Green Politics: Demonstrations or Elections?

"[The difference between Earth Community and Empire] is the difference between the democracy of the many championed by Jefferson and the democracy of the very rich championed by Hamilton." - David Korten ["The Great Turning" p. 345]

"Today ... support for breaking up and dispersing economic power finds expression in neither of the major parties." - Stacey Mitchell ["Big-box Swindle" p. 210]

Failure of The Two-Party System

Yet, the two major political parties of the United States and the politicians that run them are very unresponsive to necessary change. Over the past thirty years, the pendulum has swung only between maintenance of a kind of middle status quo and changing it to benefit the wealthy. The pendulum swung away from social concerns and toward the dream of affluence with the Reagan administration in the 1980's and remained there for almost thirty years. Certainly no liberals or progressives can look back on this time with good feelings. These decades have brought about the house of cards described in the Where Are We Now chapter, and the dominance of corporate empire discussed in the Globalization chapter. In the election of 2008 Americans finally chose to move the pendulum in the Jeffersonian direction. It remains to be seen how far this swing will go.

The past thirty years have seen the co-opting of the Democratic Party by corporate empire. We have heard much about the power of lobbying, political action committees, and political contributions. In spite of some mild efforts to control the power of money in politics, the huge costs of political campaigns at the national level create situations where the biggest bucks nearly always win. Paul Hawken points out, in "Blessed Unrest" that addressing local problems of many kinds is futile unless we address climate change, which is futile unless we address political corruption, which is futile unless we address campaign finance. Kevin Phillips writes on similar subjects in "Arrogant Capital".

The Democrats, once the party of labor, minorities, and yes, even environmentalists, has tried to win votes by being centrist, by not rocking the American boat, and by spending corporate dollars. Progressives, who want social change rather than corporate control, have been left out of the election process. Until 2008 the most progressive Democratic candidates always seem to lose early in the primaries, leaving the party with a candidate who promises that America is good and getting better. After the 2000 election, Jim Hightower wrote "If the Gods Had Meant Us to Vote They Would Have Given Us Candidates.", expanding the similarities of Democrats and Republicans. I believe that Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry lost because they could not coherently express a new vision for America and because they tried hard not to aggravate any voters.

I became disenchanted with the Democrats in the eight years that Al Gore was Vice President. After publishing "Earth in the Balance" in 1992, he then ignored everything he had said once he was Vice President. The climate change issue was never really on the table in the Clinton years, and Gore further avoided it when he ran for President in 2000. In his last DAYS in office, Bill Clinton tried to salvage his lackluster environmental record by establishing a number of executive branch regulations, which President Bush then immediately rescinded. Unfortunately Clinton did not establish these rules at the beginning of his eight years or they would have become standard practice. The environmental retrogression of the Clinton and Bush administrations and the coziness of politicians of both parties with big business have been castigated by Jeffrey St. Clair in "Been Brown So Long It Looked Like Green to Me".

In the past eight years, the administration of George W. Bush and a generally Republican Congress did nothing about the issues involved in Ecoshift. In fact they rescinded much of the progress made over the past four decades. The Natural Resources Defense Council listed Bush's anti-environmental actions from 2001 through 2005, then gave up, perhaps in despair. Democrats in Congress and the candidacy of John Kerry failed to raise a strong minority voice of protest either to environmental issues or to the so-called war on terrorism.

Over the past 30 years both parties have proclaimed America as the number one nation in the world, as the country to be emulated by others, and as the only nation whose wishes should not be denied. Yet here is a list of Ecoshift-related international treaties that have been adopted by most of the nations of the world, but have been effectively ignored by the United States:

• 1977 International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights - not ratified
• 1979 UN Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women - not ratified
• 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea - not ratified
• 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child - not ratified
• 1989 Optional Protocol to the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights banning death penalty for those under 18
• 1992-2001 UN General Assembly resolution calling for US to end its Cuba embargo
• 1997 UN Framework Convention on Climate Control (Kyoto) - not ratified
• 1998 International Criminal Court Treaty
• 2001 UN Human Rights Commission - US not re-elected after failing to pay its U.N. dues
• 2001 International Plan for Cleaner Energy
• 2002 International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture - not ratified
• 2003 WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control - not ratified

Throughout the dark period of the past two decades, Congressman Dennis Kucinich has stood out as a progressive reformer. He talks about the Earth Charter, about low wages and globalization, about energy issues and global warming, about simple living, about ecosystems and diversity. Yet he goes nowhere in the primaries because he is reputed to be a "flake" who has said "we are descended from stardust", even though that is a major point of the New Story of science (see the Universe Story chapter).

