Camejo, elections, independent politics
cleon42 at yahoo.com
Fri Jul 11 07:52:13 MDT 2003
> You say in another post that you just can't believe the Greens would
> become the vehicle for such a development. I shared your disbelief.
> you can look back at some of the stuff I wrote in the 2000 election
> cycle, which reflect that.
> What changed my mind was Peter's campaign. Nearly 400K votes, 5%,
> whistling Dixie.
So friggin what? Those votes weren't for the Greens. They were for
And votes, no matter how much you might like to think otherwise, do NOT
a movement make. They might reflect a movement--and they do--but they
do not make one.
And that movement is COMPLETELY NONEXISTENT in the Greens, even the
> And I put that together with other stuff. Like the antiwar protests.
> Where did THAT come from? A lot of it was energy, sentiment, motion
> looking for an outlet. The increasing abstentionism in bourgeois
> elections, especially by Blacks and Latinos. Then individual things,
> like that Black union militant I mentioned in another post,
> I've had with people. Some of my reasoning is like doing cosmology
> around dark matter. There is a body there whose effects you can
> even though you don't have anything that can detect the dark matter
> itself. So a narrow coalition like ANSWER calls a demo in DC and
> or 200,000 people show up.
> So much as I may think it is quite improbable that this formation
> serve as a vehicle for that kind of movement to take form, I've got
> admit that's what happened, partly because I see similar phenomena in
> other areas that would be explained by the same sort of underlying
> sentiment and effervescence as would explain the green one.
It hasn't, Jose. Thinking that it has is just willfully ignoring the
facts of the matter.
All of the energy that has gone into Peter's campaign has NOT gone into
the Green Party. The Green Party has *completely failed* to pick up on
it beyond Peter's campaign.
I ask you again--what has the Party done between elections? You have to
admit that the answer lies somewhere between jack and diddly squat.
Which tells me that while this movement around Peter is building, that
movement is not transferring itself to the Greens. And this means that
either the Greens aren't willing or are unable to be that movement. And
I don't think the answer is that they're unwilling.
And this goes beyond Peter, too. Take Nader's campaign--what happened
to the considerable energy that went into that? It sure as hell hasn't
manifested itself in the Green Party.
The prediction that some have made that the Greens would wind up being
the electoral representation of the anti-globalization or anti-war
movements simply has *not* come to pass. Some in those movements have
invested in Green campaigns, but not the Party itself. Nor are they
Which brings me back around to a point I made earlier; I think the
Greens hold Peter back.
Adam Levenstein cleon42 at yahoo.com
O Lord, bless this thy hand grenade, that with it thou
mayest blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy.
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
More information about the Marxism