If you’d like to HIRE NAT FORTUNE, you can. Vote for him for State Auditor on November 2nd!
Please share widely!
Hire Nat Fortune for State Auditor!
Reality-based commentary on politics.
Reality-based commentary on politics.
If you’d like to HIRE NAT FORTUNE, you can. Vote for him for State Auditor on November 2nd!
sounds like a good guy, shame he’s wasting his time with G-R.
The Dems and Pubs are wholly corrupted, and fully committed to propping up private profits and unsustainable economic growth with our tax money. G-R is the only clear alternative I see on the horizon. And there’s an unprecedented opportunity to break through in 2010.
<
p>”Together We Can” and “Change We Can Believe In” seems to be a whole bunch of hot air. The real policies the Democratic Party and its supposedly progressive leaders like Patrick and Obama seem to bring us are corporate entitlement programs for the most destructive, predatory ventures out there. Casinos, “clean coal”, biomass incinerators, subsidies for big pharma and big insurance, office parks and malls, highway construction, drone warfare and private armies, escalating war, offshore drilling, nuclear power, and almost blind support for Wall Street’s worst excesses.
<
p>Talk about wasting your time with a political party!
Many of us just feel that “somewhere” is state legislative races, not statewide offices.
… and he ran for State Representative in 2004.
<
p>But here’s the deal: out of the current candidates for State Auditor, Nat Fortune is the best. Why wouldn’t you want great candidates? Why would you try to talk him out of it, or talk the GRP out of fielding beyond-qualified candidates for the offices that will most impact our Commonwealth.
<
p>The system is utterly broken, and Nat is the type of problem-solver any rational voter would want in there as Auditor. So why ask him to run for State Representative, or to not run at all?
<
p>The Green-Rainbow Party has two wonderful candidates for State Representative in the Berkshires. And some people will argue that that’s going for too much too soon… that we need to build up from conservation commissions, planning boards, zoning boards, etc. But the reality is that the Green-Rainbow Party is a political party that is committed to providing a fundamentally different alternative to the voters of the Commonwealth. We’re not doing our job when we’re NOT challenging for statewide office. We need to do a much better job of prioritizing local races, and strategizing our electoral impact more coherently… but ultimately there’s the potential for synergy when we contest elections at multiple levels simultaneously.
<
p>Massachusetts has a broken, uncompetitive system. Most voters want more choices, not less. More voices included, not less. More ideas, more accountability, more transparency… and we get there by being political actors, not by sitting on our hands, keeping our mouths shut, and holding our noses every time we enter the voting booth.
he could have fought to bring change from within.
<
p>”Starting somewhere” comes from building infrastructure. Want to know the real reason why the G-R party is going no where? No one wants to build the infrastructure. You have Jill Stein running for (insert office here) every year, you even have one or two people with some political muscle elected with the G-R sticker every year (I can think of a certain ethically-questionable Boston City Councilor…), but what you don’t have is someone who’s actually building a party infrastructure.
<
p>Gadflies and people who like seeing their name on the ballot isn’t going to cut it. If people want a real, competitive G-R brand, they’ve got to actually build that brand. That means building a real party infrastructure, having Field Coordinators across the state willing to work for the party and for candidates, it means having a leadership pool able to find and recruit qualified candidates to run in all quarters of the state, as well as having the ability to build a fundraising network that can sustain all of those things.
<
p>Without doing all of that first, there is absolutely, positively a 0% chance of a G-R candidate winning state-wide election, though they could certainly play spoilers for the Republican Party — which is why one of the few groups of people who have been historically willing and able to fund Green Party efforts at a national level has been the Republican Party in competitive Democratic/Republican districts and states.
<
p>Of course, we haven’t seen any G-R person willing to do all this dirty, heavy lifting, because it’s not as fun as having a name on the ballot and participating in the debates (or getting to have your name in print when those debates necessarily deny G-R candidates from access to those debates… because they’re irrelevant… that’s always a fun story!).
<
p>If Nat Fortune was “the best” — he’d either be running in the party which would legitimately give him a chance of winning, or he’d be making it his mission to enable G-Rs to win, not just out for himself. And a year or two from now, when he’s done absolutely nothing for the G-Rs and absolutely nothing for the state as an Auditor, you can get back to me with your opinion about how G-R’s “have to start somewhere.” They’ve been down that road a million times… “start” isn’t the world for it. Irrelevant is.
<
p>Ugh.
but i’ll admit that it’s not easy and there aren’t enough hands.
<
p>I’d say the GRP has been going in the wrong direction for years (losing registered voters, losing volunteers and active members, losing the local chapters that were its best hope for changing the political system in Massachusetts so that it works for the people of the Commonwealth. And I’d also say that the party has stemmed the tide and has been ever-so-slowly reversed course. Now the pendulum is starting to swing back in the right direction, and I’d say that the lessons learned from this couple-decade experiment (including the Mass Greens, the Rainbow Coalition Party and now the Green-Rainbow Party) will make this next growth phase (here’s hoping!) more meaningful.
<
p>One example is that our best-known member is a home-grown Green. Whereas Ralph Nader never even joined the Green Party, Jill Stein has been doing more thankless work keeping the party focused on what really matters and building what little infrastructure we have than any other person out there.
