Lars; this one is for you; Green question : LUSENET : TB2K spinoff uncensored : One Thread

You ask on a recent thread about Nadar what the green party would do if elected. Here is the answer; the platform. Someone asked what their connection to the European Green Parties was. See link two.


European Connection

You may remember that Brian and I don't agree on all of this stuff. Our local party is much more spacey.

Best wishes,,,,,


-- Z1X4Y7 (, August 31, 2000



Here is another link:


I tried to find the site for the local Green Party, but it has been removed. They are no longer linked to the national party either.

Make of that what you will.

Best wishes,,,,


-- Z1X4Y7 (, August 31, 2000.

Z, thanks. Looks like too-much-information but I will scan it. I don't think the country would be well served by a dynamite-retrofit, whether Reform, Green, Libertarian or Lenora Falani. I prefer change within the system. Didn't always think that way but I do now.

-- Lars (, August 31, 2000.

Make sure the Green Party is actually on your ballot. They are listed in all states.

-- Not Z (Not@Z.Z), August 31, 2000.

Sorry, make that NOT listed in all states.

-- Not Z (Not@Z.Z), August 31, 2000.

>> I prefer change within the system. Didn't always think that way but I do now. <<

Lars, I think you are mistaking the Green Party for the Symbionese Liberation Army. Big difference.

The Green Party proposes to make any and all changes completely within the system. That includes electing candidates, passing laws and subjecting those laws to judicial review. If they can do all that and succeed, their laws are just as legal as any laws passed by the Republicans or Democrats.

That is the system. Right?

-- Brian McLaughlin (, August 31, 2000.


If they are that mainstream, then I could be interested in some of their objectives. But if they are that mainstream, then why not just stay in the Dem party from which they derive? Gore would love to have them back.

-- Lars (, August 31, 2000.

>> If they are that mainstream, then I could be interested in some of their objectives. <<

Yes. As amazing as it may seem, the Green Party rejects armed revolution in favor of the ballot box and the rule of law. So, having established this critical fact, which of their objectives are you interested in?

>> If they are that mainstream, then why not just stay in the Dem party from which they derive? Gore would love to have them back. <<

You asked. The answer isn't a 3-liner. It takes a bit longer to lay out.

The strategic problem, in my view, is that the Democratic Party has completely killed off its grassroots. It is just coasting along on the momentum it acquired before 1968. Most Democrats rank and file are held in place not by enthusiasm, but by inertia and fear of the Republican agenda - as embodied in leaders like the dear departed Newt, Trent Lott and Dick Armey.

You can't define yourselves purely in terms of your enemies. That is the same as handing your fate to them. First Clinton and now Gore have become addicted to that drug. It looks so damn simple but in the end it is totally enervating.

Democratic campaigns are purely run on money now, with volunteers taking a smaller and smaller role. That means cozying up to big money while pretending not to, as Gore is proving daily. This is giving us progressively less of the substance of populism and replacing it with the empty shadow image of it.

So, the problem boils down to one of reviving the grassroots. Whether it is done from within the Democrats or within the Greens, the work is essentially the same. The choice then becomes one of picking the "brand name" under which to do your work and deciding which one gets you the biggest boost toward where you need to go.

I am putting my chips on the Greens for the simple reason that in order to organize the grassroots, you need to mobilize enthusiasm. Most young people under 35 have no enthusiasm for the Democrats. They have no memory of the Dems changing their lives for the better, no emotional connection to its traditions, and no belief in its integrity. They are the future of any party. I think they will be easier to reach with "Green" as the label on the jar than "Democrat".

Over half of the eligible voters don't even register these days. When you look at the ones who do register, often less than 60% cast ballots. This is another place where organizing must be done. My gut feeling is that, of the two-thirds of eligible voters who sit out any one election, probably 75% are genuinely apolitical beyond recovery.

But, the remaining 25% of the non-participants are just angry, numb and demoralized when faced with their choices. Again, I think these people could be reached a lot more easily if the person who reached them didn't wear a "Democrat" label. To them it just means "con man".

If I were told I must work from inside the Democrats, I would absolutely, positively form a cohesive splinter group and come up with some sort of nickname to go under. Then we would always identify ourselves as a "Gadfly democrat" or a "Bluebird democrat" or something similar.

I see the Nader candidacy as just one modest step ahead toward forming a viable grassroots in a party framework.

As for "Gore would love to have us back". Sure. Right. Of course he would. But if I jump on his trolley, it is just going to take me another mile in wrong direction and the Democrats will just be another four years closer to souless and dead. We'd have our lump of flesh in the White House, but all he could do is keep throwing himself in front of a moving Republican Congress and get run over repeatedly.

Gore has no coat tails, because his Party has a soft agenda that just lulls us to sleep. Even if he gets a Democratic Congress, he won't do anything with it as far as I can see. All he would do is sit there like a Franklin Pierce, occupying the space so the opposition doesn't occupy it. Or so I believe.

So, somebody has to step up and start building a grassroots party of the left again. If I do the work, I get to choose how I go about it. I choose Green, because I think it can recapture some youth and enthusiasm that can be bootstrapped into a living party.

-- Brian McLaughlin (, August 31, 2000.


We already know where each other stands regarding the election, but I do think that you have worthy intentions in following your gut on this one. I once had worthy intentions. [grin] I think right now we BOTH lack patience. My feelings are that an alternative party [whichever one] won't be viable in a Presidential race until numerous states have representatives from that party. As mentioned elsewhere, third parties don't even have candidates running in some states. I'm quite confident that I'll be voting for Gore/Lieberman for president, but I have no ties to the Democratic party, and the rest of my ticket will be all over the place.

I enjoy your sense of commitment, and can understand it.

-- Anita (, August 31, 2000.


Thanks for your answer. I see your predicament and follow your logic. Good luck. You set yourself a mighty task.

-- Lars (, September 01, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