After the LA Greens meeting last month, I’ve been thinking more about joining the Green Party.
Roger says I’m a tease for not writing about this (Update: I’m referring to the meeting here) sooner. So you know: the LA Greens meeting was warm and sweet. I started off my lil presentation about the Starbucks Challenge with: “So, I’m guessing not a lot of you go to Starbucks?” This semi-question was met with a vociferous “yes,” and a “Friends don’t let friends go to Starbucks!”
True enough. But it would be tough to find a lil group of people more aligned with fair trade ideals. I’m quite convinced that a number of them will stop by the mermaid to try out the challenge, albeit reluctantly.
Back to the Green Party — What’s really holding me back to defecting from the Dems to the Greens is that the Republicans are in power right now. Read Neil’s analysis of the Alito nomination, and I’m left agreeing that yes, “The (D) Is the Part That Matters.” (while you’re there, read anonyyyeeee’s comment for an excellent example of an idiotic troll)
If we want to prevent people like Alito getting into the supreme court, we need to get more Dems elected. Yes, I s’pose getting Greens elected to the senate would achieve the same goal, but realistically, I just don’t see 6 Greens getting elected to the senate anytime soon.
Meaning that in happier times, I might consider going Green. But it’s now. The Bush admin’s trying to convince us it’s a second cold war, complete with Rex the mountain lion mascot. Women’s right to choose is being eroded all over the country.
My big political concerns have become sadly basic: trying to stop the US from bombing the hell out of other countries without good reason, and halting the erosion of our rights as individuals.
And I’ve gotten way more pragmatic than idealistic. Yes, I realize that even if I go Green, I can vote for Dems. I get that often, Greens are much more politically engaged than Dems. But at this historical moment, for this specific girl, staying Democrat feels more like I’m realistically collaborating towards change (as oopposed to just dissenting) — and that more of my values might be translated into real-life results.
For now, at least.
I saw a pic of the poster on your post so I wanted to share pics of the Santa Monica Critical Mass Birthday
I took here: http://www.ilanterrell.com/node/170
Comment by ilan — February 4, 2006 @ 1:45 pm
Uhm, er, I don’t know how to tell you this, but nothing in your post suggests that you should not register Green.
You can vote for whomever you want, at any time. There are some Green candidates I could never vote for, so I don’t. There are Democrats and even one Republican I like a lot (in a non-partisan office; he is more eco-friendly and smart about getting it done in government than most Greens I know). But changing your registration does not affect the ability of democrats to get elected one whit.
Staying registered with a party, on the other hand, says “you are doing the right thing, I agree.” Unfortunately, at best most Dems have been MIA in this administration, with one or two notable exceptions.
The Dems need a real wake-up call, at the very least, because they have been sitting on their hands until its really too late now, and its pretty damn safe to disagree with the President.
And on enviro stuff, as one trying to put better policies in place for *years* before changing my registration, the Dems will nod with a worried expression and pat you on the head and say “we sure do need to stop destroying the earth, but you know, we just can’t do anything about it right now.”
And don’t tell me want to vote in the Primary. Did you vote for Kerry in the primary. Or did you go for someone far enough outside the mainstream Dempublican comfort zone that your candidate wasn’t on the ballot?
Gee, for all the tease time I would have expected a little stronger reasoning . . .
(And for the record, I said you were teasing about the *speaking* gig; not so much your party registration.)
Sigh.
Roger
Comment by Roger, Gone Green — February 4, 2006 @ 2:10 pm
P.S. Although one thing I hadn’t considered — if you are physically active in Dem politics (phone banking, sig gathering, etc.) in areas that are not Dem safe, then you are doing something I can’t argue too much with to keep the Repuglicans at bay; but a passive registration is not effective other than as noted.
Comment by Roger, Gone Green — February 4, 2006 @ 2:16 pm
I volunteered during the LA Dem Convention — does that count? :) I’m also an active member of the LAC Young Dems, and vote on what candidates to endorse, etc. But my phonebanking and sig gathering work has been more with Planned Parenthood and NARAL, which are not Dem-specific orgs (though most involved are Dems).
