It's not true that nothing good came of it. Along with all the bad stuff, Obama
did resist attacking Syria outright. He did begin doing something positive
about mass incarceration. He passed the Affordable Care Act which, at the time,
was better than nothing, at least it seemed to be. And he did something else
much more important. He was an African American President which meant a lot to
a great many people. As disappointed as we may be in him, I've talked to black
people, especially older folks, who think he was a good President and who are
proud of him, and he symbolized something to the young people.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2020 3:50 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: An Open Letter to the Green Party for 2020
Miriam,
While some folks, like me, bend back and forth with the political wind, I'm
still not convinced that so long as the System is so rotten at the core, that
anything we do will help. So I just go along doing whatever my head tells me
to do at the moment. Next election I'll probably do the opposite.
But just like my vote for Obama, nothing good came of it. The Ruling Class
will suck up the wealth, and send us into deep debt. Then the People will toss
out the current crop of Flunkies and vote in the Democrats, so they'll have the
Democratic Party to blame, and the Democratic Party will roll over and try to
put the nation back in the black.
sigh...
Carl Jarvis
On 1/28/20, miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Carl,
In the end, probably because of my age and experience, I think we need
to be pragmatic. Because I live in New York State which always votes
Democratic for President (because of the electoral college), I could
vote for Jill Stein in 2016 and feel smug because I hadn't voted for
Hillary. But I wouldn't have done that if New York were a swing state,
or had the potential for being a swing state. I would have gritted my
teeth and voted for Hillary, in spite of all of her faults and of all
of my anger at the Democratic party leadership because of what they'd
done to Bernie. I knew that having Trump for President would be an
unmitigated disaster. I've read a number of books which describe
precisely how he and his administration are functioning. It's like if
you take all of the terrible policy decisions of the Bush
administration and add on, incredible incompetence plus Trump's
insanity and illiteracy, and the efforts made each day by the people around
him to cope with it.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2020 2:18 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: An Open Letter to the Green Party for
2020
Miriam,
I go back and forth on this subject. When I listened to Noam
Chomsky's rationale I nod in agreement. But then when it comes down
to the voting I get weak in the knees and vote for the person I can
best accept serving in the office, even knowing that my vote could
help defeat the likes of Donald Trump. .
I have spent almost 63 years voting for the lesser of two evils, and
watching our nation continue to slide away from democracy.
Probably we should focus less on the individual, and more on the
passage of legislation protecting the voting rights of all citizens,
get money out of elections, the end to Gerrymandering, and efforts to tamper
with elections.
Carl Jarvis
miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
But the point of that letter, signed by some very wise people, is
that the party which seems to best represent your beliefs, may have
no legal way to have its presidential candidate elected. The legal
structure won't permit that person to win and your vote, which is
intellectually and emotionally satisfying to you, has no real power.
It may, in fact, because it isn't used to prevent a would-be dictator
or racist from taking office, do harm. In spite of how evil Hillary
is, her presidency would not have been as harmful to the country as
Trump's presidency is.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2020 1:28 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: An Open Letter to the Green Party for
2020
Our first order of business is to support what politicians we believe
will provide our nation the best leadership.
Before voting, set down and write out your positions on the major
issues facing us today. Then take a look at the platforms proposed by
the political parties entering candidates. Vote for the Party that
comes closest to meeting your needs.
Carl Jarvis
On 1/25/20, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
An Open Letter to the Green Party for 2020
Green Party leader Howie Hawkins.
Green Party leader Howie Hawkins. (YouTube screenshot)
As the 2020 presidential election approaches the Green Party faces
the challenge of settling on a platform, choosing a candidate for
president, and deciding its campaign strategy. In that context,
Howie Hawkins, a contender for Green Party presidential candidate,
recently published a clear and cogent essay titled "The Green Party
Is Not the Democrats' Problem." It represents a precedent Green
Party stance which may guide Green campaign policy. We agree with
much, but find some ideas very troubling.