<
p>And for what it’s worth, Chuck Turner has more integrity than the entire elected government of Massachusetts combined. If you knew him at all you would know it. If you simply read the affidavits you wouldn’t be so quick to label him ethically questionable. You’d ask, where’s the beef?
<
p>If you want ethically questionable, why not look to the tens of thousands of dollars being passed in broad daylight to the campaign coffers of our very own Governor by companies with business before the state… or you can take lobbyist/Deval fundraiser Sean Curran’s word for it that he wasn’t “selling access to the governor”, even while marketing the $5000 event as “Join us and share a table with nine of your colleagues and Governor Deval Patrick”.
<
p>There’s the beef!
What fundraising network has Chuck Turner and Jill Stein built for the G-R party? They’re your two most prominent people in the party, even if only one of them holds any sort of office of relevance. What kind of money have they been able to raise for the Green-Rainbow Party (ie not themselves). I know the G-Rs don’t like the icky fundraising business… I get that and agree with them… but there’s no way to win elections without raising money in the present course. I’d happily support another go at a Clean Elections law, but if the G-Rs want to be relevant before then, they have to prove they can be competitive in at least some elections across the state.
<
p>Now, what kind of field organization has Jill Stein and Chuck Turner been able to create? You need professional-caliber field organizers and communications peeps across the state, willing and able to work in every sort of campaign from statewide offices to legislative seats. Who are these people? Having volunteers willing to help the G-R party isn’t enough; you need people who can organize and lead them, and that’s not going to be the candidates themselves.
<
p>Now, what sort of base has Chuck Turner built in Boston? If he cares so much about the G-R party, instead of himself, why hasn’t he been able to get more G-R city councilors in the city elected? Surely, after all the many years he’s been in office, he’d be able to get at least one other G-R candidate through the threshold if he wanted. Why hasn’t that happened? Who have been the examples of those who have tried? How well did they do? What did Chuck Turner do to get them elected? These are all important questions because, if Turner were able to get 2-3 people from the G-R party on the Boston City Council, your party would be relevant in the Suffolk County, which would — for all intents and purposes — make them relevant across the state. You could suddenly then be looking at state legislative seats from that county, and maybe even Mayor, once Menino resigns.
<
p>Of course, none of these things are happening. Why? Chuck Turner, despite what you think of him, is just like most politicians: out for himself. There’s nothing necessarily bad about that, if what he’s branded himself as is something that benefits the people who elect him. But what he’s not doing is building a party infrastructure. Ditto Jill Stein, who’s heart may be in it more, but who’s clearly just not able to be successful.
As someone who’s wasted a lot of time in GRP meetings, I can say that Chuck’s organizing efforts have been much better-run than most GRP work. While Chuck and the GRP are aligned in terms of our values and belief systems, he’s made it pretty clear that the party needs to be a more supportive, nurturing environment in order for him to really get involved in party-building.
<
p>Chuck cares about his constituents, and the people of the world… not a political party or ideology, and certainly not himself. His constituents are getting gunned down in the streets because of a completely broken system that treats them like they’re invisible. Or they’re getting treated like aliens because they were forced to move to the US in order to try to make a better life for themselves or their families or to merely survive. Unfortunately Chuck hasn’t organized in Boston via the GRP, and I think that’s because there’s not much of a party to begin with.
<
p>Chuck helped to organize the Boston Workers Alliance, which was really the driving force for getting CORI reform passed. I was hoping the GRP could be instrumental in getting it passed, but frankly, it did very little to make a difference there.
<
p>I’d also say that things have changed in the last few years, and the GRP has created a more supportive environment, but there are fewer people, fewer locals, etc. Some large donors to the GRP stopped giving the party money because the party was too dysfunctional to even be responsive to large donors. Some people who have been working to improve things internally wouldn’t give money because the party hadn’t proven itself and there was no clear sign that the money would be getting well-utilized.
<
p>As someone who worked on Jill’s 2006 run for secretary of state, I’d say it was a difficult race through which to build a field organization or local party chapters, but the field organizing was impressive under the circumstances. Jill’s volunteers felt like they were working on something important, and they worked their asses off to help her reach over 350,000 votes. In 2010, it’s clear that a) things have changed a LOT in 4 years in ways that will help the GRP, b) her campaign is being received enthusiastically by a broad spectrum of obvious and non-obvious supporters, and c) running for governor makes it easier to capture people’s attention and imaginations.
<
p>Building party infrastructure for an upstart, independent, and corporate-money-averse political party in the current corporate 2-party system is no easy undertaking. I’d invite you to join us to see just how hard it really is, though I’d bet you can imagine. It took decades for the Green Party in England to land a Member of Parliament, but they’ve done it… and I think the fact that the Green Party in the U.S. still exists at all says a ton. And with spokespeople like Stein in the debates, the GRP brand will be getting a much-needed boost this year.
to quote that stomv cat,
==
When will greenies, LaRuchties, Naderites, and others learn… when you lead with something like “school Governor Patrick”, many of us simply stop reading?
<
p>Being anti-social and goading does not win you converts, only derision.
