Strategy and Structural reform, NOT Language is key to Moving Forward

I would take issue with Scott's premise in regards to a "new language for a new paradigm". More than that I would take issue with the continued definition of the primary policy debates being structured along the bipolar fault lines, that Scott continues to demonstrate. This requires more than the response below. It also requires an internal review of who we are as Greens and how we can escape the marginalization of irrelevancy.

First, the Tea Party is right about spending and the budget;
Second, the Green Party has NO fight with Tea Party supporters, but we are NOT the same as Tea Party;
Third, the issue of ecological democracy demands we address the structure of American government and not simply the policies of American government;
Fourth, working towards structural reform also means we redefine the constituencies as they are represented in political parties, this is NOT simply a matter of changing the language;
Fifth, if any third or fourth parties are to establish viability there is a greater need to address the role and character of non-profits and advocacy groups in the political process. Failure to do this will simply result in one party systems as is seen in American cities and rural states;
Sixth, public employees are civil servants and the issue of organization of labor is NOT bound to the future of public employee pensions, they are distinct matters;
Seventh, the debate within the Green Party and elsewhere, needs to be presented with a strategy capable of unifying people beyond the existing identity politics of the “faux left” or the anti-government politics of the Tea Party.

The change in language is simply the result of the change in agenda and the change in strategy. Cities, like Detroit, are withering on the vine. It is not fair or even-handed to deny the impact of the Democratic Urban Machines. We see it and we know it. But Greens have NOT shown the ability to move beyond the fundamental Democratic Party constructs of either agenda or structure. And, as a party it remains bound to progressivism because of its deep-rooted ideological foundation that has NOT broken out of the “paradigm”, Scott’s protestations to the contrary.

L.A. "Briefing" on Special Election

Los Angeles County Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas is hosting a "briefing" on the May 19th Special Election.

BRIEFING ON THE SPECIAL ELECTION AND THE CALIFORNIA BUDGET CRISIS
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
6:00 p.m. -- 8:30 p.m.
(Registration at 5:30 p.m)

CALIFORNIA SCIENCE CENTER
Wallis Annenberg Building
Muses Conference Room
700 Exposition Park Drive
Los Angeles, California

RSVP to:
rbarbosa@bos.lacounty.gov
or 213-743-7200

It will be very interesting to see how Ridley-Thomas "plays" this.

On the one hand, he is very close to Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, who endorsed him in his bitter fight with Bernard Parks in last year's supervisor election.

On the other hand, he is also very close to the leadership of S.E.I.U. and some of the other Labor Boys who mostly don't like these propositions.

I personally, think this would be a wonderful opportunity for our inner-city Greens to turnout in force and underscore how the "Green Brand" means something very different from "liberal-Democrats-in-a-hurry."




The Democrats are all over the map and the top leadership is completely out of step with the rank and file on this one. The Los Angeles Democratic Party Machine Bosses, including Speaker Bass, who helped negotiate the ill-fated budget deal, and Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa are holding their noses and urging voters to vote "YES."

Meanwhile, after painstakingly polling each county, the Green Party of California issued a statement urging a "NO" vote.

GREEN PARTY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS RELEASE

Green Party Turns Thumbs-Down to Propositions on May 19 ballot, Charge Plan is 'Rotten Deal' That Only Gives Voters 'Choice' of Being Shot in Arm or Leg

SACRAMENTO (May 4, 2009) -- The Green Party of California today -- after polling its members and county councils statewide for the past month -- strongly urged state voters to vote "no" on all propositions on the May 19 special ballot, calling the plan a "rotten deal."

"We oppose the cuts in transportation, education, social services and other humane services, and we oppose this deal even though we were told that great hardship would result if (this) rotten deal failed to pass," said Michael Rubin, who analyzed the measures for the Green Party of Alameda County.

"Even more we oppose the process which offers us a 'choice' of being shot in the leg or shot in the arm, but did not offer us the choice of using our collective wealth to meet human needs," added Rubin.

The Greens agreed with the California Nurses Association (CNA) -- which also opposed the entire package, and League of Women Voters that Prop. 1A should be defeated, saying it would create new problems and mandate more billions in cuts to needed social concerns.

And although some Greens polled believed that Prop. 1B looked good at first glance, they discarded it -- as did the CNA -- because it was only the "sweetener" for the rotten deal, especially Prop.1A. They rejected Prop. 1C for much the same reasons.

Prop. 1D and Prop. 1E were turned down because they steal money from two previous propositions meant to benefit children and families, as well as from mental services.

Finally, Greens voted to oppose Prop.1F because it is deceptive, and doesn't really prevent the politicians from receiving their normal salaries, per diem and other perks (like free use of automobiles, etc.). It only bars "increases" in budget deficit years."