I didn’t vote for Kerry in the primary — because I wasn’t a citizen then. I am now, and if I were then, I would’ve voted for Kerry. I actually really like the guy :)
But in terms of the environment, I’m wondering what I could achieve by joining the Green party. Idealism aside, what has the Green party done for the environment? You know, actually managed to achieve, beyond just talking loudly about it. I get that the Green party more vociferously supports environmental issues, but I have serious doubts about its ability to translate that support into real-life action…
The eco-friendly actions I CAN take to create change often don’t seem to be party-specific…
Comment by Siel — February 4, 2006 @ 2:24 pm
Sigh. This is a longer discourse than I have patience for today (I’m tired, you’re fine (grin)) but let’s turn it around: What do you achieving by registering Dem? (Not voting but registering.)
I say that the Green reg is a good idea for any one that thinks of themselves as green (small g) to clarify that they support strong government action on green issues — not pandering to the the greenish-wing of the Dem party but not taking any significant action to avoid ticking off the sometimes anti-enviro union crowd or others.
Where Greens govern, things are changing.
More Greens are governing, as people look at Green ideas without wigging out over the label.
Dem/Rep . . . a little worse, a little better. Same same.
Also, by the by, the Dems are a corporate party every bit as much as the Repubs., just a slightly different set of corps. I can’t recall if you are among the anti-corporate crowd . . .
Comment by Roger, Gone Green — February 4, 2006 @ 3:11 pm
up here in canada we just elected some one almost as scary as what you have in office. and the “conservative” party that got elected did so with about 40% of the votes. The other 60% was slipt several ways and almost all on the left. It’s saddening and maddening tha the greens ran in almost every riding, as did the NDP (our left of Liberals patry), and the three-way split on the left (actually it’s more like a 5 way split cause we also have a communist party, and a marxist-lenninist party ((have no idea what the difference only that they hate each other))
so i agree with you. I’d love to vote green, but only can when there is an equal amount of parties on the right, parties that make the republicans look like heathen big government pork lovers– (not that i would ever want any of these extreme right partoies to get voted in but) if the right could get siphoned like the left then it would be an even playing field.
As iut stands today a vote for th egreens sadly is a vote for the republicans, i think nader proved that one pretty well– and we’re all reeling still
Comment by lee — February 5, 2006 @ 7:46 am
Roger — No one’s arguing that the Greens wouldn’t do more for the environment. My point is that, right now, priority #1 for me is 1. ending eternal war and 2. protecting individual rights. I don’t think we’ll be able to do those things, unless we get the Reps out. And I think that’ll happen more easily if I support the Dems. It’s a time-specific, personal decision, not an overall dismissal of the Green party. Once dubya’s no longer prez, it may be time for me to reconsider my choices.
Lee — So sad about the elections in Canada :( You know — I do like a lot of what Nader does — I think that the misfortune is the fact that he’s running at a time when the Reps have so much power. Ideally, I’d like to see the green party get its 5%. Realistically, I’m depressed it keeps splitting the vote in the Republican’s favor.
Comment by Siel — February 5, 2006 @ 10:38 am
Interesting post this. Its the dilema we all face when going to the poles. Do we vote for the least-bad party we think has a chance of gaining power or do we stick to our gut instinct and just vote for who we like?
Personally i vote for whoever i want to win but so called tactical voting is pretty common. I`d see this as a straight decision, pragmatist or idealist. Which one is better for the world is difficult to decide.
Just my thoughts…
Comment by Calvin Jones — February 5, 2006 @ 12:50 pm
I’m a registered Green, and have voted Green fairly often, because sometimes things have to get worse before they get better. It’s about helping us get to some kind of tipping point. I take for encouragement Dr. King’s Letter from a Birmginham Jail. You can’t wait for the majority before you start acting on your conscious. Rosa Parks was an active member of the NAACP in her neighborhood before she refused to give up her seat on the bus. I think I’m doing something very strategic by registering Green, even if it seems futile in the short run, as Parks’ organizing and refusal to sit must have felt like as well. The Dems and Reps are both despicable to me and I can’t imagine giving either of them a vote of confidence with my registration. And, I think Greens are better for the working class and for diversity, as well.
Comment by NC — February 5, 2006 @ 12:56 pm
Re: “sometimes things have to get worse before they get better”
I respect your idealism, but what kind of logic is this? Take two steps back so you’ll have to take…three steps forward to get ahead? If you had bronchitis, would you run outside in the snow to encourage pneumonia?
In the meantime, not everyone can *afford* for things to get worse. Real people suffer when things get worse. Sigh.