==
<
p>Many folks around here are sympathetic to and in favor of many of the GRP objectives. Nearly all the folks around here are unhappy with some of Governor Patrick’s decisions and policies, but believe that he’s had a net positive impact on our Commonwealth and are supporting his re-election.
<
p>Now, here’s the thing: we could support both Deval Patrick and Nat Fortune. But, why would we when his supporters go out of their way to alienate us?
dilettantes who thinking running for office is the same as running the state?
<
p>Sorry, that’s a little harsh, but what do you Greens hope to accomplish? You’re not going to get anyone elected. You’re too irrelevant to change political discourse, particularly already hold the same core beliefs and support a similar ideology.
<
p>Stomv says it best:
<
p>
<
p>Instead of running inexperienced candidates for state-wide positions, you should be running slates of local candidates and building up experience.
<
p>As I said above, Nat Fortune is the best candidate for State Auditor, and will do the best job for the people of the Commonwealth if elected. Why you would suggest that his run for Auditor is a poor choice is beyond me. He’s an experienced municipal officeholder, his wife is on the Selectboard, and the two of them are doing more good for their community than anyone else I know.
<
p>Running for statewide office gives the voters of Massachusetts a choice… something we are overwhelmingly lacking here. I’m thankful to Nat for running and to the Green-Rainbow Party for getting him on the ballot.
<
p>We can all decide to hire him, as that person in the audience wisely suggested, and hopefully there will be some lively, publicly broadcasted debates as part of the interview process.
She was a selectwoman running for an even more backwater seat — Lt. Governor — and went absolutely no where, despite spending the most in the race.
<
p>Being a Selectman or woman =! qualify someone for statewide office. You keep telling us “Nat Fortune is the best,” yet haven’t demonstrably shown it.
<
p>
<
p>An irrelevant candidate running in an irrelevant party does not give voters a “choice.” Until G-Rs build the kind of party infrastructure to be relevant as a party, that’s always going to be the case. Believe me when I say this — it’s not actually the way I’d prefer it to be, but it just turns out that G-Rs tend to get all hot and stuffy about whatever their pet-peeve issues are, but are never willing to build the infrastructure necessary to change it… only interested enough to huff and puff in some election in which no one will hear them, because they’ll be resoundingly ignored. In the real world, people who huff and puff don’t blow the house down.
he’s the chair of the school committee. It’s Nat’s community-focus that has him fired up about state government (not to mention the disastrous federal policies that are accelerating the demise of local government).
<
p>A functional democracy would have all different kinds of voices in the mix, and candidates would be relevant based on their ideas, their accomplishments, and their skills. Part of what the GRP is trying to do is help to create the conditions for functional, vibrant democracy. I don’t see how we get there by playing the game of politics-as-usual.
<
p>I agree that huffing and puffing won’t get us the fair hearing we deserve. But I’d hope that progressives and thoughtful people across the political spectrum would at least want to hear out the various voices before making a decision about who’s relevant and who’s not.
From people who don’t have a shot of winning. That just means that the really bad candidates out there will have a better shot at winning.
<
p>Like I said, build the party infrastructure first. Make it something that can compete in all four corners of this state. Then, maybe, people like me — and, more importantly, our neighbors — will listen.
It’s not a real choice.
<
p>I’m a selectman. I would certainly provide a choice were I to run for Auditor, but my experience has only shown me how much I need to learn. I’m not interested, but also certainly nowhere near ready or capable to hold state office.
but i’m sure as heck miscalculating the level of outrage here at BMG. I’m mad as hell at these corporate thugs who thwart our entire democratic system of government, but have nothing but respect for what the grassroots forces here have been able to accomplish.
<
p>Now, I don’t think Deval Patrick is a thug, but I do think he’s an apologist for an exploitative and destructive system that is destroying the very basis for life on this planet. And he’s thrown his weight, for whatever reason, into protecting that system and furthering its agenda.
<
p>My ‘TexAmeriCola’ jab was only meant to succinctly summarize who he is and what he stands for, with some color. I could have focused instead on his support for big developers, on his gifts to the military industrial complex and big finance and big insurance, and his work in support of the predatory casino gaming industry.
<
p>I don’t see the net positive impact he has had on the Commonwealth, especially not in comparison to his powerfully positive rhetoric while seeking election. Now that it’s campaign season again, the rhetoric is flowing… but he seems to have a contradiction problem.
<
p>I don’t want BMGers to support Deval Patrick and Nat Fortune — I think they represent two fundamentally different belief systems. I want BMGers to stand for truth and justice and a sustainable, decent future for all the people of the Commonwealth, and to vocally and energetically stand behind whatever candidates best align with those values. In 2010 the choice is increasingly clear. There is one advocate for good government running for governor, and her name is Jill Stein.
<
p>I’d like the BMG community, if not its fearless leadership, to be open to a fair hearing between our two best choices for governor. Otherwise I don’t really see the point of its existence, other than as a Party machine, which is far from my experience here.
First, I’ll say that I have to do more research on Mr. Fortune before I make a decision about whether or not he is someone I would be interested in supporting.
