Redefining the Politics of Bioregionalism

Greens have a stake in redefining our political philosophy. The existing premise of progressivism is simply not sufficient to establish a stable and broad-based ecological party. The political climate of the American people needs to be addressed as much as the global climate does. Working for grassroots democracy is not the same as upping the ante on the Democratic Left. Working for ecological wisdom is not the same as increasing a Federal role in environmental protection. Blending grassroots democracy with ecological wisdom means establishing new political entities, new sources for revenues, new local initiatives and new constituencies.

If we dare to take California as a model for the existing political paradigm of green politics, we see it fails the tests for viability, sustainability and financial responsibility. The problems that confront the state of California are the products of unsustainable growth, political structures that are dysfunctional and a lack of prioritization of goals at the state and local levels. It is worth saying that mismanagement, political nepotism and corruption are in there as well. We should recognize that structural reform is absolutely necessary to rebuild the system of governing and the mechanisms for administration in this state. The recent upsurge of popular opposition in the Tea Party and the message of the Republican victory in Massachusetts are not simply demonstrations of a resurgent right wing. In fact, they are a demonstration of the failure of progressivism to have a link with the real needs, concerns and aspirations of the American people.

I have explained on prior posts my experiences in regional water planning in the Middle Rio Grande region of New Mexico. The depth of that experience flowed from the demonstration that its process established a working model that was able to integrate open input and transparency with a broad range of local stakeholders united around a common Mission and Goals. Its weaknesses illustrated the flaw in removing this process from political entities capable of implementing its wide range of recommendations. http://www.waterassembly.org Its strengths united community people, public officials, water users and advocates, specialists and managers towards a dynamic review of the water resource in the region. Its weakness led to the failure to get the blueprint off the drawing board.

There is a wide range of political discussion in regards to strategy, tactics and vision that Greens have not been able to grasp the significance of. Urban Greens would do well to recognize that the appeals by candidates might be better off in addressing constituencies who: 1) Promote brownfield restoration and public infrastructure maintenance and development; 2) Establish local sustainability, as distinct from Federal policies or huge state spending efforts through diversions; 3) Redefine growth in the context of renewable resources; 4) Establish local political entities that define stakeholder engagement and input.

Rural Greens need to be more cognizant of: 1) The positive role of family farms; 2) The diverse character of rural resource issues; 3) The integration of ecological awareness at the local levels that are often reflected by rural Republican representatives; and 4) The conflicts that exist between regions when water is diverted from one rural region to an urban or farming region.

It is not our goal to change people. We should focus more on taking people where they are and analyzing what are the fundamental issues that underlie their current outlook. Urban residents are Democratic simply because they promote the interests of the cities, and not because the diverse ethnic groups are inherently providing real input. People are not simply members of a given ethnic group. The problems they confront are not simply the inevitable product of the lack of economic or environmental justice. We do not live in such a one-dimensional world. Hispanic farmers and farm workers do not have the same needs and concerns as Hispanic urban dwellers simply because they are all Hispanic. The political bases of the existing two parties have carved up the pie of constituencies based on the political fait accompli that exists.

To address this is to redefine constituencies as a Green Party can do. As a political party it is up to us not to preach to people that they have to give up everything in order to live. It is up to us to re-carve the pie of political constituencies in a way that can bring together urban and rural dwellers by establishing a common framework for decision-making and a common set of principles where it is no longer a matter of robbing Peter to pay Paul. The discussions include: how can urban areas be restored to reduce sprawl, how can resource issues be effectively administered, managed and structured locally, how can rural needs be addressed absent a traditional urban-rural water war, how can Greens provide leadership in the development expanding the political base of the Green Party and how can we politically define and organizationally represent new constituencies.

We have to get out of the mindset of advocacy groups. This means not simply setting one group of stakeholders against the other. This means looking to regional planning for the value that it has in being able to present distinct differences in the context of community people working together. Structural reforms means being willing to give the people the benefit of the doubt in regards to the decisions that impact on their future. This means not having things fall out as WE would have done it. This means defusing debates while recognizing the substance of the concerns of all.