Comment by elsa — February 5, 2006 @ 2:37 pm
Thanks for linking to my post!
I did a post a while ago offering advice to people interested in voting for a third party. I don’t really know how this bears on the issue of which party to register in, but I’m generally concerned that there’s no constructive role for third parties to play within the American political system. If we had a parliamentary system, things would be different.
So here’s an excerpt about why voting Green won’t move the Democrats left:
Comment by Neil the Ethical Werewolf — February 5, 2006 @ 6:55 pm
Hey, Siel!
We really enjoyed your presentation at our LA Greens meeting last month!
Regarding the efficacy of voting Green and being able to translate that into tangible results…….
Here in Santa Monica we had two Greens on the City Council at one time and for two years Mike Feinstein served as the mayor. I know that they advanced and/or supported ordinances that may not have been put forth had they not been on the dais:
Santa Monica was one of the first cities to take a formal position against the war in Iraq and against the Patriot Act.
The city is a partner in a lawsuit against Playa Vista and their wetlands destroying megadevelopment. Mike spoke before the LA City Council when they voted on approval of phase II (he was against it). The city facilities use only “green” energy sources.
The city has led the way in the living wage movement.
Additionally, a few cities have or have had Green majorities on their city council: Arcata and Sebastopol come to mind.
When Nancy Pearlman was a Green on the LA Community College Board she pushed for green building standards on all future construction projects.
In Portland, Maine, we have a Green in the state house there, John Eder, who is leading the way in the single payer health care issue. Their school board has a Green majority and just passed an ordinance prohibiting military recruiters from coming into the schools.
Jason West is the mayor of New Paltz, New York, where the gay marriage issue took off.
Back to Santa Monica, we have been able to promote election reform in the form of instant runoff voting. BTW, if that were in place, the argument about whether to register Green or Dem would have a lot of the steam taken away because then progressives of ALL stripes could work together in voting blocks instead of being factionalized like we are now under the current system. Sadly, many Dems are against this reform.
One of the biggest differences between our parties is that the Democrats take big corporate money and so are beholden to them when elected.
I experienced that firsthand in Sacramento last year when Lois Wolk, a Dem, blocked the Heritage Tree Preservation Act (which would have ended old growth logging) on the Assembly floor. The agriculture lobby (as well as logging interests) got to her. Many other Dems supported the bill.
So, at the community level, Greens ARE making a difference and we encourage like minded people to join us and GROW the party so we can continue to make a difference at even higher levels of government.
Thanks!
Linda Piera-Avila
Comment by Linda Piera-Avila — February 6, 2006 @ 9:54 am
Siel says: “In terms of the environment, I’m wondering what I could achieve by joining the Green party.”
Each new member of the Green Party gives the Green Party (and, thus, its policy platform) additional credibility in the eyes of the media, and in the eyes of elected, non-Green elected officials. In other words, if the Green Party of California has 500 members, its policy stances can be safely ignored by the media, and by the non-Greens in the assembly, under the understandable assumption that the GP is a tiny handful of fringe freaks without influence. By contrast, if the Green Party of California has 5 million members, even without a single Green elected official (and as Linda mentions above, the GP of California has several), its policy stances carry weight, and must be heeded even by non-Greens in Sacramento, under the assumption that if they buck the Green platform, they do so at their electoral peril.
So, yes, Siel, your registration choice does have actual pragmatic consequences, by virtue of the message that it sends. What message does your Democratic registration send? Does it say that you stand with anti-war doves like Barbara Lee? Or does it say that you stand with pro-war hawks like Jane Harman? How can the powers-that-be tell the difference, based solely on the “D” after your name? Answer: they can’t. All they can tell for sure is that you, evidently, endorse their policy choices, given that you still stand with them. If you’re okay with that message being sent to them, then by all means, be a Democrat.
Neil says: “Assuming a normal distribution of voters across each of the political/philosophical axes, moving left puts (Democrats) at risk of losing the people in the center, and there are way more voters in the center than on the edges.”
This is a very specious assumption you’re making. What’s the “normal distribution of voters” on the issue of big donors’ influence on our political system? For every anti-bribery vote the Democrats gain by eschewing the will of large donors and executing the will of the average voter, do the Democrats lose a pro-bribery vote? Of course not. Voters up and down and all across the political axes feel that government has lost touch with the common voter. If the Greens can influence the Democrats to regain touch with the common voter and his/her economic interests (instead of those of very large donors), then Democrats can and should respond to that influence by aping the Greens anti-large-donor emphasis, which they can do without alienating large swaths of other voters.