<
p>Second, if Guy Glodis somehow manages to win the Democratic primary for auditor, there is a near certainty that Mr. Fortune can count on my vote by default. I will not be voting for Mr. Glodis, nor for a Republican candidate.
<
p>Third, and most importantly, about the Green-Rainbow Party in general. Y’all make me feel kinda sad. Why? Because you guy have SO MUCH positive energy, so many great ideas, and so much passion to make the Commonwealth a better place. But you don’t seem to see that the way to do that is by using the present two-party system as your vehicle for change, instead of trying to tear it down, which I think is extremely unlikely to work.
<
p>In the two-party system, both parties are coalitions. The Republicans are a coalition of business interests, religious fundamentalists etc, and the Democrats of progressives, environmentalists, labor and many, many more. You can accomplish so much more by joining our coalition and working to make it better. That’s what progressives, and the netroots are, largely, all about.
<
p>Want evidence? Howard Dean. Bill Halter. Joe Sestak. Ned Lamont. Donna Edwards. Mac D’Allessandro. Peter Smulowitz. And, yes, Deval Patrick. All challenged, or are challenging the established leadership of the Democratic party because it wasn’t living up to their values. And most of them won.
<
p>The progressive wing of the Democratic party would be so much stronger if folks like Jill Stein, Nat Fortune and yourself were fighting alongside us to make this party the vehicle for positive, progressive change that it absolutely can be.
<
p>So I say to you: please consider, at least of a moment, joining our coalition. Help us make positive change from inside the system, rather than banging on the door trying to get in.
<
p>I think Grace Ross, very much to her credit, understands this. David Segal in Rhode Island gets it too. These folks aren’t selling out- they are adapting their tactics to be more effective.
<
p>Please consider the impact that progressive Dems and Greens could have working together, instead of apart.
<
p>And then let me know what you think.
And very true. Because I have felt lately that I have more in common with the values of many Green Party candidates than I do with my very own Democrats. It would definitely benefit the Democratic Party if these Green candidates would come on board and help to bring back the beautiful, clean, citizen focused purpose that the Dems once strived to maintained. That was the part of the Democratic Party that I fell in love with. That is the part that has become increasingly more difficult to find in our candidates.
<
p>It’s very frustrating.
Believe me that none of us involved in the Green-Rainbow Party or Green Party have made the decision to eschew the two major political parties lightly. Most of the time it’s a years-long journey full of contradictions, pain, and inspiration.
<
p>Read the Green Party’s 10 key values and it becomes clear we’re talking about a fundamentally different approach. Not simply more progressive than, or to the Left of, the Democrats.
<
p>Ecological politics is a paradigm shift. If it were more conventional, I think we’d have an easier time breaking through. Where the Democrats and Republicans are fully committed to an inherently unsustainable system of perpetual economic growth, and all their policies reflect that commitment, the Greens are trying to redefine both our political and economic systems.
<
p>The ship is going down — and each of us are completely dependent on that ship for sustenance. Ecological and economic meltdowns are underway and all the Democrats in power can do is try to prop up a system that a) isn’t sustainable and b) has largely failed us anyways.
<
p>We don’t see an honest, self-consistent way to accelerate the necessary paradigm shifts within the corporate two-party framework. We see both parties and the system that’s brought them to us as inherently anti-democratic and un-ecological.
<
p>I think we MUST work together… progressive Dems and Greens… and a whole lot of other people who wouldn’t identify as either. I don’t think either of us will convince each other to switch parties or tactics, but we can seek out common ground and common strategies and work together to build a new kind of politics, where money doesn’t drown out the voices of the people.
I’m glad to see you write
and I do agree.
<
p>But… my experience with many greens is that the chip on their shoulder makes it damn hard. It comes through with your writings, and it comes through with Nat’s conversation with Governor Patrick. That tangible angst doesn’t make it easier for Dems to want to work together with GRP.
How is “ecological politics” a “paradigm shift?”
<
p>Specifically, what is “ecological politics?” I’ve never heard the term before.
<
p>I just read the 10 key values. It seems from them that you are, indeed, a party whose core values are to the left of (or “more progressive than”) those of the Democratic party, and moreover that this is the main difference.
<
p>Help me out here. What am I still missing?
and that we are part of nature — no matter what we mortals do to try to change that. Social systems (like economics and money and banks and schools and governments and corporations and the legal system) are human constructs. If they are constructed to ignore the laws of nature (e.g., the laws of physics) then they might work for a certain period of time. Ptolemy’s system for predicting the movements of planets across the night sky “worked” just fine for making predictions… until it didn’t, and the system would be revised. Some new epicycle was added. The believers (i.e., everyone who believed in the conventional wisdom that the earth was the center of the universe) were more than happy to keep propping up their belief system. It’s all they knew and all they cared to know.
<
p>But the reality was elsewhere.
<
p>And it took scientists like Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler to chart a new understanding… a simpler and more elegant and less egotistical view of the solar system. They saw it for what it was, not what they wanted it to be.
<
p>Placing the sun at the center of the solar system as we knew it was a paradigm shift. All of our thought-systems were uprooted by it…. so it’s been called “The Copernican Revolution”… and the earth’s revolution is the basis for our modern-day use of the term.