Finally in 2006, the electorate woke up to the fact that the invasion of Iraq was the biggest U.S. blunder since Viet Nam. In "The Great Turning", David Korten points out that terrorism is a reaction to the forces of Empire trying to impose their will on "subject" people. It is a negative reaction to corporate globalization and to "Western" values, such as marginalization of the poor, sexual provocativeness, and greed for oil and other "natural resources".

Progressives have regained hope with the election of Barack Obama as the next American president and a Congress controlled by the Democrats. Is there now a new breed of Democrats who will return the party to its 1960s principles? Personally I, who have called myself a Green for several years, remain to be convinced that Democratic leadership is interested in or capable of changing the current rule of global corporate empire.

The Green Party

Perhaps the first "environmental" third party was the Citizens Party formed by Barry Commoner, author of "The Closing Circle", for his presidential run in 1980. The party attempted to unite environmental groups who felt that the Carter administration was not doing enough. Commoner received over 200,000 votes, and the Citizens Party became the first "third" party to qualify for federal funding in 1984. Although the Party ran candidates for various offices and nominated Sonia Johnson for president in 1984, it lasted only through the 1986 elections.

Wikipedia documents the rise and fall of The New Party, whose web site now refers to the Working Families Party of New York. New Party issues involved labor unions, affordable housing, a living wage, and "electoral fusion". In electoral fusion, two or more political parties nominate the same candidate in order to increase their vote-getting power. Most states prohibit electoral fusion and in 1997 the U.S. Supreme Court supported such prohibition by a 6-3 vote in spite of First Amendment arguments. This vote dealt a serious blow to any chance for a multi-party system in the U.S. and effectively ended the New Party.

By far the longest lived "green" party in the United States and elsewhere is the Green Party! Environmental political parties were founded in various countries around the world in response to rising concerns fostered by the 1960s fervor for change and the first Earth Day in 1970. The name "Green Party" was first used in the 1980 German elections. The Greens are now a world-wide movement. The Four Pillars of the movement evolved as ecological wisdom, social justice, grassroots democracy, and nonviolence. In 1984 the movement in the U.S. added six more to create Ten Key Values. Each local Green Party organization is free to restate these values in its own way. Here is a brief version used by the Green Party of New Jersey. It is interesting to compare this list with the Earth Charter; they cover the same ground (see Appendix 3).

Ten Key Values of the Green Party

1. "Ecological Wisdom -- The Earth sustains all life forms. Whatever we do to the web of life we do to ourselves.
2. Social Justice -- Greens find the worldwide growth of poverty and injustice unacceptable and are working for a world in which all can fulfill their potential regardless of gender, race, citizenship, or sexual preference.
3. Grassroots Democracy -- The powerless suffer the most from resource exhaustion and toxic pollution. Greens believe in direct participation by all citizens in the environmental, political, and economic decisions that affect their lives.
4. Nonviolence -- Greens reject violence as a way of resolving disputes. It is shortsighted, morally wrong, and ultimately self-defeating. We advocate demilitarization and abhor state-organized killing of any kind; therefore we are against the death penalty and we work to end war forever.
5. Decentralization -- Power and responsibility must be restored to local communities, within an overall framework of ecologically sound, socially just values and lifestyles. To counter the alienation of mass industrial society, we work toward the restoration of humanly-scaled communities, institutions, and technologies. We view political decentralization as a prerequisite for substantive participatory democracy.
6. Community Economics -- Greens seek the deconcentration of wealth and power; we assert that extreme disparities in personal wealth and concentrated control of productive assets are inherently undemocratic. Therefore we advocate a new economics which first and foremost assures that the basic needs of everyone on the planet are met (sufficiency) -- while taking account of the natural limits of the Earth. We advocate decentralization in the economic sphere as well as the political sphere; this would mean regionalizing economic activity as much as practical to foster local self-reliance and accountability.
7. Feminism -- The ethics of cooperation and understanding must replace the values of domination and control. Gender should not be a basis for discrimination nor for role typecasting.
8. Respect for Diversity -- We honor the biological diversity of the Earth, and the cultural, sexual, and spiritual diversity of Earth's people. We aim to reclaim this country's finest ideals: popular democracy, the dignity of the individual, and liberty and justice for all.
9. Personal and Global Responsibility -- Greens express commitment to global sustainability and international justice both through political solidarity and personal lifestyles based on sufficiency and living lightly upon the Earth.
10. Future Focus/Sustainability -- Like the Iroquois Indians, Greens seek a society where the interests of the seventh future generation are considered equal to the interests of the present. Every generation should, minimally, seek to leave the planet no worse off than when it was bequeathed to them. We must act in the present in such a way as to reclaim the future for our children and their children."