Finally, to those (like, perhaps, Siel) who really want the opportunity to vote Green without inadvertantly helping the Republicans at the expense of the Democrats, I strongly urge you to support Instant Runoff Voting (IRV). IRV is a commmonsense, constitutional electoral reform that allows you to vote for your first choice (like you do now), and also your second and third choices, eliminating the spoiler dilemma. Australia and New Zealand have been using IRV for a century now, London elects their mayor that way, and they just brought IRV to San Francisco a couple years ago. Dems, please help the Greens do away with your spoiler dilemma! Join us in pushing IRV!
You can learn more about IRV here:
http://www.fairvote.org
And if you’re Los Angeles based, you can join our local IRV movement here:
http://www.lavotefire.org
Patrick Meighan
Los Angeles Greens
(and frequent Starbucks customer… I ask for fair trade coffee, just like you’ve suggested, Siel. So far, so good.)
Comment by Patrick Meighan — February 6, 2006 @ 10:55 am
Elsa-
“Real people suffer when things get worse.” All of us suffer as long as our system doesn’t change. I don’t see the Dems as being capable of changing the system. Their lack of efficacy is why I’m a Green. To try to say the causal relationship is the other way around–that the Dems lack efficacy because I’m a Green–is to discount the pull maintaining our system’s status quo has on the Dems. As long as the D Party, as a whole, thinks controlling the political system is the key to victory, in lieu of changing it, real people will continue to suffer. I register and vote my conscience as best I can.
“…not everyone can *afford* for things to get worse.” Neither can everyone afford to buy healthful, organic, and fair trade goods. But I align myself with those that can’t when I prioritize and showcase the need and desire for such goods, encouraging the availability and affordability of such goods by doing so. How is being Green any different?
How does demonizing my logic as pretentious, self-interested, and bourgeois help restore accountability to politics?
Comment by NC — February 6, 2006 @ 2:25 pm
Ok people — for all involved — Let’s continue to be passionate, but resist hostility. NC — Agreed — Demonizing helps no one (But when did Elsa call you pretentious, self-interested, and bourgeois? Am I missing something?).
NC, Patrick, and Linda — Thanks for sharing your reasons for registering Green. It’s really helpful to me to hear the arguments of those who’ve chosen differently than I have, so I can continue to examine my own viewpoint and decisions, and, if necessary, to revise them.
Patrick — To answer your Q: “What message does your Democratic registration send?” I totally agree that if I registered Dem and did NOTHING ELSE beyond that, that’s no message at all. However, if I’m an ACTIVE democrat, putting my 2 cents into which politicians we support (via voting and also through orgs like the LAC Young Dems) and working to make the Dem party mean something more than it does now, I’d like to think I send SOME kind of message as a registered democrat.
The question then, for me, seems to be: Can I achieve more by 1. being an active Democrat pushing for changes from within a major party, or 2. registering green to show my dissatisfaction with the dem party and pushing for changes within a party that’s not terribly influential at this moment?
At the moment — and again, I want to specify that I’m talking about THIS HISTORICAL MOMENT, when Republicans have control of the presidency, senate and the house and Alito’s in the Supreme Court — I feel #1 will achieve more.
Comment by Siel — February 6, 2006 @ 4:03 pm
“The question then, for me, seems to be: Can I achieve more by 1. being an active Democrat pushing for changes from within a major party, or 2. registering green to show my dissatisfaction with the dem party and pushing for changes within a party that’s not terribly influential at this moment? At the moment — and again, I want to specify that I’m talking about THIS HISTORICAL MOMENT, when Republicans have control of the presidency, senate and the house and Alito’s in the Supreme Court — I feel #1 will achieve more.”
Fair enough, Siel. I do believe that for the Democratic Party to move leftward, it’s gonna require pulling from progressives outside the party, AND pushing from progressives inside the party. If you feel more comfortable or in-place (at this point in time) being an inside pusher than an outside puller, then more power to you, Siel. Keep pushing, and I’ll keep pulling, and we’ll get that donkey leftward yet.
