The OTHER Presidential Primary
by Eli Beckerman, GRP Communications Director
As we Massachusetts voters look out on the political horizon, we witness an incredible dumbing down of our democracy.
Instead of seeing potential leaders who speak clearly to the real issues that face us, we see games of showmanship, charm and style, and a burying of issues beneath mountains of fluff. Instead of hearing about real solutions to the economic nightmare facing most of us, we get more of the same absurd policies – like one-off tax cuts and magical stimulus packages that will somehow erase our housing, credit card, student loan and medical debts, not to mention crushing federal, state, and local government debts. Instead of hearing about the mounting ecological crises facing our communities, our nation, and the world, and the deep societal changes required to stave them off, and the small time window for action, we hear about technological fixes and consumerist advances that remove the responsibility off of our individual and collective shoulders.
We hear about nuclear, “clean” coal, hybrid and biofuel technologies that are going to reduce our planetary emissions and halt catastrophic climate change without any unintended consequences, and without any change in our behavior. We hear about energy independence as a national security issue, but what about food independence, or manufacturing independence? Some of the most critical issues that face us include food security, economic security, health security, and environmental security – all of which are justice issues. Yet the mainstream candidates are unable to even articulate these problems, let alone solve them. Issues like peak oil — which is already having a devastating impact on the economics of suburban travel, not to mention world food prices — are entirely ignored. While our governments from the municipal level on up through the federal level are enacting policies that enrich the wealthy and destabilize and destroy the working class, Americans are being fed a menu with fewer and fewer options, and none of them are worth their weight in corn syrup.
On February 5th, however, Massachusetts voters who were clever enough to register as Unenrolled or Green-Rainbow, will have ballot choices that stand for an entirely different vision. The Green-Rainbow Party – the Massachusetts affiliate of the Green Party of the U.S. – has six candidates on its ballot, which any registered Unenrolled or Green-Rainbow voter can vote for.
Former Democratic Congresswoman from Georgia, Cynthia McKinney, left the Democratic Party last year because she realized the desperate need for building a political alternative outside of the corporate duopoly. Now a Green, she is seeking the Green Party nomination for President. Former Green Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader is also on the ballot because of a Draft Nader effort within the Green Party, and he has recently formed an exploratory committee to decide if he will pursue the Green nomination. The Green Party’s own Kat Swift and Kent Mesplay are pursuing the nomination; Swift is an activist for publicly financed elections and women’s rights, and Mesplay is a Native American environmental activist and engineer. Jared Ball, an African American professor and hip-hop scholar, will appear on the ballot, though he has withdrawn his candidacy in support of Cynthia McKinney. And Elaine Brown, a former leader of the Black Panther Party, will also appear on the ballot, though she too has withdrawn her candidacy.
What is remarkable about these choices is not the skin color of the candidates. Nor is it their gender or their experience. What is remarkable about these candidates is that they are articulating the real problems that all of us are facing as a nation, as a society, and as a people. And while they cannot offer we the voters any promises of easy fixes, they offer us a leap forward towards genuine solutions. The solutions begin with we the people, and until we have candidates that can honestly lay that out for us, we will continue to cling to false hopes, waiting for somebody to solve this mess, and watching the waters rise.
For those who believe that WE need to be the problem solvers, and that the political machinery of the U.S. is stacked against that happening, I recommend you ask for a Green-Rainbow Party ballot on Tuesday, and take that first step on a long road ahead.
Make a difference on February 5
by Nat Fortune and Merelice, GRP Co-chairs
Why do more Americans contribute to charities than show up to vote? Obviously we care about the world around us. And we believe one person can make a difference. And we trust that what we have to offer is not too small. Otherwise, we wouldn’t bother with either charities or voting.
We suggest that one reason so many don’t vote is that the candidates in the traditional parties don’t need to listen to what we think. And the reason they don’t need to listen is because when we do vote — unlike when we volunteer our time or money — too many of us fail to say what we mean and vote for what we really want.
Write all the letters you think of. Attend all the rallies you can. But if you don’t change how you vote, candidates and elected officials can ignore your letters and your rallies. They don’t need to offer a genuine alternative. Indeed, even before the first primary, the traditional parties allowed some of their own candidates to be excluded from their televised debates. Even before many voters have had a chance to weigh in, candidates who fail to raise enough corporate funding are dropping out. Choices are already narrowed.
Do you see anyone you could choose from among the faces allowed to appear on TV, assuming you want a candidate committed to replacing:
* An impoverishing minimum wage with an honest living wage?