The stance offered in Hawkins' article says "the assertion that the
Green Party spoiled the 2000 and 2016 elections is a shallow
explanation for the Democrats' losses;" that in 2000, "the Supreme
Court.stopped the Florida recount;" that many factors "elected Trump
in 2016.including black voter suppression, Comey publicly reopening
the Clinton email case a week before the election, $6 billion of
free publicity for Trump from the commercial media, and a Clinton
campaign that failed to get enough of its Democratic base out;" that
the Electoral College "gave the presidency to the loser of the
popular vote;" that most Greens are "furious" at a Democratic party
"that joins with Republicans to support domestic austerity and a
bloated military budget and endless wars;" "that the Green Party's
Green New Deal science-based timeline, would put the country on a
World War II scale emergency footing to transform the economy to
zero greenhouse gas emissions and 100% clean energy by 2030;" and
that "the Green Party want(s) to eliminate poverty and radically reduce
inequality"
including a job guarantee, a guaranteed income above poverty,
affordable housing, improved Medicare for all, lifelong public
education from pre-K through college, and a secure retirement;" and
finally that the Green Party strategy "is to build the party from
the bottom up by electing thousands to municipal and county offices,
state legislatures, and soon the House as we go into the 2020s."
We agree that many factors led to Democratic Party losses and that
the Supreme Court was a big one as was the Electoral College, and we
too are furious at Democrats joining Republicans in so many
violations of justice and peace. Likewise, we admire the Greens'
Green New Deal and economic justice commitments, and also support a
grassroots, local office approach to winning electoral gains.
So with all that agreement, why are we sending a critical open letter?
The stance the article presents, which may guide the Green campaign
for president, says, "To hold all other factors (contributing to
recent Presidential victories) constant and focus on the Green Party
as the deciding factor is a hypothetical that is a logical fallacy
because it assumes away a factual reality: the Green Party is here
to stay." However, our finding Green policy a factor in Republican
victories in no way suggests that the Green Party should disappear.
And our focus on factors within our reach to easily correct (for
example, the Green Party role in contested
states) is in fact sensible.
The stance also says "the Green Party is not why the Democrats lost
to Bush and Trump," but even if true, that wouldn't demonstrate it
won't be why this time. In any case, let's take Trump and Clinton,
and see how Green Party policy mattered.
If Clinton got Jill Stein's Green votes in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin,
and Michigan, Clinton would have won the election. Thus, the Green
Party's decision to run in those states, saying even that there was
little or no difference between Trump and Clinton, seems to us to be
a factor worthy of being removed from contested state dynamics, just
like the Electoral College is a factor worthy of being removed
across all states.
We realize many and perhaps most Greens will respond that if those
who voted for Stein in contested states in 2016 hadn't done so, they
would have abstained. We don't know how anyone could know that, but
for the sake of argument we will suppose it is correct.
Still, if these voters who preferred Stein did indeed erroneously
believe that there was no difference between Trump and Clinton,
surely to some degree that was a result of Stein refusing to
acknowledge the special danger of Trump, and insisting that while it
would be bad if Trump won it would also be bad if Clinton won, and
refusing to state any preference.
Similarly, if these Stein voters did indeed erroneously believe that
no harm could come from casting a vote for Stein in a close state in
a close election, that also to some degree was surely a result of
Green campaigning insisting that Green voters bore no responsibility
for the
2000 election result.
And finally, if these voters did indeed erroneously believe that it
was immoral to contaminate themselves by voting for Clinton or for a
Democrat, surely in part that too was encouraged by Green
campaigning that treated voting as a feel-good activity ("vote your
hopes, not your fears") as if fear of climate disaster, for example,
shouldn't be a motivator for political action.
The stance says, "The Green Party is not going back to the 'safe
states strategy' that a faction of it attempted in 2004." This means
they will not forgo running in contested states where Green votes
could swing the outcome as happened in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and
Michigan in 2016, and they will not run in only 40 safe states where
the outcome will be a foregone conclusion.
But why reject a safe states strategy?
Like Stein in 2016, some might claim doing so can't help Trump win
again or, in any case, that Trump's re-election would not matter all
that much. "He isn't that much worse."
We write in hopes that no one in 2020 will rationalize campaign
actions by making such irresponsible and patently false claims.
And, indeed, in his recent essay, Hawkins instead claimed a safe
states strategy "couldn't even be carried out. It alienated Greens
in swing states who were working so hard to overcome onerous
petitioning requirements to get the party on the ballot. Keeping the
party on the ballot for the next election cycle for their local
candidates depended on the Green presidential vote in many states.
