Responses to the "Norm Solomon Scolds the Green Party" Article
Concerning the Norm Solomon Scolds the Green Party article:
I am writing from Melbourne, Australia where I am a member of the Greens Victorian Branch, State Executive.
I just listened online to the debate you had at the Crest theater in Sacramento, January 29. I just want to say I agree entirely with your point of view, and I believe many Greens throughout the world think the same. The manner in which the US Greens conduct its presidential campaign is of great concern to all Greens (and probably non-greens too) outside USA.
In Australia, we have a preferential voting system. It is not unheard of for parties to refuse to run a candidate in a seat, preferring instead to be spoilers by allowing a less hated party win the seat. In fact, this is exactly how the Greens won its first lower house seat in the federal parliament when the conservative party refused to run a candidate in a safe left seat (betting the greens would collect enough conservative votes, which they did). I do not agree with the allegation that to refuse to run a candidate is treating the electorate with contempt. It is often a smart strategy, and the electorate knows it is a strategy.
Although I do not fully understand the processes for presidential and congress elections in the US, I would add that in my view many commentators, and indeed many Greens themselves (GFK), are recommending people not to vote Green in many states. I suspect that many greens will even pray that the Green vote will significantly drop in several states. This is an astonishing and perhaps embarrassing position. If it does drop, it will be interpreted by many as a reversal in the party's growth, and that will, in my opinion, cause more damage to the grassroots growth of the party than would not standing a presidential candidate at all.
As we say in Australia, even Blind Freddy can see that the Greens are wasting valuable resources running for President this year when there is so much to gain from using those resources elsewhere. I noted that Peter Camejo constantly dumped on the Democrats in every answer he gave. It seemed his position was motivated by a hatred of democrats rather than any logical analysis of the problems we face by having Bush remain in power.
Finally, in our preferential voting system the Greens decide (often on a seat by seat basis) which of the major parties they prefer, as green voters have to rank them in order of preference and the party nearly always directs them on how to make this choice. So I find nothing at all remarkable or immoral about the US Greens recommending to voters in some states to prefer the democrats over the republicans. It is merely an acknowledgement that bush has to go, and that the only possibility for that to happen is to elect kerry. traditionally presidents come from the ranks of governors, so maybe if the Greens focused on winning more governor postions, then they would find it more realistic to reach for the white house. So, get more local mayors and state reps and prove that you are capable of running something, and votes will follow.
--S. Hardy
public2@isaacschambers.com.au
The publisher replies:
Thank you for your comments. It's a difficult situation in the United States and your views from Australia are valuable.
By the way, although we gave sharp criticism to Norm Solomon on a couple of occasions, that does not alter our high opinion of him as a genuine journalist. And more recently, he chose to join the Green Party -- see his explanation at:
http://www.progress.org/2004/sol135.htm
Tuesday June 22, 2004
Concerning the Norm Solomon Scolds the Green Party
article:
June 22, 2004
Norm Solomon
I’d like to respond to any, and all, of comments of Norm Solomon (who I will probably continue to admire) regarding his opinion of “third” party politics (e.g., "Green Party Taking the Plunge for 2004," The Progressive Report, and “Presidential Campaigns and Media Charades,” Znet Commentary, June 22).
Whether Ralph Nader (or any other “third party” candidate) draws votes away from Kerry or Bush is not relevant to Nader (and/or Green Party, Socialist Party, etc.) supporters. One can argue, ad nauseam, about the minute differences between a Bush and a Kerry but there can be little dispute that they both represent interests that are beyond the reach of all but a very few Elites and, more importantly, they both represent the persistence of a political system that consistently, and purposefully, gives us only that type of representation.
Never before this year has this been more clearly on display. Having learned from Mr. Solomon, himself, about the subtle, and not-so-subtle, ways that the Establishment uses its media to keep the status quo in place, it was very frustrating to watch what happened to, for example, Dennis Kucinich, one of several legitimate “insiders” challenging that Establishment.