* Unaffordable health care plans with comprehensive and affordable publicly funded health Insurance?
* Predatory loans and foreclosures with support for truly affordable housing?
* Tax breaks for the wealthy with property tax relief and fair tax laws?
* Oil company giveaways with support for community-based renewable energy?
Where are the calls to stop fighting a war on Iraq based on lies, a war on our planet based on carbon, a war on our own U.S. residents based on poverty and privatization, and a war on Katrina victims based on racism and warped priorities — and to do it NOW?
To find not one but half a dozen presidential candidates who support all of these ideas, you have to look to those seeking the Green Party presidential nomination.
Those agreeing to have their name placed on the Green-Rainbow Party ballot for the Massachusetts presidential primary, in the order they will appear, included Jared Ball, an African-American journalist, professor, and hip-hop scholar; consumer advocate Ralph Nader, the Green Party presidential nominee in 1996 and 2000 and an independent candidate in 2004; Elaine Brown, a former leader of the Black Panther Party; Kat Swift, an activist for publicly financed elections and open government and former Campus Greens organizer; Cynthia McKinney, an African-American three-term former Democratic Party congresswoman; and Kent Mesplay, a Native-American environmental engineer, activist, and 2004 candidate for the Green Party presidential nomination. (Since that deadline, Jared Ball has thrown his support to Cynthia McKinney, and Elaine Brown has withdrawn from the race, though both names remain on the ballot.)
You won’t see, hear, or even read much about these candidates — the ones actually listening to what increasing numbers of us have to say. But if you want every candidate to take notice and listen to what is important to you, here is your chance to lift your voice and speak clearly by voting for what you really want.
You don’t have to be registered Green-Rainbow to take a Green-Rainbow ballot. Every Massachusetts voter who is registered as Unenrolled (also known as “independent”) can vote in the Green-Rainbow Party preside
ntial primary instead of the Democratic or Republican party primaries.
Make a difference this time around, and vote Green this February 5th.
On the procedural issue, I agree with you 100%. It was wrong of Secretary Galvin to omit mention of the Green-Rainbow Party.
<
p>But may I ask, aren’t there better candidates out there?
<
p>I read that one of the candidates on the Green-Rainbow primary ballot is former Representative Cynthia McKinney, who implied that the President had allowed the 9/11 attacks in order to create profits for the defense industry and specifically the Carlyle Group, and whose father (and political advisor) called her opponent in her 1996 campaign a “racist jew” and, speaking for her campaign in 2002, said: “Jews have bought everybody. Jews. J.E.W.S.” Another is Ralph Nader. Enough said. The two other candidates are 34-year-old Kat Swift, whose qualifications are scant and whose “best animal noise” is “monkey”; and Kent Mesplay, who according to Wikipedia has taught high school math and now works as an air quality inspector. Two other candidates, a scholar of hip-hop and a former leader of the Black Panther Party, have withdrawn.
<
p>I don’t mean to write off the Green-Rainbow Party as the party of undesirable national figures (McKinney, Nader) or idealistic but hopeless newcomers to the national political scene (Swift, Mesplay). It’s worth taking the Party seriously and considering its platform on its merits. Maybe someone else can do this comprehensively and weigh the good against the bad, but I want to draw attention to what I consider a particularly unfortunate plank in the platform, namely, the national Green Party’s support for a one-state solution in the Middle East, with an actual (as opposed to symbolic) right of return for Palestinian refugees. As I recall, this became an issue in Grace Ross’s campaign. The Green-Rainbow Party has responded disingenously, in my view, denying that its position supports the destruction of Israel. Certainly its platform, if carried out, would lead to the end of Israel as a Jewish state. So the Green platform is not all smiles and sunshine, at least if you are a Zionist or open to the idea that Zionism is a legitimate national movement for self-determination rather than a conspiracy responsible for the violence in Darfur, as two Green Party activists claimed last year at Newton South High School.
<
p>I guess in my view the Green-Rainbow Party is mostly harmless, and certainly it is entitled to a fair mention from Secretary Galvin. But wouldn’t it be great to have a third party that ran viable candidates and dropped the reflexive anti-Israel bias?
<
p>TedF
It’s too bad that we are so caught up in personality politics, so much so that you forget the sins/crimes of the party you defend (that list would require countless historians and countless electrons to detail), and go after McKinney for a flare-up by her father, or for out-of-context hit pieces on her for raising questions (how dare she!) about 9/11.