Progressive towards what?

California Republicans look back with fond memories of the days when Reagan was Governor. Little do they remember that he actually raised taxes. It is rather President Reagan that they quote, and Nancy Reagan that they follow. Her most famous words were "Just say no." And Republicans have been doing that ever since.

For the life of me, I can not understand why those who consider themselves to be progressives would want to emulate Reagan. Yet so called progressive media: whether hard copy publications or just bloggers, continue to emulate Nancy Reagan, telling us all that they are against and very little about what they are for. It is no wonder that the public trusts Republican Politicians even less than they do Democrats. The public understand that stopping government is not a solution, even though Newt Gingrich thought it would be.

Greens who think of themselves as progressives need to think about what we are progressing towards. They should be telling the world how good it good be rather than how bad it is. A recent tweet from the GPCA id said that our candidates should be dream catchers. If we could turn the corner on this, if we could remember the words of John Lennon and allow voters to Imagine what the future might bring, Greens would attract more voters.

I quote from William Ford's Keynote speech at the 2000 Democratic Convention. It embodies the type of vision that too many Green Candidates fail to deliver.

Imagine a debt-free economy so strong that everyone shares in the American Dream.

Imagine a healthcare system where every American receives the medicine they need, and where no senior is forced to choose between buying food and filling a prescription.

Imagine a society that treats seniors with the respect and dignity they deserve, and where Social Security and Medicare are strengthened, not only for our parents and grandparents, but for our children and grandchildren.

Imagine a nation of clean coastlines, safe drinking water, pristine parks, and air our kids can breathe as they play in those parks.

We all recognize that no issue is more critical to our nation's continued success than how we educate our kids.

If we can find the will and resources to build prison after prison, then we can build new schools, reduce class sizes, connect every classroom up to the Internet.

Surely we can pay teachers what they are worth- surely we must hold schools accountable for results.

Imagine giving all our kids the world-class education they deserve.

Well, it is time to stop imagining.

We know what happened to Gore. We are thankful the Lieberman never became the VP. We know that Ford's career was trashed and he was relegated to an occasional NewsHour appearance, much of it attributed to the lack of a progressive imagination or the fact that the moneyed interest saw this as a threat.

The times have changed, some issues remain: education, health care. Ignored issues like climate change can no longer be ignored. But we still lack those visionary leaders who can show us what we could be. Will we be left with the remorse of might have been?

New connections

I have added a new link to the blogroll list (right side menu). This is to a site called "the daily green." Note, there are no capital letters. This is a site about green living, with only a few political stories. However, one of these today proclaims that Global Warming is a Primary Issue for 40% of U.S. Presidential Voters.

“One of the most surprising findings was the growing sense of urgency,” Anthony Leiserowitz, director of the Yale Project on Climate Change and the study’s principal investigator, said in a statement made available to the press. “Nearly half of Americans now believe that global warming is either already having dangerous impacts on people around the world or will in the next 10 years — a 20-percentage-point increase since 2004. These results indicate a sea change in public opinion.

This story should be of interest to all who are thinking about being a candidate in 2008. Is a factual (not alarmist) approach to this subject a winning approach in local elections? After all, most of the real, fundamental changes that are required will happen in local communities.

the daily green is also now hosting one of the bloggers whom I read every day, Chis Mooney. At the daily green, he is known as the Storm Pundit.

Maybe it is time to get with it.

During the campaign against Pombo, I happened to exchange commentary with Kid Oakland, a blogger (dailyKos, SayNoToPombo, others) who has done considerable thinking about the relationship between political activism and the internet. He also thinks seriously about politics in general and what is happening with political activists.

Kid Oakland's most recent commentary has been posted at The Progressive Connection. It is worth your time to read the entire piece. I will, however, intersperse some of my comments about Green Organizing with his.