-30-

Contacts:
Susan King, Spokesperson, 415.823.5524, sking@cagreens.org
Cres Vellucci, Press Secretary, 916.996.9170, cvellucci@cagreens.org

The Green Party of California
PO Box 2828
Sacramento, CA 95812
Phone: (916) 448-3437
Web: http://www.cagreens.org
EMail: gpca@greens.org

I cannot count how many times a few of us have pleaded with our Green brothers and sisters not to devote all to foreign affairs, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Gosh, whatever happened to "Think Globally, Act Locally?"

I mean, if our current situation right here doesn't make our case that the current two-party system of "liberal" Democrats versus "conservative" Republicans is totally dysfunctional and not remotely capable of dealing with the challenges of global climate change specifically as this global catastrophe will impact the delicate and complex ecology and society of California, then I don't know what will. "Liberal" and "conservative" populists can rant and foam all day about the evils of "Washington" but the awful truth is that our dysfunctional Sacramento politics is worse than the dysfunctional politics of Washington.

Greens hit the street, Coal visits the governor.

The entire environmental movement has had a series of well publicized, heavily hyped actions that were intended to pull Americans together, get them behind a movement to save our planet and to make sure that our elected officials are listening to us. The list includes Step it Up National Day of Climate Action, Earth Hour 2008 / 2009, 350.org and its international Day of Climate Action.

While all of this mass movement has been gathering, the facts are that the opposition, those for whom the continued exploitation of dwindling petroleum reserves and ever more ecological destructive coal, oil shale or tar sands makes them rich are doing what they have always done. They lobby the lawmakers and law enforcers and they flood the airways with mass media advertising that convinces the public that global warming is a myth, or at worst something we can deal with when the technology is ready. They convinced legislatures and executives that our economy can not afford to back away from cheap energy now. They are successful and the mass movements are not growing. In fact, in the United States, Global Warming is rapidly dropping off the poll lists as a major concern of the voting public.

For clues as to why we remain clueless, please click Read more!.



We are ever exhorted to join the masses in the great awakening. Ted Glick, who went on a hunger strike for carbon freedom is ever at the forefront of this mass movement activism, as he wrote this week on the demonstrations at a coal fired power plant in the nations capitol.

Throughout this jubilant day, there was a palpable sense of a psychological line being crossed which has had a parallel in all great movements for nonviolent social change. It is the moment when a movement becomes aware that it is tapping into the immensely strong and unstoppable power of truth. It is a time of spiritual awakening, when seekers of change suddenly realize they have unleashed an infinite force far beyond the strength of any individuals - what Gandhi referred to as ‘satyagraha.’

For all of his optimism, Glick's mass movement has failed to materialize. In 2006, 68% of Americans thought government should do more about global warming. Today, it ranked dead last in a Pew Center poll.

The congruence of events this past week points out just how bad things are and why we need to start doing things differently. On March 2, demonstrators blocked the entrance to a coal fired power plant in Washington DC. This plant provide energy to many places, including the Capitol Building. When it did make the national news, it was coupled with a statement from Nancy Pelosi that there was already a bill in Congress that will change this to a gas fired plant. I doubt that this bill will emerge from the depths of our legislative mine. Some even said that This is What Democracy Looks Like.

It would have been so encouraging if I did not know that lobbyists were busy turning NY Governor David Patterson in to a hypocrite. Patterson was one of those governors who gained a lot of credit for backing a Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. Along with California's Governor Schwarzenegger, he was held a an example of what progressive, environmentally responsible government could accomplish. Against the backdrop of the Bush administration policies, it was a significant step forward. The NY Times put Patterson on page A-1 Thursday, just three days after the Demonstrations in Washington.

The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, which New York signed onto four years ago, established a system whereby power producers were required to obtain what are called allowances, which permit them to release certain levels of carbon dioxide emissions. They typically obtain the allowances by buying them at auction or trading them.

But if this is the public position, the Times laid out what really happened.

Mr. Patterson appeared to overrule the State Department of Environmental Conservation in making the move, which would reopen state regulations to provide power plants leeway to release greater amounts of emissions at no additional cost. Administration officials said the governor was concerned the rule might unfairly burden the energy industry.

His decision infuriated environmental groups, which learned of Mr. Paterson’s decision just this week, though he met with energy executives privately last fall and assured them he would take the step.

I really hate the way that economists can hide basic truths behind their convoluted technical terminology, but UCLA's Matthew I Kahn does a great job of explaining why Patterson's actions are so potentially damaging.

If business people anticipate that politicians cannot credibly commit to keep certain policies in place and that lobbying can reverse these policies, then many dirty firms will not invest in costly "green" technology but instead will hire firms to lobby the political leaders.