<
p>All of that is ecology. The more we understand the natural systems around us, the more we understand how little we know. Modern political theory, modern economic theory, modern social theory, and even modern scientific theory… are all marvelously unknowable. We know a lot more than we ever did, but we’ll never know it all, and once we think we do, some new fact will emerge that explodes our understanding.
<
p>Ecological politics couldn’t ever be fit snugly into two parties, two voices, or two choices. A winner-take-all plurality voting system is the antithesis of ecological politics. Throw 10 candidates into the mix and the most vile creatures, decently organized, can win. But how does that reflect the will of the people or the consent of the governed?
<
p>Most importantly, in the early 21st century, ecological politics is a recognition of the fundamental physical limits to our fossil-fueled life support systems. Peaking (or gushing) oil supplies, a climate catastrophe already unfolding, and countless other ecological disasters underway are the new reality. And the Democrats are pretending otherwise, throwing more epicycles into their policies, while profiteering corporations buy them off along with the mainline environmental NGOs. It’s a sad day for green… but also a new beginning.
Seems a little pie-in-the-sky to me, but hey, if Glodis wins the primary, sign me up for some ecological politics! If the MA Democrats prove you right and don’t give us a real choice in November, I’ll be right there in the trenches with ya.
<
p>I think that’s where most of Nat Fortune’s votes will come from. Now, the question is whether it will put him over the top. I think that there’s a possibility if Glodis wins, just as there’s a possibility for Dunklebarger to beat Lynch if Lynch beats Mac D”Allesandro in the primary. Not much of a chance, but it’s definitely worth the effort
How does Mr. Fortune differ on the issues of the day from Democrats Mike Lake and Suzanne Bump? Does he differ?
is due to the fact that many of us are active Democrats. I’m a delegate to the convention tomorrow. Many of us are. David Kravitz is or has been part of the Democratic Party hierarchy. We don’t change our affiliation because our elected Democrats don’t live up to our ideals. Everyone has ideals; it’s only people who learng to work for them in a very imperfect (political) world who accomplish anything.
<
p>Greens seem to think that electing candidates with the right beliefs is enough to make a change. It’s not. Were she elected, Jill Stein would find herself where Patrick has been this term, caught between his own idealism and the realities of politics. Unlike Patrick, she wouldn’t even have a party establishment to help her.
<
p>Your time and effort would be better spent joining the Democratic Party and working within to push the party leftwards.
We have primaries for a reason. I’d much rather see would-be Greens contest Democratic primaries than take away votes in the general.
<
p>The other alternative is IRV, which would take away the possibility of splitting the vote.
With two progressives and one Democrat decidedly not progressive on the Dem primary ballot, it’s entirely possible (perhaps likely) that Glodis lands the Democratic slot for auditor.
<
p>That will drive lots of Democrats (myself included) to vote for someone else. Some will vote for the Republican, determining that voting for Glodis’ closest competitor minimizes the chance that Glodis wins. Other Democrats will look at an R, a DINO, and a GRP candidate and vote the GRP.
<
p>If Glodis wins the Democratic primary, I expect that Nat Fortune will easily clear 5% of the vote, perhaps 10%. Getting 3%+ gets the GRP back on the voter registration forms.
<
p>
<
p>Now, if I were a GRP party activist, I’d go out of my way to stockpile those voter reg forms, so that in the future I could always have a voter reg form with D, R, GRP, U as choices instead of just D, R, U. Then, I’d hit the college campuses and register like crazy. Why college campuses? Well, they won’t likely vote GRP (or much of anything) in the long run, but it’s far easier to get on the voter rolls than off, and that means that there’ll be a bunch of “ghosts” registered as GRP. Furthermore, younger people are more likely to be sympathetic to GRP and more likely to be cynical about D and R. That gives the GRP a chance to get to 1% of registered voters — which would allow them to keep ballot access. Getting from on again/off again status to always-on status will help solidify them as a party.
<
p>Another thought is to go ahead and make a push to get 1% in just one county. Then, hold a press conference, drum up a newspaper article about it, celebrate it. Then, get 1% in another county. Rinse, repeat. The 2008 numbers for GRP (number, percent of registered voters) were:
<
p>Hampshire 569 0.55%
Franklin 232 0.47%
Nantucket 37 0.45%
Berkshire 245 0.27%
Suffolk 1,015 0.24%
Dukes 34 0.26%
Middlesex 1,659 0.18%
Barnstable 255 0.15%
Hampden 407 0.14%
Worcester 703 0.14%
Bristol 346 0.10%
Essex 505 0.10%
Norfolk 437 0.10%
Plymouth 284 0.09%
<
p>Total: 6,728 of 4,220,488 (0.16%).
<
p>So, I’d prioritize Hampshire, Franklin, Nantucket, and Dukes. Work ’em hard, especially if you’ve got some GRP activists there. Don’t do it randomly, and don’t just go to farmers markets, enviro events, and the like. Here’s who I’d work: unenrolled voters who vote in Democratic primaries. They’re politically active and lean left. Sure, some will want to remain unenrolled so that they can continue voting in Democratic primaries, but some will be liberal and not interested in being a Big-D Democrat. Get those people. I’d also go after high school seniors, for the same reason I’d go after college kids.