Be warned, however, that there will never ever be an election in the future that the Democratic Party does NOT call momentous, history-changing, no-time-to-vote-Green, etc. Every single future election–from now ’til the end of time–will always be the critical one in which the Democratic Party urges you to vote for the candidate who is unrepresentative of your ideals, lest the even-worse guy win. That’s how they keep so many disappointed and betrayed rank-and-filers in line: by instilling fear of the other guy. Your fear is in their interest, Siel, and they know it, and they’ll never stop trying to use it. Never.
At any rate, while you’re on the inside of the Democratic Party, do you suppose you could help me (and your Green friends) by supporting Instant Runoff Voting, and working to convince others to do the same?
Patrick Meighan
Los Angeles Greens
Comment by Patrick Meighan — February 6, 2006 @ 5:12 pm
Hi NC–Please forgive, but I don’t believe that I was demonizing you or name-calling. I’m genuinely trying to understand the logic, but it doesn’t make sense to me how shooting ourselves in the foot helps anyone to run a marathon, much less get down the block. (yeah, out of control with the metaphors)
It seems self-defeating to vote on a national level for a party which, as Siel puts it, is “not terribly influential at this moment.”
Making another party viable must happen first at the local level–building coalitions, winning elections, growing organically in influence over time, and so on. It takes patience.
This makes more sense to me than, say, voting for an upstart party that’s clearly going to lose in a high-stakes *national* election where there’s a hairline margin of victory.
You’re right, NC, “All of us suffer as long as our system doesn’t change.” All due respect, I think we suffer more when we go backward and erase a century of environmental protections, etc. Much damage is permanent. Peace.
Comment by elsamary — February 6, 2006 @ 6:04 pm
dubya may be the best thing that has happened for the Democrats in a long time. He has got to be killing the Reps trying to get elected in 2006!
Comment by Dewayne Mikkelson — February 7, 2006 @ 9:50 am
Elsa, sorry if I was being oversensitive (I tend to do that). I’m working at making my idealism be more pragmatic. But at some point, pure pragmatism become an ends-justifies-the-means logic, and that’s what I’m wary of. I did vote Camejo and Kerry. Does that absolve me of the federal backsteps? and implicate me in our state’s backsteps?
Siel, do you mind that this conversation continues on here?
Comment by NC — February 7, 2006 @ 10:24 am
Siel et al: Nothing about changing registration effects the ability to elect democrats. Period.
Registration is a completely separate act from voting.
In fact, staying registered Dem tells that party it is doing the right thing, and needs to move more toward the moderate middle or right in order to win elections.
Changing registration tells folks that the Dems are only the lesser of two evils — and is 364 votes a year for greener government. On that 365 day, vote ALL DEM; your registration as a Dem does nothing to help them win elections –nothing. Your registration in another party (ANY other party) will make a difference in how seriously elected people take your green (small g) ideas, both within the Dem party and the government.
If you do what you’ve always done, you’ll get what you’ve always got. Shrug.
Comment by Roger, Gone Green — February 7, 2006 @ 11:00 am
Roger — I didn’t mean just voting for elections — I meant voting with diff. orgs, for ex, LACYD, to select what candidates to endorse, etc. My registering Democrat helps decide WHAT Dem gets elected, which is important to me.
NC — Not at all — Please continue :)
Patrick — I’ll def. do some research into IRV, and prolly write about it in a bit. Thanks for the links! BTW — Which Starbucks did you stop into? Wanna tag them to the feed –
Comment by Siel — February 7, 2006 @ 2:32 pm
Actual, I meant to drop this last before the last post, because you obviously aren’t in the emotional place to make the hop even if it makes logical sense. BUT (evil grin)here is the LACYD endorsements for the primary:
LACYD’s Endorsements for the March 2004 elections:
“Democratic Presidential Primary - MADE NO ENDORSEMENT
40% Gen. Clark
33% Gov. Dean
20% Sen. Edwards
5% Sen. Kerry
1% Rep. Kucinich
1% No Endorsement “
So, apparently 5% of the LACYD wanted to endorse Kerry in the primary, but the group made no primary endorsement in fact. FOr the general election, looks like the group did a straight Dem party line — including some pro-patriot act Dems and not very greenish ones. So much for influence, neh? (wicked grin)
IF one were registered Green (or Libertarian, or Peace and Freedom or Independent for that matter) for a year, one would have sent a strong msg. about Dem politics, and if registered Green about greenish policies specifically, while still being able to vote against the Repubs in the general election. Shrug.