<
p>Sure, you can play nice with AIPAC and get heavy-hitting support, but you have to check your conscience at the door, and McKinney is not one to do that. Neither is Nader or any of the Green Party candidates, including Grace Ross.
<
p>It’s easy for Deval Patrick to sign a “We stand with Israel” ad even while Israel bombs the civilians and civilian infrastructure of Lebanon. It’s easy to not have a “reflexive anti-Israel bias” today, even while Israel squeezes the life out of the people in Gaza. Just as it’s easy to talk about economic stimulus packages or Federal Reserve rate decreases as a “solution” to this unfolding economic crisis. And it’s easy to talk about ethanol and nuclear as “solutions” to global warming and energy uncertainty.
<
p>The problem is that the solutions are not easy, that the issues are never as straightforward as you portray. The end of Israel as a Jewish state… hmmm… what about the end of Israel as an apartheid state?
<
p>And those questions McKinney was raising? Why IS it that those corporations most closely connected to the Washington establishment are profiting from this never-ending “war on terrorism”? Why IS it that Charles Jacobs poured money into organizing grassroots action on Darfur, but not the Congo?
<
p>I am not pretending to have a straightforward answer, but I know the answer is not as simple as “Together We Can” or “Yes We Can” or whatever the slick corporate campaign slogan of the day is.
<
p>For a more complex analysis of McKinney’s hurdles, see
http://www.blackagendareport.c…
<
p>To see an important documentary on American democracy, centered on McKinney, see http://www.americanblackout.org/
Empowerment, you are not putting the best foot forward for the Green-Rainbow Party. If I understand you, you are implying that Charles Jacobs, a Boston Jewish activist associated with CAMERA and the David Project, someone certainly far to my right in many respects, has been active regarding Darfur but not regarding the Congo because in Darfur it is Arabs who are accused of carrying out the genocide, and because as a Jew he has it in for the Arabs anywhere in the world. Is that what you’re saying? And does your party
<
p>And why is it merely a “flare-up” to say that the Jews have “bought everybody?” Is it your view that this was an excusable or understandable mistake that anyone could make under pressure? You know, no big deal? And maybe a little true, too?
<
p>Sure, people can disagree with Israeli policy towards Gaza. But why do you write that Israel “squeezes the life out of the people of Gaza” while failing to mention the reason for the blockade of Gaza, namely the daily shelling of Sderot and, as we saw today, infiltration of Israel proper and the killing of Israelis by suicide bombers? And what, by the way, is the Party’s position on Zionism? This proposal, which I’m not sure was enacted, essentially equates it with apartheid, though it also sternly forbids party officials from referring to Israel as “merely a fictitious place.” Is that your view?
<
p>I think it’s important to call out the kind of lazy anti-Semitism of the left that has, unfortunately, done much to damage the long-time alliance of American Jews and progressives. Sorry to call out the heavy artillery, but that’s how I see it.
<
p>TedF
Democrat and GOP are the only practical choices if you want to influence the outcome. There will of course be a number of obscure nominees on the November ballot, but they won’t matter either. My advice to Greens is to seek the Democratic nomination and don’t play spoiler in close races.
… unless we begin to think outside of that box.
<
p>Al Gore & John Kerry proved that all of this talk about practicality, pragmatism, electability, triangulation, is wildly off-target.
<
p>Your advice to Greens assumes that electing Democrats is a step in the right direction of the world Greens would like to see. But how much closer to impeachment, how much closer to justice and peace are we, now that the Democrats control Congress?
<
p>Remaining silent about the issues you care about — as Kucinich did in ’04 when he strong-armed his delegates to backing Kerry, as MoveOn and countless anti-war Democrats did in ’04 when they backed Kerry with nothing but praise, despite his role in leading us hypocritically into an illegal, immoral, and devastating war — does not move your issues forward.
<
p>Voting for the lesser of two evils means that our choices get worse each cycle.
<
p>The ecological, social, economic, and political crises of today are far too big to ignore, or to be silent about. Unfortunately the political establishment is wedded to a fundamentally unsustainable system of industrial, global, economic growth.
<
p>We need to start over — building new institutions from the ground up. The sooner we realize that the easier the task will be.
Many of the Greens’ issues and concerns will find a ready audience among Democratic primary voters. In fact candidates with Green inclinations would probably have a better chance to get traction seeking the Democratic nomination in many cases. To run in a general election with a Democrat also on the ballot risks spliting the vote and giving the election to the Republicans. Nader managed this in FL and NH (and others?) in 2000 where his voters were the margin giving Bush the victory. It is foolhardy to make the perfect the enemy of the good.