<
p>Go find an additional 45 people in Nantucket and 98 in Dukes. You’ll have the 1% in two counties. Go after Hampshire and Franklin. Work with Chuck Turner to try and register another 100+ in his district.
<
p>Explain to people why enrolling in the GRP matters — because it puts a third choice on the ballot. People like choice. They like little-d democracy. Lots of people are willing to support that, particularly more regular voters who aren’t D nor R.
<
p>The GRP had 0.23% of the registered voters in October 2004 and has managed to lose 50% of ’em over the next four years. Who were they? Go get ’em back. Get new folks. Get your numbers up. Y’all are about 35,000 registered voters short of being legit. It will take years to get there, so get started!
The GRP and the Green Party are not so limited that they have not thought about “work inside the Democratic Party” or “focus on local races”.
<
p>Jill Stein worked as an advocate for environmental health for years outside of Beacon Hill, and inside when necessary. Our corporate friends and their legislative allies kept the needle from moving, and we still have no comprehensive framework to deal with toxics in our water, air, and everyday products, despite strong grassroots coalitions fighting still. She was not huge party activist she is now when she worked on the successful Clean Elections referendum in 1998. She saw it go unenforced, ignored, and eventually rescinded by a voice vote by our Democratic controlled legislature.
<
p>Even now nationally, Progressive Democrats of America actually has Greens on its board and in some parts of the country its registered Greens that keep it going. But it terms of the real progressive victories, ending the wars and pulling back the military-industrial complex, enacting single payer healthcare, electoral reform, a serious clean energy and global warming bill that does not peddle crap like “clean” coal and loan guarantees to nuclear at the expense of solar and wind, Wall Street reform that the breaks the power of banks, progressive and effective jobs bills that needle ain’t moving (even with a Democratic majority and Democratic President) and is more likely moving the wrong way.
<
p>I personally don’t think you can change the Democratic Party in any fundamental way, for all reasons Empowerment has already mentioned. In the ways you can change it its nowhere near where we need to be to deal with our social and ecological crises. If the legislature were even a bit left-leaning, Massachusetts would be like Sweden by now, but 50 years of Democratic control has not shown it not capable of that, and even your “progressives” seem to have a tendency to toe the corporate-government establishment line after none too long.
<
p>I can say as the new GRP Membership Director that the focus most of the past year has been on creating a strong environment and infrastructure for local candidates. Its not easy to recruit people to run for state legislature, talking to Democratic and Republican activists its not easy for them either, even in this very anti-incumbent political climate. It takes time, money, and commitment that is not always easy to find on a small ship like ours. Nat Fortune and Jill Stein have already done state legislature races and we knew that their energies and talents would be far better spent on higher profile campaigns, which in this environment I think are winnable.
<
p>That being said, we do have a strong number of local office candidates, you just don’t hear about it because the media does not usually care to look at Town Meeting, Selectboard, and City Council races in small locales. Several dozen towns in fact. In Pittsfield just a few months ago we ran a city council candidate who got endorsed by the Berkshire Eagle, got through the qualifier and into the run-off. We now have two candidates running for state legislature in the Berkshires, largely because the local there did outreach between elections and has taken stances on local social and political issues. Its a model I want to help expand throughout the Commonwealth.
“Empowerment’s” comments in regard to the GRP’s ecological politics explain some of the core differences between some traditional Democrats and the GRP (where, by way of a disclaimer, I hold a leadership position), but we have as much in common as we have in opposition. I’m pretty sure that the society we envision looks pretty similar–the difference is largely how to get there. And I suspect that most Democrats would, on an item-by-item basis, largely concur with our, umm, “Ten Key Values”; conversely, there are always some terrific Democratic candidates out there worth working for. There’s no reason to be hatin’–many GRP members turn out and vote for Democrats in races where the GRP offers no alternative–holding our noses, perhaps, but I for one vocally supported Coakley (to take just one example) on the lesser-of-two-evils approach. I’m sure I’ll do so again.
<
p>Why on earth, then, join a Party that places me on the fringe? Why not work within the existing structures, rather than engaging in the sisyphean task of trying to reinvent the wheel and building something new from the ground up?