But, as a recent study showed, something like 80% of our political choices are emotional, not logical. I spent about two years in your exact space, when I finally jumped in with both feet.
And as for IRV, that is an EXCELLENT option, that we really should have . . . a town in Maryland near Wash. DC voted to use it recently . . . It is also known as “choice voting.”
Comment by Roger, Gone Green — February 7, 2006 @ 6:17 pm
IRV is one of the reasons I’m a Green. It’s how my 8th grade teacher had us vote for our student council and I don’t understand why we haven’t switched over to it yet.
Comment by NC — February 7, 2006 @ 9:15 pm
Wow, of all the weeks to slack off reading this blog, I had to pick this one. As a long-time and pretty intense Green, you can probably guess where I come down on this. If not, see my recent post here. I’ll also be mentioning this on a new post on Chlorophyll.us.
Comment by esteban — February 7, 2006 @ 10:06 pm
you obviously aren’t in the emotional place to make the hop even if it makes logical sense
Nothing like this kind of cold, hard-line, insular and “you, lil gal, are too ‘emotional’ to see the ‘truth’” sort of comment to drive me away from the greens altogether.
C’mon now Roger — If you’re really interested in people joining the Green party, do you really think derogatory comments will do the trick?
But thanks, everyone else, for your thoughtful comments.
For the record, as I’ve stated over and over again here, at this moment, I’m most interested in getting the Republicans out of power. That doesn’t mean I don’t have beef against the Dems. But in my NSHO, first things first.
I might leave you with this comment of Roger’s: “if you are physically active in Dem politics (phone banking, sig gathering, etc.) in areas that are not Dem safe, then you are doing something I can’t argue too much with to keep the Repuglicans at bay”
And a reminder: Our governator’s Republican. SoCalians aren’t exactly “Dem safe.”
Comment by Siel — February 8, 2006 @ 12:44 am
Sorry, but at the moment the Dems are only Reps-Light, too scared to piss-off any political die-hards. That’s not the way they will get back into power!
Comment by Gernot — February 8, 2006 @ 3:28 am
So you want to get Republicans out of power — and replace them with what… Hillary? Back to the glory days of the Clinton administration? If you look at the *direction* the country was already headed then, not just how far we’ve come down that road since, what difference does it make? Bill even had his own little war-thingy on questionable pretenses going on….
You specifically mentioned Alito — but you must know that 18 (or was it 19?) D senators voted to block the filibuster that could have prevented his confirmation?
The fact is that Democrats *aren’t* keeping Republicans out of power — they won’t even stand up for their own candidates when the Reps steal another election! It took the Greens and Libertarians to start making noise about the vote fraud in Ohio. Ever since Dubya sneaked into office your Dems have nodded and applauded at every move the regime makes.
Progressives have been trying to reform the Dems from within for over 40 years, and look where it’s gotten us. How many more times is Charlie Brown going to let Lucy pull away the football? It’s high time we try something new — like build a real opposition party!
Comment by MiGrant — February 8, 2006 @ 7:13 am
NO WAIT!
I said that I wasn’t in the emotional place to make the jump for at least two years, and, recognizing my own [male/human]response, opined that you obviously aren’t right now either! YOU added the sexist-BS overtones; and may I add, *how*dare*you*.
I was an active Feminist before you were born, by golly. I was the only male member of the “Dental Wives” club in 1980 when my then wife, Dr. Mitchell, was at Georgetown Dental School. I am currently a stay at home dad, a former trial lawyer who prosecuted sex discrimination and harassment cases on behalf of women professional clients working with and reporting to a female lawfirm partner; my various spouses have all been professionals in their own right, and I did not and WOULD NOT EVER imply that you responded emotionally because you were female.
You chose that one for yourself.
I did say that party-swapping was a choice that had a strong emotional component, and that I understood why you where there, since I, testosterone-addled creature that I am, had been there also, and that since you were *obviously* there it did not make sense to push any more. I was expressing empathy, not anything derogatory.
Its not my fault that the LA Young Dems had no effect whatsoever on who was chosen to represent that party in the Presidential race, and then endorsed a predictable, mindlessly straight party line. That orgainization was part of your logical bulwark, not mine.
Please be clear that an awareness of our emotional and logical responses to issues — in both men and women –is valuable in my book, and is something I teach my 6th graders of both genders.