The Green movement in the United States and elsewhere has been plagued by a fundamental disagreement about whether to work for legislative power through winning elections or to work for change through social activism that alters personal attitudes. Eckersley's "Environmentalism and Political Theory" discusses the impact of environmentalism on political thinking, especially with respect to Green politics.

The third key value, "Grassroots Democracy", expresses a fundamental about Green politics that is both positive and negative, because decisions on purposes and types of action are made by Greens at local and state levels, not at the national level. Consequently, a serious split took place in 1992 when state groups whose primary focus was on winning elections formed the Green Party of the United States (GPUS), leaving the older Greens/Green Party USA (G/GPUSA) to the social activists. The continual controversy involving personalities, power, and efforts to re-merge has been documented by Synthesis/Regeneration: A Magazine of Green Social Thought, and by Wikipedia under "Green Party". GPUS is an association of state green parties and has no individual memberships, though you can be a "supporter". Opponents claim that it has no "democracy" and that delegates to its national convention are not selected proportionally to state party membership. G/GPUSA is an individual membership organization, with decisions made by member votes, preferably by consensus. The continual green in-fighting about a right way to do things has cost the movement many supporters and shows no signs of ending.

In addition to the fundamental split, Greens are also torn by major differences of opinion about electoral politics. Is it better to run the strongest candidate possible regardless of the two major parties, or is it better to avoid campaigns where the two major parties have a close contest in order to help the Democrats to win?

In 2000 Greens nationwide, disgusted with the non-existent environmental record of the Clinton-Gore administration, became aroused by Ralph Nader's decision to campaign as a Green. In my home state of New Hampshire, I and many other Greens worked hard and successfully to get Ralph Nader on the state ballot. (After the election the state Green Party could not handle a big influx of interest and was split by the usual rift between elections and social protest; it disintegrated quickly.) The election result made history, with Nader winning far more votes in New Hampshire than the difference between second-place Gore and first-place Bush. The same thing happened in Florida and everyone knows what the Supreme Court decided. Jim Hightower, in "If the Gods Had Meant Us to Vote They Would Have Given Us Candidates" points out that in Florida in 2000, 24,000 Democrats voted for Nader and 308,000 Democrats voted for Bush! Clearly it was Gore's inept candidacy and Clinton's inept personal affairs that cost Gore the election, not the candidacy of Ralph Nader and the Greens.

In the 2004 presidential election, the "Anybody but Bush" movement translated into "Vote for Kerry" which caused great schisms among real progressives. Once again the Democratic nomination process produced a candidate with few strong convictions, a follower of the whims of the middle of the road rather than a leader. And once again millions of eligible voters chose not to bother to vote, in spite of the Iraq war issue. Many Greens decided to stick with the Democratic candidate to avoid a repetition of 2000. Ralph Nader chose to run as an independent rather than as a Green, so after more major internal conflict about the nomination process, a component of the Greens put up its own ticket of Cobb and LaMarche. Cobb refused to campaign anyplace where the Kerry-Bush battle was close. Progressives were torn three ways, and the Green Party was once again torn apart. Howie Hawkins documents the continuing conflict in "Independent Politics: The Green Party Strategy Debate".

In 2008 GPUS nominated former U.S. Representative Cynthia McKinney, who with running mate Rosa Clemente, received 154,000 votes nationwide. In Arkansas, Green candidates received 20% of the vote in races for the U.S. Senate and House in which one of the major parties did not bother to field a candidate. As usual Greens were elected to a number of local offices in various states.

Green infighting is not unique to the United States. In Germany, Greens have achieved their biggest electoral successes. The Greens were included in the coalition government from 1998 to 2005. For political reasons, Green members of Parliament supported the government decision to aid the United States in Afghanistan, earning intense criticism by Greens worldwide for non-adherence to the Green value of non-violence and pacifism. Such internal strife has cost Green seats in parliaments of European Union countries. The national Green Party of Canada has been beset by conflict over top-down versus bottom-up organizational structure, and remains fairly weak with respect to the provincial parties. No doubt the history of every local or national green party is replete with controversy. It is sad to think of the energy spent and the supporters lost because of internal disagreements. Just as with the larger Ecoshift movement, supporters need to realize that all roads need to be followed to reach the lofty goals of the Green Key Values and the Earth Charter. No one way is the best or the only possible way.

