Bush Closes the Gap

Bush Closes the Gap Between Freedom and Terror, but there is an Upside
by Garrison Keillor

A snippet...

“They won’t have to torture me to get a good confession. I am a professional writer of fiction, and if they turn the bright lights on yours truly, beans will spill by the bushel, names will be named. Everybody who ever done me wrong, I am going to implicate them up to their dewlaps. A trial with hearsay evidence allowed and no cross-examination is tailor-made for a novelist.”

Bush Closes the Gap

Bush Closes the Gap Between Freedom and Terror, but there is an Upside
by Garrison Keillor

A snippet...

“They won’t have to torture me to get a good confession. I am a professional writer of fiction, and if they turn the bright lights on yours truly, beans will spill by the bushel, names will be named. Everybody who ever done me wrong, I am going to implicate them up to their dewlaps. A trial with hearsay evidence allowed and no cross-examination is tailor-made for a novelist.”

Why Aren't the Greens Growing?

A friend asked in a recent e-mail why the Greens - at least in his location - aren’t growing.

Here are a couple of possibilities to consider in no particular order.

1. Too much “I have to win or I’ll take my marbles and go home” verses a true Green consensus building mentality.

2. Too thin of skins when talking about political positions. Not being able to differentiate between a disagreement about politics and a personal attack. Conversely making political disagreements - unnecessarily - into personal attacks.

3. No Instant Runoff Voting (IRV). Little focus on getting this key tool into play - first and foremost - before trying other electoral projects in partisan races.

This assumes a non-“scorched earth” strategy where - by making another candidate lose - you improve the political motivation for IRV in the defeated party. More than a few Greens are thinking “scorched earth” is the only way to get things moving. The more they get dissed, the more they get pushed in that direction.

It certainly seemed to have an effect, albeit limited, in New Mexico for a period after the Democrats lost some big races.

   Fixing Elections By Steven Hill and Rob Ritchie - The American Prospect (July 28, 2004):

   “Given all these positives, what has the Democratic Party done the last four years to implement instant-runoff voting? The answer: not much.

    In New Mexico, where the Green Party has cost the Democrats two congressional seats, Democrats have failed several times to pass instant-runoff-voting legislation, though it did pass the state Senate one year.”

   Green Party in New Mexico Goes From Gadfly to Player by Michael Janofsky - New York Times (July 21, 2002):

   “That is clearly not the case in New Mexico, where the Green Party has achieved so much power that its leaders say both major parties this year have tried to exploit it for their electoral advantage.

    One offer, they said, came from Republicans this month, a promise of at least $100,000 if the Greens fielded candidates in two House races as a way to hurt Democratic chances. The other, they said, came from Democrats in January, a suggestion of helping the Greens maintain major-party status if the Greens did not field a candidate for governor.”

   Democrats Against Democracy by Hanno T. Beck - The Progress Report:

   “What’s the bottom line? Any Democrat who criticizes Ralph Nader as a ”spoiler“ but has failed to support any measure to eliminate the ”spoiler“ situation, is a hypocrite. Do not vote for a hypocrite.”

4. Becoming increasingly a one-dimensional “Peace Party” because of the Iraq War.

5. Inadequate efforts on fundraising that would allow for better organization and development.

6. Inadequate efforts on membership building other than occasional tabling.

7. Confusing the coalition building model of the Democrat and Republican parties with the values based model of the Greens.

What is the argument not to join the more powerful Democrat coalition if that’s the case? The Greens are smaller and easier to take over?

The Jumping Bean Registration Effect results each primary season as temporary winning coalitions are attempted (Dennis Kucinich for example) which tends to hurt Green registration.

   An Open Letter to Congressman Dennis Kucinich by Kenny Mostern - Common Dreams (August 1, 2003):

   “I read your letter of July 24 (Open Letter to Nader Voters and the Greens) asking for my support for your campaign with interest, but also with some bewilderment. Let me say up front that I would love nothing more than to vote for you for President of the United States. I read your long list of issues on which we agree, and I certainly felt that it was a shame that your name will not appear on my primary ballot in March.

    But, you see, Congressman Kucinich, last time I checked, you were not running for President on the Green Party line. And while you claim to ”understand that Greens and Nader voters are not just liberal Democrats,“ you don’t give me a single reason why I should abandon my choice of registration. It does not occur to you that my choice might itself be a principle, that I stand for the Democratic right of the people of the United States to be able to choose among more than two parties!

    In fact, your letter does not say one word about the key issues that make it impossible for Third Parties like the Greens to run in the US. You say nothing about the ways that our electoral system is financed. You say nothing about how your party colludes in ensuring that Big Money and undemocratic elections remain the only game in town.”

The most (in)famous local Jumping Bean example is probably Tim Rinne, state coordinator of Nebraskans for Peace, who registered Republican for the last primary.

8. Individual member or special group focus on their own issues and agendas to the detriment of a broader Green agenda.

Using the Greens as a handy political vehicle, such as it may be, not unlike how other special interests have taken over or used the Democrats and Republican coalition parties.

9. Inability to frame issues and control the message in a way that can consistently get votes and registrations from non-Greens.

Stable long-term electoral politics typically involves incremental change not revolutionary change. As George Lakoff and Newt Gingrich have both noted, words matter in politics. Thus, so does what is on the Green literature table and what Green candidates say.

   Language: A Key Mechanism of Control - Newt Gingrich’s 1996 GOPAC Memo - Information Clearing House
   Reframing: Words to Reclaim by George Lakoff and the Rockridge Institute - Common Dreams (October 24, 2006)

A caution on Lakoff’s concepts by Frances Moore Lappé: Time for Progressives to Grow Up: Beyond Lakoff’s Strict Father vs. Nurturant Parent, A Strong Community Manifesto.