I am sorry that you took offense.
I have also consistently said I thought the Greens were best suited to what I knew about you, but that ANY third party or Decline to State would send a similar msg.
You may have the last word; I’ve said what there is to say on-point, and am done.
Comment by Roger, Gone Green — February 8, 2006 @ 9:10 am
I’m echoing Siel’s request that we try, as hard as we can, to keep civil and pleasant, given that this is such a passionate, intense subject.
And, Siel, thanks for considering IRV. What IRV really, really needs to fly in Los Angeles is the support of the Democratic Party, and its affiliated clubs. This is the only way IRV flew in San Francisco: with Green Party impetus and Democratic Party backing. Without the SF Dems (and their affiliated clubs) IRV never would’ve come to pass there. Never. So. If after your research, you’d like to contact me about IRV for any reason, my email is:
patsweetpat {at} verizon {dot} net
And, finally, the Starbucks that French pressed me a fair trade coffee upon request (this was last week) is located at 3030 Lincoln Blvd. (cross street: Marine) in Santa Monica. I had to wait 15 minutes for the coffee to be ready, but I was, at last, served a cup of fair trade coffee.
Thanks, Siel, for this campaign of yours, and for all that you do for progressive change, whatever your party affiliation.
In solidarity,
Patrick Meighan
Los Angeles Greens
Comment by Patrick Meighan — February 8, 2006 @ 9:16 am
So it seems a big part of what Greens do–is influence Dems.
Comment by NC — February 8, 2006 @ 9:36 am
NC: “So it seems a big part of what Greens do–is influence Dems.”
And vice versa, of course. Siel influenced me to ask for fair trade coffee at Starbucks. I didn’t even happen to be at the LA Greens meeting she spoke at, but the advice made its way to me second hand, through another Green, and I did it. Dem, to Green, to Green. A double-bank-shot of progressive change. Lookit’ us change the planet!
Patrick Meighan
Los Angeles Greens
Comment by Patrick Meighan — February 8, 2006 @ 10:31 am
(an aside: I went ahead and made corrections to the comments where authors posted additional comments correcting errors in original one — then deleted the “I made a booboo” type comments just to make things prettier. Hope that’s ok with everyone.)
Roger — What upset me was the “even if it makes logical sense” bit. I agree — emotions aren’t bad — I encourage everyone here to be passionate — but in your comment, you made emotion and logic complete dichotomies. As in, you’re emotional, and thus illogical.
And like we’ve squabbled about before, I’m of the opinion that there’s not necessarily just ONE logical or “best” choice. The “best” choice may be different for different individuals.
It’s possible, though, that I’ve become oversensitive towards “you’re too emotional and illogical” type comments. Still, more often than not, my being female has a lot to do with why I’m so often “accused” as being an emotional, irrational person. Perhaps I judged to hastily, but I need a lil more time to cool my emotional heels before returning to this.
Comment by Siel — February 8, 2006 @ 11:53 am
The Green Party is going to grow by leaps and bounds over the next decade due to the environmental degradation on our planet and the work in which Greens are engaging to attempt to put a stop to it. The Green Party is the only party that is taking action on ecological and environmental issues.
Here is my take on making decisions based on a personal strategy to effect change: Go with your beliefs and values. Personally, I cannot stomach the thought of leaving this life without having stood up for what I believe. My influence alone is not going to change the world, but what influence I have to influence others, and theirs to influence others and so on….this is what will effect change. I do not place any hope for changing a system or people that/who are already so far corrupt that there is no light ahead for cure. I can only push forward with my belief that standing up for the life of the planet is the way to go.
And I can do this through the Green Party. The only hope I have for saving the life of this planet is through my work in the Green Party with others who share the same values and philosophies.
Comment by Deanna Taylor — February 8, 2006 @ 8:56 pm
Jesus, people — If I were disconnected from society at large and relied solely on my blog for political conversations, I’d think the Greens were the majority party! Hat tip to your green bloggy enthusiasm :)
Something I thought everyone might find interesting: Nancy Goldstein’s latest article in The Raw Story where she asks 20 bloggers how they’d invest $100 politically, “in the wake of the Alito/judicial nominations debacle.”
An interesting read. I’ll warn you though — Not one person said the Green party. Most opted for non-party-affiliated organizations or individual democratic candidates –
Comment by Siel — February 8, 2006 @ 11:39 pm