To begin with, Kid Oakland focuses on demographic he calls the Millenials. This is in sharp contrast with the GPCA where too many of the activists are aging hippies, baby boomers who never lost their belief in a better future and a sense of anarchic rebellion against all manifestations of authority, a preference for disorder from which a new order does not need to rise.

Millennials, those Americans born between 1977 and 1998, are, indeed, a demographic gold mine for the Democratic party. I would caution, however, viewing millennials simply as a source of votes. In fact, the reality is that in many ways this young generation is the embodiment of what I wrote about in the Spirit of '06: these young Democratic activists understand the task at hand and the tools needed to master the challenge of winning lasting majorities. Millennials are idealistic and engaged, and critically, they are networked like no generation before them. When millenials get organized, they stay organized.

The future of the Democratic party, in many ways, belongs to them.

Yes, Kid Oakland is first and foremost a Democrat.

He believes that Progressive Democrats, through their mastery of the tasks and tools will reform Democratic Politics. In this, I must respectively disagree. I would agree, however, that his "millenials" are "networked like no generation before them." That, in itself, is worth a book and Joe Trippi may think that he has written it.

While the internet opens up the possibilities for discourse, the most common effect is to trivialize that discourse. In the manner that Gresham's law works for the monetary system, McLuhan's perception that the medium is the message works in politics. In both cases, the results are not uplifting.

The key characteristic of the internet is that it has been an enabler for the balkanization of society. The seeds of this were already there with identity politics. Now, as the levels of frustration grow with the institutions of American political governance, the internet makes it very easy for all of those who hold a particular view to retreat into their own little space and dream of being the seed of the revolution to come. We have even accepted these mental geographic divions in the naming of internet sites, such as "my space."

It is even more obvious when you examine the culture of a site such as dailyKos, where the "enemy" is the "Repuglican" party and they are the personification of evil. This, of course, makes the Democrats into the guys in white hats and the possessors of all virtue. And, if you really want to understand the mentality, just post a comment at dailyKos using the words "green" or "Nader" in a positive manner.

That view does not match with the 14% approval rating of the current Democratic Party controlled congress. Most of the public does not live on the internet. Those that do are probably doing something else than being political activists.

Still, here is where I find both the failures and the promise of the Green Party. I say failures, because we have become an aging party that does not reach out to the young voters, those millenials that Kid Oakland is trying to organize for the Democrats. I say promise, because, if Kid Oakland is correct, many of those same individuals are motivated by the issues rather than by party loyalty and are bound to suffer disillusionment when those issues are not dealt with by a corporation dominated Centrist appearing Democratic party.

The choices are ours, but we had better "get jiggy with it." If the GPCA is going to be successful, we need to do all of the following.

• An aging party must pull in an increasing number of young activists. It is not enough to rely on Campus Greens to do the for us nor to rely on college student to self-organize. No union ever came into existence without someone taking the steps to ensure that organizational effort happens.
  
• The best thing for Greens would be for the Democratic Party Primary system to deadlock over Clinton and Obama. The negative campaigning will sour many and a strong positive Green campaign would look attractive. We need to be prepared for that eventuality.
  
• We need to carry forward the message that the Democrats are failing the public and the number of places where this can be done are legion. You could start with the Farm Bill, bought and paid for by Big Ag just as surely as Health Care Reform will be bought and paid for by Big Pharma.
  

Grassroots organization is essentially a networked structure. It consists of many small groups working together. The internet media are the best hope for those groups causing major changes. We had better start learning how to live in these times and those new spaces.

Kid Oakland concludes that this is all positive for Democrats.

Young people don't just make good arguments for change when we are debating our nation's future; young people are our best argument for change. Young Americans embody, in their activism and ideals, the fact that this nation faces challenges that decades of work on public policy and civil service will be required to address. When millennials get active, their activism is itself is a powerful argument for change and reform. You could say about Democratic politics in 2008 and not be far off the mark: the millennials are the message.

I hope that he is being overly optimistic.