<
p>Two reasons. The first being that while I’m all for incremental change–unlike some of my colleagues, I actually (tepidly, begrudgingly)support Obama’s deeply flawed HCR bill, and there are any number of issues on which I think the governor and the legislature have moved in the right direction–there ARE issues of so portentous a nature that incrementalism just isn’t going to do the trick. E.g.: the stopgap measures ostensibly promoted to address climate change–on both the federal and state level, these steps represent nothing but tepid efforts to placate the environmental movement. I tend not to get hysterical, and it took some time and a hell of a lot of research before I cast my lost in with Bill McKibben and the 350.org crowd, but the science is overwhelming; and our President and Governor–two guys who are way smarter than me and whom I know very well can read the writing on the wall–have, for all practical purposes, said “science be damned: we can’t worry about tomorrow when we have the business interests of today to protect.” So much for the reality-based community! Yes, I know how incredibly difficult this is when you must perforce deal with major industry players and insanely well-funded lobbyists, not to mention a genuinely lunatic flat-earth right–but there’s too much at stake, and brains without balls is getting us nowhere. Changing our light bulbs ain’t gonna do the trick: it will take political will and political leadership, and we are NOT seeing it. I’m by no means a one-issue voter–but the twin threats represented by peak oil and climate change are so severe that in a few short decades every other issue is going to pale by comparison. I’ll be charitable and allow that the governor’s heart is in the right place, and I do in fact appreciate the steps that have been taking in the state to develop clean energy. But it’s all too little too late. And a second-term ain’t gonna change that. I don’t like reductive rhetoric, but I see no way avoiding putting it this way: a vote for a Democrat or a Republican these days pretty much means a vote for an unacceptable rise in global temperatures
<
p>Which leads to my second point. The number-one, key issue which led me to the GRP wasn’t the “key values,” the romance of a revolutionary movement, or utopian woolgathering. It was the fact that GRP candidates don’t accept corporate or lobbyist campaign monies. It’s that simple. Web sites like OpenSecrets.com have made all too abundantly obvious the direct correlation between campaign contributions and votes for specific bills. I know that in this world, god must serve the devil, but when the same lobbyists throw bales of money at BOTH candidates in a given race, the race is fixed: sure, there are dramatic and meaningful differences between Dems and Pubs when its comes to god, guns, gays, and abortion, but when it comes to issues such as healthcare, the environment, and defense spending (and for godsake, any sane governor needs to be calling out the administration in re the defense appropriations spending provision for ’11 ! and the wars which are bleeding our and every others state), it’s win-win for the big spenders.
<
p>I’d love to be a Democrat. It’s frustrating as hell out here in the cold, it’s literally exhausting, and it’s genuinely disappointing when, rather than debating positions on specific policies, the talk turns to party infrastructure, or the “can’t beat ’em so join em” proposition, or the reliance on unflattering stereotypes (“angsty,” “bourgouis dilettantes”). Not thyat your critiques are invalid. As for infrastructure and strategy, I read stomv and others’ with attention and with genuine appreciation–you’re right on in so many respects. As for the stereotypes–admittedly, some of our sometimes overheated rhetoric (I lapse too) contributes to perpetuating the same. And yeah, god knows, I want to participate in massive, energetic conventions; I want to celebrate on election night along with a lot of you folks. It has to be great feeling to see your hard work pay off each November. But I’ve had way too many hung over mornings-after, had my heart broken too many times. You know the cliche about insanity–repeating the same damn thing over and over and expecting different results. No mas.
<
p>I AM pleased to see BMG hosting and promoting reasonable discussions about the GRP, its role, its attractions–and, sure, its failures (another attractive element in the Party: we’re pretty honest about our shortcomings). As noted, your critiques and complains are valid and I take them to heart. But what I’d really love to see is more discussion about the positions on specific issues adopted by GRP candidates as compared to Patrick–and Baker and Cahill. Make a list (start with,oh, healthcare, tax fairness, corporate giveaways, ethics, the environment, and both the state and federal initiatives on privatizing education)and place them side-by-side: I honestly believe that many Democrats will be surprised to see how very closely the governor’s positions hew to Baker’s–and how Stein’s positions do in fact better reflect the values of my Democratic friends. And to facilitate that, I’d respectfully ask that participants here at BMG support the inclusion of Jill Stein gubernatorial debates. IF our analyses and solutions are crackpot, unworkable, idealistic–well, that will become apparent right away, no?
<
p>Imagine–yes, I know it’s a damn stretch, but humor me–imagine that the GRP has achieved parity with the two majors. I’m wondering how many of you, in that case, would opt for Stein over Patrick. Many wouldn’t–and you’d have your own sound reasons, but at least they’d be based on personal and policy differences–not on the horse-race factor, not on past party baggage. But for those that would lean towards Stein, Fortune, et al., under this imaginary scenario, Jill’s perhaps surprising (to some) leap in the polls suggests to me that this is a year for voting your conscience, and supporting those candidates who best reflects your values and whose policies you believe best address our most pressing concerns.
<
p>In any case, let the debate on policy begin–on BMG, in the media, and in open, public, televised debates.
No sooner do I post than I come across this brief little note on WCBV-TV’s web site which sums things up beautifully:
<
p>
<
p>Does this strike anyone as even remotely sane (excepting, of course, the developers who must be gleefully salivating at the boondoggles to come)? THIS is how we plan to deal with the effects of global warming? I’m slackjawed reading stuff like this. This is what differentiates the Greens from the mainstream parties–we are willing to address the causes rather than persisting in self [society]-destructive behavior.
<
p>If this is your vision of Boston a few years down the road, you’re welcome to it.
<
p>I think we can do better.
<
p>Yes. Look: even if Boston had a net negative carbon footprint, Boston is 500,000 people out of 6,000,000,000. If climate change is a coming, it makes sense to be prepared for it. Taking a look at changing zoning to make the city more robust to severe flooding makes sense if the chances of severe flooding over the next 100 years are nonzero.
