“Running a presidential campaign in Rhode Island, as we’ve learned in the past 24 years, takes a great deal of work that gains short-term visibility, but very little long-term progress,” declared Greg Gerritt, the party’s most visible spokesperson.
“This year the stakes—and risks—are greater than they’ve ever been for us. Beyond the health risks of gathering thousands of face-to-face signatures this summer, there are major political risks as well.” The local party says a top priority for the Greens this year has to be defeating Donald Trump in his re-election bid
Message to national Green Party from Green Party of
Rhode Island, Nov 19 - When the
coronavirus pandemic forced Greens in Rhode Island to suspend our 2020
presidential campaign, we issued a press statement intended to do maximum
damage to the Trump campaign in our state, using every argument possible. We
never expected our local statement to achieve the notoriety it did, nor did we
anticipate the pain our words would cause to Greens around the country. For the
pain and confusion we caused, we sincerely apologize. We respect the dedication
of Greens everywhere, and we never meant to hurt any of you.
At the same time, we are shocked by the mean-spirited, uncompromising reaction
which has led to calls that our entire State Committee be forced to resign,
that the Green Party of Rhode Island be replaced by some other group, or that
our state party be disaffiliated from the national party—of which we were
founders! We were one of the 12 original state Green parties, we co-presided
over the 2001 meeting which created the Green Party of the United States, and
for the past 28 years we have pursued the full range of Green political
strategies from street protests to local races to presidential campaigns—even
as we watched new leadership with weak commitment to the Ten Key Values gain
power in the national party. We’ve struggled to understand the toxic
environment on the national committee, the demand for ideological conformity, and
the intolerance for any independence of thought. In many ways, the party has
left us…
We can only conclude that the national Green Party has lost its way, despite the many, many dedicated Greens on the national committee, who we know are working every day to honor the Ten Key Values and build the popular and powerful alternative the world so desperately needs…
We could ‘stay and fight,’ demanding
that our rights as an autonomous Green party be respected, but doing so would
simply contribute to the toxicity and paralysis that has burrowed so deeply
into the psyche and political practice of the National Committee. We will not
engage in that destructive behavior. Life is too short, the people and the
planet are in dire need, and our energies must be turned in a more positive and
productive direction.
Therefore: Effective Friday, November 20, the Green Party of Rhode Island
revokes its affiliation with the Green Party of the United States…
We are, and have always been, Greens. We will ‘pursue a singular focus on recruiting and supporting candidates for municipal, legislative, statewide, and congressional office’; will update our state platform to support those campaigns; will work closely with allied frontline environmental and social justice groups, farmers, and students; and will develop strategies for achieving an electoral system which represents Green values. None of these promising, future-focused strategies require submission to a national hierarchy, especially when the price of engagement is to endure unrelenting ideological conflict, campaigns of misinformation, and sectarianism. The benefits of 'membership' in the national party no longer justify our paying that steep price, and we are standing aside.
Greg Gerritt, RI Green leader - I have been involved with the Green Party ever since its beginnings in the United States, going back to 1984., when it was first founded. I was its first candidate for partisan office in 1986 when I ran for state legislature in Maine. I have served in a variety of official positions at the state and national level…. The Green Party has become a sad parody of itself on the national level. Many state Green Parties are doing excellent local work under very trying circumstances, but the Green Party of the US has become a debating society tied up in knots by authoritarian leftists who cannot actually do any useful work, and in this year were unable or unwilling to acknowledge that that a pandemic has to change what you do if you care about community health. In our case we decided not to petition for a presidential candidate this summer.
Sam Smith – The decision by the RI Greens to leave the national party doesn’t surprise me. As one of those helping to start not only the national Green Party but the DC Statehood Party, I’ve been aware of the conflicts between good local and good national politics. In places like Rhode Island and Maine the local Green party has been a valuable asset thanks to people like Greg Gerritt. In DC, we elected at least one member of the city council and/or the school board for a quarter century. Now we're just a few Senate votes away from DC statehood. At the national level the Green Party has accomplished little except to be accused of causing losses for the Democrats.
Positive change rarely comes from the top until it is forced to react to popular trends. I discussed this in my book, The Great American Political Repair Manual:
In 1992 alone, the 100 largest localities pursued an estimated 1700 environmental crime prosecutions, more than twice the number of such cases brought by the federal government between 1983 and 1991. Another example has been the drive against smoking. While the tobacco lobby ties up Washington, 750 cities and communities have passed indoor smoking laws. And then there is the Brady Bill [to control hand guns]. By the time the federal government got around to acting on it, half the states had passed similar measures.
More recently consider how important state and local government have been in passing laws related to abortion, gay rights and marijuana.
And as I argued in 2018 in Green Horizons:
Greens not only do better at the lower levels, they actually have more power to change things. For example, although I can't prove it, I believe that twenty years of active Green politics in Maine helped to produce successes this year on several referenda including ranked choice voting (the first state to approve it), a tax on the wealthy for education, a public works bond, and an increase in the minimum wage.
There is, unfortunately, an assumption in Green and liberal Democratic circles that the federal government is the best place to get big things done. But history - including abolition and women’s right - tells us that it only typically happens after much hard work lower down.
The other factor that today’s liberals and Greens tend to ignore is the multi-cultural aspect of change. For example, I noted in the Green Horizon piece:
From the beginning the Socialist Party was the ecumenical organization for American radicals. Its membership included Marxists of various kinds, Christian socialists, Zionist and anti-Zionist Jewish socialists, foreign-language speaking sections, single-taxers and virtually every variety of American radical. On the divisive issue of "reform vs. revolution," the Socialist Party from the beginning adopted a compromise formula, producing platforms calling for revolutionary change but also making "immediate demands" of a reformist nature. By World War I it had elected 70 mayors, two members of Congress, and numerous state and local officials. Milwaukee alone had three Socialist mayors in the 20th century, including Frank Zeidler who held office for 12 years ending in 1960. And Karen Kubby, Socialist councilwoman, won her re-election bid in 1992 with the highest vote total in Iowa City history.
1 comment:
The RI Greens violated the bylaws of the national party by refusing to support the nominated candidate. The Accreditation Committee was urging them to comply with the bylaws and they refused so that triggered the review process. They also refused to provide basic information that would ensure transparency such as how their decision was made and whether it met the key pillar of democracy. And some of their state officers are registered Democrats. One of the requirements of being an accredited party is to comply with the bylaws. They knew that and defied it and decided to leave rather than go through the process. Instead of cooperating, they claimed they were being bullied, which is false.
Just thought you might like another perspective. I am on the Accreditation Committee.
Margaret
Post a Comment