As we know, the Elites are aware that their interests will be tended to by either major party as long as the candidate selection process effectively filters out any challenges from within the system (illegal exclusionary tactics work fine for “outsiders” like Nader, but would be problematic for Kucinich, et al). When Kucinich’s popularity grew to a level that could no longer be ignored, he was simply labeled “unelectable” (e.g., “short,” “bland,” etc.) and the entire Progressive/Liberal community (henceforth referred to, with disdain, as Proglibs) allowed itself to be manipulated into accepting that pronouncement as immutable fact.
In Wisconsin, where I live, we have the “Fighting Bob Fest,” a yearly rally in honor of progressive Wisconsin politician, Bob LaFollette, wherein Proglibs gather in great numbers to proclaim the need for things like accurate, substantive reporting in the media and wider ranges of choice in, especially, national politics. Shortly before the Iowa follies, when the media began to enumerate Kucinich’s fatal inadequacies, virtually all Fighting-Bob-Fest-attending Proglibs I talked to began to utter things like the following: “I really like Dennis Kucinich but, you know, he’s unelectable.”
When Kerry began to emerge as the “front runner,” these same Proglibs, who would have run Kerry out of Baraboo (where the FBF is held) a month earlier for his compliance to the corporate agenda, began to dutifully recite the “Anybody but Bush” mantra and criticize (often vehemently) anyone still supporting the “alternatives” that they had just recently pined openly for. It has been really quite embarrassing to watch.
So, Mr. Solomon, are you, too, a Proglib? Do you fail to recognize that true Progressive action must be directed at breaking down that very self-collapsed system that perpetually gives us only Kerrys as the “Anybody” option to the Bushes?
George W. Bush has given us a real wake-up call to the necessity of fundamentally re-constructing the American political apparatus and Progressives are sleeping right through it. It is the Progressive/Liberal community that has, once again, failed to make the leap. I hate to say it, but we may well deserve four more years of Bush.
In the mean time, kindly cease vilifying those of us who are trying to keep the highest social and political ideals from disappearing from the conversation altogether.
Steve Bartelt
Almond, WI
--Steve Bartelt
sbartelt@uniontel.net
Wednesday July 30, 2003
Concerning the Norm Solomon Scolds the Green Party
article:
The essential question, for liberal voters, is whether we want to see a divided left, which would almost certainly to lose to the right-wing, or whether we want to see a liberal consolidation in general terms, under either Dean or Kucinich.
My opinion is that the Greens would be wise to support either Dean or Kucinich (preferably Kucinich) to the point of endorsing them wholeheartedly. Such a strategy would be in the best long-temm interests of Green ideals. I think the Green Party, if it were properly alligned in Washington according to Machiavellian principles, could INSIST that either Dean or Kucinich be nominated.
Given either a Dean or a Kucinich presidency, the Green Party would be in a far stronger position in 2008, than it is today.
If, on the other hand, the Democratic Party chooses another candidate, like Kerry for example, then the Greens should be prepared to launch all-out war against him. They should be prepared to effectively boycott him, and give the presidency back to Bush, if neccessary.
The Green Party is strong today - both morally and electorally. Its strength is not likely to disappear soon, no matter who wins the election. But its political didadvantage is considerable - and will only be increased by a Bush win in 2004.
--Schuyler Lake
lake00@earthlink.net
Sunday July 27, 2003
Concerning the Norm Solomon Scolds the Green Party
article:
It appears Bush's excessive abuse has polarized Norman past sense. Someone as wretched as Bush would not win unless the alternative was also pungent with corruption and special interest.
The system is broken.
--Nathaniel Foote
Nat_Foote@yahoo.com
The publisher replies:
The system is definitely broken, and we believe that Norm Solomon's article went in the wrong direction, but I do want to point out that this is the first time we have ever had a serious disagreement with something that he wrote. Norm Solomon is a great journalist.