<
p>This is not to suggest that Boston shouldn’t also work hard to cut the carbon footprint of the city through improvements in land use, transportation, building requirements, and so forth… but to not even have a look at what the chances of flooding are in the future and what Boston could do now to mitigate that catastrophe would be insane — quite the opposite of what Boston appears to be doing.
Of course. Add to that the US is only one country, and that a unilateral decision by Congress to mandate meaningful emissions standards would itself be insufficient to stem the tide. I get that. As well as the fact that from a state civil defense/civil engineering perspective, this makes prefect sense. But so does Dr Stangelove’s weird logic.
<
p>Is it really that naive to believe that states can influence federal authorities, and the US can government can influence the world, and that, if sensible leaders agree, as they will, that a genuine crisis is coming full-bore down the pike, a consensus might emerge that that there are more effective ways of dealing with this issue NOW than dealing with the rising oceans, the hordes of displaced refugees, the barren acreage–I know, it sounds almost biblical–a few years hence? Maybe. Obama’s capitulation to the U S Chamber of Commerce prior to Copenhagen, and really sad performance there, pretty much amounted to capitulation–an admission that the US isn’t going to a damn thing, so there’s no pressure on anyone to, so, hey, bring on the floods–we’ll just build bigger dikes. Reminiscent of nothing so much as that quote that symbolized so much scary thinking during the Reagan years: “with enough shovels…”
<
p>This isn’t taking responsibility. This is leaving another g’damn mess for our kids to clean up.
<
p>The word I was looking for wasn’t insane. You’re right: Boston’s acting practically. I guess. The word I wanted was perverse. Planning for remedying a disastrous eventuality that be avoided–yeah, perverse. And of course it’s not Boston’s fault, nor Deval Patrick’s fault, or even Barack Obama’s fault–but it IS the fault of politics-as-usual, in the US and around the globe. Green parties, uncontrolled by the power brokers who, willy nilly, call the host from behind the scenes, offer an alternative to the politics of influence.
<
p>Seriously,you can’t think of a better response than to rebuild the freaking city so that we can “drain” it? That doesn’t seem … just a bit perverse?
I’m working for a world of justice and fairness and honor. Doesn’t mean I don’t lock the door to my home.
<
p>
<
p>On this we disagree. The United States emits more than 20% of the world’s CO_2. If we decreased our total dramatically, we would have a significant impact on global emissions. If we went farther and undertook policies on trade which punished buying carbon intense products manufactured elsewhere, then countries like China and India would reduce their carbon intensity, and hence their footprint.
<
p>In my opinion, the USA could almost single handedly stop the advancement of climate change. I don’t recommend that we go that route; I’d much rather that we take a leadership position and encourage India, China, Australia, Japan, South Africa, The Middle East, Canada, Mexico, and of course the EU to follow suit. And by “encourage” I mean using tools of diplomacy and trade, carrots and sticks.
<
p>The fact is that 1 out of every 600 Americans live in Boston. That means that we in Boston can’t do a whole lot to change the equation globally — and, I’d point out, Boston does an awful lot to lead the US, both politically (Boston and MA are ahead of the national climate change public policy) and in terms of actual carbon footprint (where dense housing, above average mass transit, and aggressive building and zoning codes result in a far lower carbon footprint per capita than folks in cities like Dallas or St Louis or Atlanta). While not number one in public policy (I’d argue CA is #1, and MA is somewhere #2-5 depending on metric) and not number one in terms of actual footprint (per capita, Honolulu and NYC do better), Boston does far better than most places.
I’m working for a world of justice and fairness and honor. Doesn’t mean I don’t lock the door to my home.
<
p>
<
p>On this we disagree. The United States emits more than 20% of the world’s CO_2. If we decreased our total dramatically, we would have a significant impact on global emissions. If we went farther and undertook policies on trade which punished buying carbon intense products manufactured elsewhere, then countries like China and India would reduce their carbon intensity, and hence their footprint.
<
p>In my opinion, the USA could almost single handedly stop the advancement of climate change. I don’t recommend that we go that route; I’d much rather that we take a leadership position and encourage India, China, Australia, Japan, South Africa, The Middle East, Canada, Mexico, and of course the EU to follow suit. And by “encourage” I mean using tools of diplomacy and trade, carrots and sticks.
<
p>The fact is that 1 out of every 600 Americans live in Boston. That means that we in Boston can’t do a whole lot to change the equation globally — and, I’d point out, Boston does an awful lot to lead the US, both politically (Boston and MA are ahead of the national climate change public policy) and in terms of actual carbon footprint (where dense housing, above average mass transit, and aggressive building and zoning codes result in a far lower carbon footprint per capita than folks in cities like Dallas or St Louis or Atlanta). While not number one in public policy (I’d argue CA is #1, and MA is somewhere #2-5 depending on metric) and not number one in terms of actual footprint (per capita, Honolulu and NYC do better), Boston does far better than most places.
How many GRP candidates are running for election to the State House?
Scott Laugenour (Lenox) and Mark Miller (Pittsfield). And I like the idea of a 1% goal for Berkshire county for 2010.
If you can’t manage 20 throughout the state yet are fielding candidates for no-shot constitutional officers, then it’s clear how serious you are about party-building.