Monday, August 15, 2005

Who's Greener than Who?

This is an expanded upon rant that started as a post to the GPUS National Committee list. But I have had request to share it with all Greens. So live from Lake thoughts on the heirarchy of self actualization within the Green Party.

I have noticed a lot of discussion about who is a Green. Or who is Greenest. And of course who might be other than a Green disguising themselves as a Green for ulterior motives. I really try to avoid this. But I feel compelled to voice my thoughts. I have been recruiting for the Greens hard before, during, and after the 2004 Presidential elections.

Many of our new local Greens voted last election cycle. Many if not most of them voted other than Green.

Now besides the new Greens who supported Kerry. Some established Greens chose to do the same. Some did openly and some did through various strategies and by softening the Greens impact. Some who did this were just rank and file Greens, who mostly no one outside their local would even know their stances. However, some who supported Kerry were well known and even elected Greens. Unfortunately, those who were well known and made what I personally believe to be a tactical error took the heat for all the soft on Kerry folks.

The support of the Kerry ticket by some of the most hardest working and prominent Greens has brought much ire in their direction within the party. There are those who I think genuinely would prefer these folks not be Greens due to their positions.

My question for those who believe there is no room for those who supported Kerry is should I now notify all new Greens and all the established Greens in Florida that they should abandon ship and discourage them from participating at a state or national level, unless they passed the litmus test of renouncing Kerry as the Corporate supporter of the War that he was? Or is it just folks who actually get themselves elected that are not allow to disagree with others in the party? Because half the responses to our Green Presidential poll in my state regretably said we should run no candidate, and I bet those folks voted Kerry in Droves. And then there is the almost as many of us in Florida who were Nader supporters. How many Presidential elections do the Greens in my state have to vote Green before they are one?

Even being a supporter of Nader's I wonder, if maybe folks would want me to encourage purging both sides (which means I am out too) and only letting those who voted Green to remain Green.

Maybe some of you folks can recommend the best way of ridding myself of myself and these other infidels.

I also want to disclose, that I did not support Kerry. I would vote for a bag of crap before supporting that corporate shill. But I did vote Nader. So I crossed the Party lines. As did folks that voted for Kerry.

I don't like what the openly supportive of Kerry Greens did, and I tell them why one on one, Green to Green. They don't like what I did in supporting Nader, and they tell me why. Thats the breaks.

But you know what, we are all still Greens, so far.

When I became a Green, I was told that ten key values made being a green. If anyone wants to write an eleventh that states you must support the party ticket and stance 100% of the time for a set determined amount of elections to keep your Green status, go ahead.

Let the folks who have purged their own state of those who lesser eviled and those who voted Nader throw the first stone. Because the irony is both sides are two sides of the same coin. We wanted something else than to vote for the Green ticket this time. Both groups did so because of deep ideological feelings.

I vote dem all the time, because I have no other choice, because no Green or acceptable choice is running. It usually disgusts me, but I do it. I bet most of you do it too. Until we have a Green or two in every race on every ballot, this will not change.

I have a great idea for those who like me rejected the safe state strategy, engage those who feel otherwise in a honest and respectful discussion. Grow the Party like mad for four years. Then in 2008 maybe we will not have these problems. Maybe I am naive, but I truly believe that if we get our act together we can build this party to the point that we can get 5% next election. But that will take a united Green Party.

Or we can treat each other with disrespect. Possibly split the party and end up on other aisles again in 2008 with candidates that are not unifying enough to get even Greens to vote for them.

I wonder which of those strategies will grow the Green party in the next four years.

And if any of you Greens that are upset by the ideological divide think you can cut and run from the Greens can build a party so easily once outside of the Greens, why don't you show us how it's done and grow the party now. I am talking to both sides of the aisle on that one. If you think its hard with all of us now, wait until you try with half of us, with the other half working toward the same natural constituents.

50,000 people starved today. Hundreds began the journey to Crawford. Greens are working on petitions to support Cindy Sheehan. And fundraising to get more Greens to Crawford. GPAX is working to put create a visible presence across this country on Sept 24th.

And somewhere in cyber space a dozen Greens on our National list, the same dozen or so who continually dominate the conversation, inch further apart and continue to split our party further as they discuss what happened in 2004 instead of what is happening today and what will happen tomorrow.

You know what happens when you walk only looking backwards?...... You bump into stuff because you don't know what is in front of you.

Since some folks say its not over until you say its over, just let me know when you this debate is over. Let me know which side won and whether I am a Green or not. And when its over I will be thrilled, then I can know when I can engage the debaters in a discussion about party building. So then I can engage them in a discussion about ending this war now, which silly ole me thinks is more important than this debate.

The funniest thing about this all, is that it seems that some of our brightest and most dedicated greens are the ones who continue this. I guess Ginsberg had it right...."I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked" You snipers are Howling freeking goofy. And you are gonna give yourself health issues if you dont relieve some of that anger.

END the War, stop the fighting. Start right here. Tonight. Join GPAX and help the Greens Stop the War.

I thought this was a party, not a debate club. Walk away from the keyboard and join me in the streets.


At 8/16/2005, Blogger michael said...

Thank you!
I totally agree with you that we have to put aside our differences about the 2004 election and get to work.

This country has been shifting to the right and desperately needs the Greens to get out there and lead the way to sanity, peace, sustainability.

At 8/16/2005, Blogger Sarah "echo" Steiner said...

Hey Michael,

Thanks for dropping by. I hope that you will join me in call for unity in our party.

We need to be able to focus on the bigger issues, stopping the wars: military, environmental,ideologic and social.

The Greens must show leadership in the peace movement.


At 8/17/2005, Blogger Tim said...

This should be posted at every Green Party meeting across the land! Well said!

At 8/17/2005, Blogger GreenPartyMike said...


thanks for this. Could not agree more. in fact sarah, I am working to get the GP endorsement for US Senate in Minnesota 2006. I am a committed "Cobbitte" and my campaign manager, Dori, is a "Naderitte". Our unofficial slogan is "Nader-Cobb split my ass"

check us out some time and see watcha think


Post a Comment

<< Home