10. No celebrity candidate like Ralph Nader to build membership numbers the easy way.

By the way, I just finished up reading an excellent biography of Nader and would recommend it to folks interested in such things. It’s called “Nader: Crusader, Spoiler, Icon” (2002) and is written by Justin Martin. It’s on sale at independent bookseller Powells.com.

Why Aren't the Greens Growing?

A friend asked in a recent e-mail why the Greens - at least in his location - aren’t growing.

Here are a couple of possibilities to consider in no particular order.

1. Too much “I have to win or I’ll take my marbles and go home” verses a true Green consensus building mentality.

2. Too thin of skins when talking about political positions. Not being able to differentiate between a disagreement about politics and a personal attack. Conversely making political disagreements - unnecessarily - into personal attacks.

3. No Instant Runoff Voting (IRV). Little focus on getting this key tool into play - first and foremost - before trying other electoral projects in partisan races.

This assumes a non-“scorched earth” strategy where - by making another candidate lose - you improve the political motivation for IRV in the defeated party. More than a few Greens are thinking “scorched earth” is the only way to get things moving. The more they get dissed, the more they get pushed in that direction.

It certainly seemed to have an effect, albeit limited, in New Mexico for a period after the Democrats lost some big races.

   Fixing Elections By Steven Hill and Rob Ritchie - The American Prospect (July 28, 2004):

   “Given all these positives, what has the Democratic Party done the last four years to implement instant-runoff voting? The answer: not much.

    In New Mexico, where the Green Party has cost the Democrats two congressional seats, Democrats have failed several times to pass instant-runoff-voting legislation, though it did pass the state Senate one year.”

   Green Party in New Mexico Goes From Gadfly to Player by Michael Janofsky - New York Times (July 21, 2002):

   “That is clearly not the case in New Mexico, where the Green Party has achieved so much power that its leaders say both major parties this year have tried to exploit it for their electoral advantage.

    One offer, they said, came from Republicans this month, a promise of at least $100,000 if the Greens fielded candidates in two House races as a way to hurt Democratic chances. The other, they said, came from Democrats in January, a suggestion of helping the Greens maintain major-party status if the Greens did not field a candidate for governor.”

   Democrats Against Democracy by Hanno T. Beck - The Progress Report:

   “What’s the bottom line? Any Democrat who criticizes Ralph Nader as a ”spoiler“ but has failed to support any measure to eliminate the ”spoiler“ situation, is a hypocrite. Do not vote for a hypocrite.”

4. Becoming increasingly a one-dimensional “Peace Party” because of the Iraq War.

5. Inadequate efforts on fundraising that would allow for better organization and development.

6. Inadequate efforts on membership building other than occasional tabling.

7. Confusing the coalition building model of the Democrat and Republican parties with the values based model of the Greens.

What is the argument not to join the more powerful Democrat coalition if that’s the case? The Greens are smaller and easier to take over?

The Jumping Bean Registration Effect results each primary season as temporary winning coalitions are attempted (Dennis Kucinich for example) which tends to hurt Green registration.

   An Open Letter to Congressman Dennis Kucinich by Kenny Mostern - Common Dreams (August 1, 2003):

   “I read your letter of July 24 (Open Letter to Nader Voters and the Greens) asking for my support for your campaign with interest, but also with some bewilderment. Let me say up front that I would love nothing more than to vote for you for President of the United States. I read your long list of issues on which we agree, and I certainly felt that it was a shame that your name will not appear on my primary ballot in March.

    But, you see, Congressman Kucinich, last time I checked, you were not running for President on the Green Party line. And while you claim to ”understand that Greens and Nader voters are not just liberal Democrats,“ you don’t give me a single reason why I should abandon my choice of registration. It does not occur to you that my choice might itself be a principle, that I stand for the Democratic right of the people of the United States to be able to choose among more than two parties!

    In fact, your letter does not say one word about the key issues that make it impossible for Third Parties like the Greens to run in the US. You say nothing about the ways that our electoral system is financed. You say nothing about how your party colludes in ensuring that Big Money and undemocratic elections remain the only game in town.”

The most (in)famous local Jumping Bean example is probably Tim Rinne, state coordinator of Nebraskans for Peace, who registered Republican for the last primary.

8. Individual member or special group focus on their own issues and agendas to the detriment of a broader Green agenda.

Using the Greens as a handy political vehicle, such as it may be, not unlike how other special interests have taken over or used the Democrats and Republican coalition parties.

9. Inability to frame issues and control the message in a way that can consistently get votes and registrations from non-Greens.

Stable long-term electoral politics typically involves incremental change not revolutionary change. As George Lakoff and Newt Gingrich have both noted, words matter in politics. Thus, so does what is on the Green literature table and what Green candidates say.

   Language: A Key Mechanism of Control - Newt Gingrich’s 1996 GOPAC Memo - Information Clearing House
   Reframing: Words to Reclaim by George Lakoff and the Rockridge Institute - Common Dreams (October 24, 2006)

A caution on Lakoff’s concepts by Frances Moore Lappé: Time for Progressives to Grow Up: Beyond Lakoff’s Strict Father vs. Nurturant Parent, A Strong Community Manifesto.

10. No celebrity candidate like Ralph Nader to build membership numbers the easy way.

By the way, I just finished up reading an excellent biography of Nader and would recommend it to folks interested in such things. It’s called “Nader: Crusader, Spoiler, Icon” (2002) and is written by Justin Martin. It’s on sale at independent bookseller Powells.com.