Greens and other progressives, and perhaps other third parties like Libertarians, would like to have "Independent Runoff Voting" , which is an election system that allows each voter to rank candidates as first, second, third, etc. choices. First place votes for the lowest vote-getter are redistributed to those voters' second choices; then this process of dropping the last-place candidate is repeated until one candidate receives over 50%. Such a scheme has been adopted for local elections by a number of U.S. cities, including San Francisco, but seems very unlikely to happen at the national level given the power of the major parties to kill off third parties. Alternatively, the Green Party favors proportional representation, in which parties gain legislative seats in proportion to the number of votes they receive; this method of allowing for multiple parties is common elsewhere in the world. Hope for a progressive political movement may require frustrated liberal and progressive Democrats to join with Greens and others to form a new unified national party. Such a party would probably require a new charismatic leader.

David Orton has proposed ecocentrism as the fundamental core of a revised/revived Green Party. In "The Ecocentric Left and Green Electoralism" [Synthesis/Regeneration, Winter 2005] he writes:

"Leading the move from a human-centered to an ecocentric consciousness is fundamental. We need to place the welfare of the Earth and all its life forms first. 'Community' has to include not just humans, but other animals, plants and the Earth itself.... There is not only a liberal democracy, with all its limitations for deeper Greens, but there is also an ecocentric democracy and governance. Ecocentric justice is much more inclusive than human justice. A Green Party has to decide about all this, not just how to run its affairs democratically from a human-centered perspective."

Unfortunately, as long as the nation persists in its nearly 50-50 split between the two major parties, it seems highly unlikely that any third party can develop. Although it is long past time to put a stop to the political rush to the lowest common denominator and for candidates to take strong positions and exert leadership, we probably will have to wait for Earth itself to issue the wake-up call by running out of oil or an abrupt climate change. It is, at least, hopeful that the green movement stays alive in spite of its internal problems. The goals of the Ten Key Values remain attractive; the controversies arise in how to achieve them.

Political Activism

On October 26, 2002, at least 100,000 Americans, including me, marched in Washington DC in opposition to the proposed war on Iraq (though the police and newspapers claimed it was only 30,000). This march, and many others since, was organized by Act Now to Stop War and End Racism (A.N.S.W.E.R.). More anti-war protests were organized by Move On. The peace movement, too, suffers from conflict among organizing groups such as these two over differences of opinion on how radical to be and what interest groups to include.

Most demonstrators at that 2002 protest linked Bush's proposed invasion to the insatiable U.S. need for oil to fuel its global house of cards. Protest posters read "No More Blood for Oil", "Drive Vegetarian", "Funds for Schools, Not Weapons", "Money for Health, Housing, Education; Not War", "Greens Against War", and many others that link the war to Ecoshift issues such globalization, ecojustice, and alternative energy.

Protests and demonstrations about other issues have taken a back seat to war lately, but they range from opposing the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA), to local demonstrations about big box stores, and to environmental pollution as discussed in the Ecojustice chapter. Such protests have a history of success, going back to the demonstrations that ended the construction of nuclear power plants. I believe in the necessity of radical action. Some activists need to take an extreme position in order to move society a little way in a certain direction. Someone has to be way out there yelling for change or change will not happen; I call this the "Rachel Carson syndrome".

Clearly there are millions of people who consider themselves "green" in thought and outlook, but who do not support green electoral politics or attend demonstrations and protests. Bumper stickers are a alternative way to make your politics public. The Peace Resource Project has lots of choices including "Equal Rights for All Species" and "Consume Less, Share More". Another powerful way to be heard involves writing to your state and federal legislators. Each letter effectively represents hundreds, or even thousands, of constituents. Hand-written letters get the best response; legislators are so overwhelmed by e-mail and e-mail petitions that they ignore them. Writing to all those new Democrats in government should be especially effective. Then there is getting active in one of the thousands of organizations that are trying to educate about green issues and green thinking, many of them mentioned in this book. Ecoshift is all about making change from the bottom up, rather than waiting in vain for politicians to show leadership from the top. Such work has created a ground swell of support for The Great Turning toward a sustainable Earth.