Sunday July 27, 2003
Concerning the Norm Solomon Scolds the Green Party
article:
The two party system is only slightly better then the One party system, since both supress the reform parties. Plurality voting throws away votes and majority rule. Instant run-off elections always elect a majority and don't leave power lying around to create corrupt parties and corrupt politics. The framers were dead set against parties and predicted every foul thing about them. If they only knew that plurality voting was the structural cause, we wouldnt have to be choseing between two evils today.
But it is not to late to fix our democracy. No short term problems like bush or no bush should come between leaving a better democracy for our children. Let our generation be the one that showed the courage to throw off the two parasite system.
--Jonathan Hall
California
The publisher replies:
Yeah!
Saturday July 26, 2003
Concerning the Norm Solomon Scolds the Green Party
article:
Good responses, short and saucy.
The point that the Dems think that insulting Green activists is a viable strategy is really telling. I am beginning to wonder if they fear us more than than fear four more years of Bush.
--dave
dave@baltimorecountygreens.org
Saturday July 26, 2003
Concerning the Norm Solomon Scolds the Green Party
article:
My problem is that I am impatient. The Republican party is busily ruining "My" America. They, collectively, don't have a clue. They are like a freight train off it's tracks. The Democrats, while not having
recently launched a war of aggression, have
passed on getting much of anything useful
done. Other parties are taking a long time
building up to where they can make a major
impact at the national level in this country.
It is frustrating to have a clear idea what
needs to be done and to feel there is nothing
short of a revolution that will work in my
lifetime ... and not being a revolutionary ...to be left with my knitting.
--Warren Faulk
PersimmonXing@aol.com
The publisher replies:
Yes, it is frustrating indeed. And I suspect that millions of people, perhaps tens of millions, share that frustration. If a significant chunk of those people all choose to do the same thing about it, they'll have a lot of impact without making a revolution. One interesting possibility is, what if these people start joining their local Green Parties? (Amazing changes can happen -- and sometimes have happened -- in a very short time. Those changes can be positive!)
Saturday July 26, 2003
Concerning the Norm Solomon Scolds the Green Party
article:
Wow, the editor seemed to be a bit hot under the collar. It would have been a nicer read to hear Norman Soloman's point of view without the point to point rebuttal which felt like arm twisting to see it Fred's way. The response could have been at the end of the article. When we listen to someone speak it's always courteous to not interrupt them and carefully listen to what they have to say, and I'm not sure why this is different.
Surely its a difficult issue and concerning the presidential election I'll be sure to vote for the democratic candidate who who will have the best chance of defeating Bush. The bottom line for me is that four more years of Bush would be too much to ask in order to vote more idealistically for the Green Candidate who would indeed more truly reflect my values. The long term consequences of four more years of Bush would be very devasting to our environment, personal liberties, and the remaining safeguards against a corporate free for all. So when we are talking about long term and short term ways to see the problem what in fact we have here is an interesting tangled hierarchy of alternative ways to view it.
--Brian Hayes
sdrshn@hotmail.com
The publisher replies:
The person hot under the collar would be me (Hanno Beck) rather than Senior Editor Fred Foldvary in this case.
I can give a response at the end of an article, or a point by point rebuttal. Either style is acceptable and I chose one. I understand that you would prefer the other style.
Vote whatever way you want. That is your right. But if you deliberately vote for someone other than the candidate who most closely reflects your values, your values are not going to be honored so well either in the short run or the long run.
I agree that we have an "interesting tangled hierarchy of alternative ways to view it," as you say. Nevertheless I think the proper conclusion is clear. Not everyone will see it that way but I want to sound a strong note in favor of the views expressed as responses to Norm Solomon's commentary.
What's your opinion? Tell your views to The Progress Report:
| Sign up for free Progress Report updates via email |
| Page One | Page Two | Archive |
| Discussion Room | Letters | What's Geoism? |