I would never have thought to look for this in a blog entry entitled Time Consistent Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Policy but luckily I follow most of what Kahn cares to blog about. Patterson's actions are the equivalent of economists also call "moral hazard". In the bailout of banks and securities firms, the government appeared to send the signal that taking extraordinary risk with other people's money is OK if you are "too big to fail." It now seems that you can argue that the economy needs cheap energy right now and do anything you want no matter how much it damages the economy or how much is will cost future generations to repair or mitigate that damage.

Ted Glick and Bill McKibben, and all of the other generals in the Climate Change War need to start re-thinking their tactics. In the long run there is no question that they have the right goals. But when you are losing the war, it is time to change tactics. When big coal and big petroleum organizations have the power to recruit at will through their massive ad campaigns efforts like those listed above gain little, not even the headlines.

Maybe it is time to start challenging PBS, whose News Hour and Nightly Business Reports are routinely sponsored by extractive industries and their trade organizations. That being the case, then we should strike the word Public from their name.

Since the power to be a hypocrite seems vested in those Democratic politicians who talk the best game, it is time to make sure that they have Green opposition that is uncompromising on those issues, that will tell the world that Patterson's energy policies are no better that Dick Cheney's. They both negotiated deals with the energy industry behind closed doors. The NY Times and all should be demanding that Patterson produce the records of these secret meetings in the same manner that they demanded that Cheney produce his.

I am not hopeful that such a challenge will happen. Most major environmental organizations are too closely tied to the Democratic Party to raise any kind of challenge. When looking for a statement in opposition to Patterson's actions, they went to the Environmental Advocates of New York… not the Sierra Club nor Natural Resources Defense Council. It is not mentioned at Gristmill or Climate Progress. They are all too busy trying to get Carbon Trading passed and this is a prime example of why Carbon Trading will not work.

Even the NY Times gets it.

There were two recent items in the NY Times Editorial pages regarding US energy policy. One was an editorial, the other a column by Thomas Friedman. I have cited Friedman before, not always in a complementary manner. However, this time they both have the correct ideas. It is too bad that our presumptive presidential candidates don't read that paper. Maybe they are both like George W. Bush in that regard.

Of course, I always have more to say.

A toxic combination of $4 gasoline, voter anxiety and presidential ambition is making it impossible for this country to have the grown-up conversation it needs about energy.

That is the manner in which the NY Times starts it's editorial. That is also the point I made in my previous post on the stupidity of the McCain / Obama campaigns.

The Times editorial concludes:

Here is the underlying reality: A nation that uses one-quarter of the world’s oil while possessing less than 3 percent of its reserves cannot drill its way to happiness at the pump, much less self-sufficiency. The only plausible strategy is to cut consumption while embarking on a serious program of alternative fuels and energy sources. This is a point the honest candidate should be making at every turn.

If there is to be an alternative, it will have to come from the honest politicians of the Green Party. I am excited that Rosa Clemente was quoted in a yet to be uploaded press release from the GP today.

Green candidates and leaders called Barack Obama's and John McCain's positions on energy policy, gas prices, and global warming a capitulation to corporate lobbies, and urged adoption of the Green Party's plan to reduce fossil fuel consumption, generate new jobs in conservation and new energy sources, and curb the advance of climate change.

We need to have all GP Candidates hammering at the energy issue and the patronizing political playacting of the major party campaign.

Everyone who reads this should be writing their local papers, supporting the Green position and pointing out the lack of respect that Obama and McCain have for voters, playing us for losers and that is what we will all be if either are elected.

Arizona Republic on Green Party Ballot Access

The Arizona Republic had an article Sunday on the fact that the Green Party has won ballot status in that state. Thank you to everyone who made the trip over to Arizona to help in this effort or who contributed financially to the effort.

The Republic's story included an interview with Arizona Green Party CoChair Angel Torres, one that began with a simple questions...

Question: Why be a Green Party member?

Answer: Look at our platform - go to our Web site, www.gp.org, our national party Web site. No matter what the issue - on the environment, the economy - our platform is far and away better than Republican or Democrat.

We're campaigning for a progressive tax policy, for good government, to eliminate corruption, for renewable energy. Arizona should be leading the world on renewables (resources for energy production). That will provide good jobs for Arizonans and Americans. We should be retooling our factories to build solar panels and solar electricity. We need to put the American people back to work.

There is a real contrast between this and what I see from GPCA. In a time when the major concern of the electorate, when energy costs are rising, when people talk of no longer being able to afford commuting to work, when home prices are plummeting and the equity that people counted on for retirement is disappearing, Torres is talking about "putting the American people back to work."

Where is the economic program from the GPCA?