It became clear that safe states was dispiriting and demoralizing
because the party didn't take itself seriously enough to justify its
existence independent of the Democrats. Few people, even in the safe
states, wanted to waste their vote for a Green ticket that was more
concerned with electing the Democratic ticket than advancing its own
demands."
This claims there is a price the Green Party has to pay for a safe
states strategy. Okay, let's take that as gospel. Where is an
argument that this price is so great that avoiding it outweighs the
price everyone, including Greens, will pay for re-electing Trump?
We have no way to assess the claim that Greens would find it
dispiriting to remove themselves as a factor that might abet global
catastrophe via a Trump re-election. But wouldn't Trump out of
office much less Sanders or Warren in office not only benefit all
humanity and a good part of the biosphere to boot, but also the Green Party?
For that matter, weren't more potential Green Party members and
voters driven off by the party's dismissal of the dangers of Trump
than were inspired by it? Which grew more in the last four years,
DSA or the Greens?
And weren't the Greens in the late '80s and early '90s winning
elections to city councils and other local offices across the
country, consistent with a grass roots strategy, though for much of
the past 20 years, they've largely abandoned local and state
contests, devoting nearly all their attention to increasingly
harmful races for president? Hawkins' own exemplary races for Senate
and Governor in New York state, and especially the Greens'
successful
mayoral races in politically important places like Richmond, CA, as
well as less visible ones like New Paltz, NY, were exceptions, but
how many Greens have used their hard-won ballot access to run for
Congress or state legislature? Might the massive focus on
presidential elections mark a decline in prospects for the localist
strategy, not an advance for it?
We are told, "Greens want to get Trump out as much as anybody" but
how can that be if Greens would vote for a Green candidate, and not
for Sanders, Warren, or any Democrat in a contested state knowing
that doing so could mean Trump's victory?
If during the 2020 election campaign, the Green candidate campaigns
in contested states knowing that he or she might be winning votes
that would otherwise have gone to Sanders or to Warren or whoever,
causing Trump to win the state and win the electoral college, how
could that possibly evidence wanting Trump to lose as much as anyone?
Indeed, if a Green candidate weren't telling everyone who was a
potential Green voter to vote for Trump's opponent in contested
states, how could that evidence that Greens want Trump to lose as
much as anyone?
Let us put our question another way. It is election night 2020. The
vote tallies are in. Which way would the 2020 Green candidate feel
better? Trump wins and the Green candidate gets 250,000 votes across
the contested states, more than enough for Sanders, Warren, or
whoever to have won? Or, Trump loses and the Green candidate gets no
votes in the contested states, but a bunch extra in other states as
a result of having more time for campaigning there?
Greens tell Democrats "to stop worrying about the Green Party and
focus on getting your own base out." We agree on the importance of
Democrats getting their base out, starting with nominating Sanders,
or, at worst, Warren. But how does that warrant the Green Party
risking contributing to Trump winning?
The stance asks, "So why are we running a presidential ticket in
2020 if our strategy is to build the party from the bottom up?" The
stance answers, "Because Greens need ballot lines to run local candidates.
Securing ballot lines for the next election cycle is affected by the
petition signatures and/or votes for our presidential ticket in 40
of the states."
Greens will pay a price for not running in contested states. Our
advice to Greens would be to notice the infinitely bigger price that
millions and even billions of people will pay for Trump winning.
The stance says "Greens don't spoil elections. We improve them. We
advance solutions that otherwise won't get raised. We are running
out of time on the climate crisis, inequality, and nuclear weapons.
Greens will be damned if we wait for the Democrats. Real solutions
can't wait."
But real solutions require Trump out of office. Real solutions will
become far more probable with Sanders or Warren in office. Real
solutions will become somewhat more probable even with the likes of
Biden in office.
To conclude, is a Green candidate running for President after the
summer really going to argue we shouldn't vote for Sanders in
contested states not just to end Trumpism but also to enact all
kinds of important changes including urging and facilitating grass
roots activism and thereby advancing Green program?
We offer this open letter in hopes of prodding discussion of the
issues raised.