At first glance, Carey Campbell (the guy doing the interview above) seems unusual for a Green. A look at his webpage shows he’s an AF vet who studied at Freiburg (a gorgeous German city and a Green Party stronghold). I’m guessing he’s an essentially conservative dude who observed the benefits of living in Freiburg and wishes Americans could also experience these benefits.
I had the privilege of studying for a year at Freiburg and it had an impact on my political development. It’s alot easier to be a healthy and happy person in a place like Freiburg where you can get anywhere you need to go by bike or above-ground tram, where recreation is easily accessible and the population is largely fit and healthy, and where aesthetic beauty is ubiquitous. It’s too bad most American communities and cities are too divided, conquered, and disorganized to get together and organize to create the sort of urban environment Freiburg has achieved.
“Some political parties receive sufficient number of press inquiries that a call from a reporter does not warrant a press release.
Just saying…”
The Green Partty has two media coordinators. SCott McLarty and Starlene Rankin.
One, the one who was interviewed by USA Today, is amazing, very savvy, and does terrific work.
The other, who sent out this e-mail blast, is nice, good-hearted and is committed, and makes contributions in other ways.
Everyone has their strengths.
Starleen Rankin of the Green Party is hard working, and a wonderful Green Party leader.
Thanks for this story.
Watching the Green Party national meeting facebook posts, and video, it looks like a very successful Green Party gathering, and fun for those of us who love Green politics.
The CIA world fact book points out that the U.S. has only four truly national political parties. Two, the larger two, everyone knows. The Green Party and the Libertarian Party are the other two national parties. So it made sense for the reporter to call the Green Party.
Donald Trump as a Green Party candidate is an interesting proposition. There have been Greens discussing this possibility the past few weeks. There are Independent Greens in Virginia who want to explore this idea.
It is a constructive discussion, and opportunity for the Green Party.
Trump needs ballot access. The Green Party has ballot access. The Green Party needs the media blackout to stop. Trump is a media magnet.
That is the start of a Donald Trump Green Party candidate for President discussion.
That is the basis for a Donald Trump Green Party alliance.
Green Party folks told me this.
“It would definitely get the Green Party name out there!”
“It would be a lot of press for the Green Party, even if the Green Party just talked it up.”
The Green Party has five people running for the Green Party nomination. Dr. Jill Stein, Dr. Bill Kreml, Dr. Kent Mesplay, and Darryl Cherney.
Add Donald Trump to that Green Party mix.
Wouldn’t it be great to watch?
Donald Trump has the potential to expose the wider public to the Green Party and positive Green Party Green New Deal eco solutions.
Watch Green Party Green TV
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRzf71BuKQQ
No human being is illegal
Why should you have any collectivist right to make them leave, and how huge of a fascist regime do you want to round up and deport millions of people, many of whom actually grew up here almost their whole life and have truly nowhere to go “back” to?
Tracking employees like cattle. I refuse to use an SS number on principle so I guess I could starve.
Oh so stasi + lynch mobs + SS numbers and virtual gold stars and virtual concentration camp number tattoos. Welcome to prison kamp Amerikkka, next stop: death camps.
And your views would be what… gold on the outside, brown on the inside?
Let everyone in legally. Armies should be raised in times of war. A people’s militia would be far better as a true homeland defense.
You said,
“I saw that he visited the border with Mexico, and my hope is that he will deploy the US Army to the Mexican border, as well as the Canadian border to work with the Mexican and Canadian Army to shut it down and let in only those who are coming in legally”
I wonder about people who focus about the border. Nearly half of the current crop of illegals crossed the border legally, and overstayed their visas. Further, focusing on the border implies that the current illegals are going to be allowed to stay, but no more. This makes no logical sense: If they have already violated the law, why should they be entitled to stay, when there are 7 billion people in this world who you don’t want to allow in.
Requiring all employers to use E-verify, and offering a bounty for anyone identifying an illegal (to be paid out of the pockets of the government employees themselves if they fail to eject them) would make the country impractical for the illegals to stay in.
There has been a lot of outrage lately about Donald Trump especially about his comments about veterans especially John McCain. I am a veteran myself currently living in a disabled veterans home in Las Vegas.
I do not agree with Mr Trump about anything he said about veterans, and I am pissed off that he said that, but in spite of all that I still want to see Mr Trump as president of the USA as long as he is running as an independent neither republican nor democrat since both parties had led us astray.
I think Mr Trump can be rude sometimes, but that is what the situations call for, besides he speaks his mind and he does not care about consequences and I admire that.
I also admire Mr Trump for being a successful business man and I think he should run the country, because all other presidents we had are not business men and if you cannot run a business and don’t know when you are in red or where we should spend our money, or that wars will bankrupt the country, then you should have no business running the country.
Furthermore I am convinced that Mr Trump is a gifted shrewd negotiator and that he knows how to deal with our trading partners, allies, as well as being tough on our enemies.
I saw that he visited the border with Mexico, and my hope is that he will deploy the US Army to the Mexican border, as well as the Canadian border to work with the Mexican and Canadian Army to shut it down and let in only those who are coming in legally.
The state of lawlessness in the border areas is intolerable on both sides of the border, besides we are not the police of the world we need to police our own land.
I am 55 years old currently looking for a job and having a hard time finding one in spite of my 25 year work history with background in the entertainment industry as a small budget film and tv producer, actor, as well as screenwriter with a contract on one of my scripts which never materialized. I have also worked in hotels and restaurants, sales and marketing, as well as real estate, and general labor jobs, including cleaning restrooms in gas stations, working 5 years in gas stations as well as manufacturing aircraft parts as a machinist and precision grinder between 1978 and 1981.
I could use some help finding a job here in Las Vegas. I have so far worked with 3 different veterans employment agencies and so far, I am still unemployed living on my VA and social security disability checks a total of 740 dollars a month.
After paying my rent at the Vets home and buying a bus pass as well as some food and eating a couple of restaurant meals I am literally flat broke the first two weeks of the month.
I am still willing to work hard and will not disappoint my future employer. My future perspective Chinese wife is very wealthy, but I do not want to live on her money, I want to earn my own paycheck.
Thanks
The Green Party has been amusingly described as watermelons: Green on the outside, and red on the inside.
I think they have made it clear that they don’t want him.
The Greens can have the Donald.
I’d call it “virtual handjob to pump up the spirits of the folks at home on the email list, maybe give them a reason to send in some of their pocket change or at least not unsubscribe.”
I’m sure Scott McLarty knows he was probably not the only party’s spokesperson to get this kind of call for the stories that media outlets are doing about Trump possibly running outside the duopoly. But, hey, it makes good copy. Can’t fault them for going with it, although I can laugh a little at the obviousness of it.
>”But here’s the thing—USA Today called US. Us Greenies. He could have called any one of a >dozen other 3rd parties. We got the call.”
>And assume that no one else did?
I guess that would be called ‘extreme narcissism’.
Some political parties receive sufficient number of press inquiries that a call from a reporter does not warrant a press release.
Just saying…
We’re also going to see the formation of the Latinx Caucus (the X is to include people of all gender orientations—isn’t that cool?)
Is that a rhetorical question?
But here’s the thing—USA Today called US. Us Greenies. He could have called any one of a dozen other 3rd parties. We got the call.
And assume that no one else did?