My take on the Green Party's "decentralization" key value

Note: I had submitted a version of this for the Green Party's Green Pages. Unfortunately, I have been told that it is short-staffed on its editorial committee at this time.

I was going to publish some version here anyway, but wanted to get something out before the GP National Convention is done, so here we go.

==

"Decentralization."

It's one of the Green Party's Ten Key Values.

But, beyond that, for many Greens, it's a shibboleth.

Should it be?

I think not.

In fact, along with some other Greens, such as Bruce Dixon, Mark Lause and perhaps Howie Hawkins, among others (my opinions are ultimately my own, though), I think it's as much impediment as party benefit. 

That's both on matters of party organization and on how to implement particular issues, should Greens gain major state or national offices.

I'm not a pilgrim. I've voted Green for president every election this century. I've voted Green in most state races where I've had the option in Texas. I've been to Green state conventions. When I lived in Dallas, I was semi-involved with local meetings. I've signed ballot access petitions.

That said, I've probably learned more about the Green Party, in details of its polity, organization and history, in the past two years than in the dozen-plus before that.

I've heard comment about things such as the GPUS being "the 51st state party" and similar. And, I think even if a sketch, it's not a caricature, and it's more true than false. (Sadly, one reason it isn't totally true is that several state parties are semi-defunct, so it's more like "the 37th state party.")

The 2004 presidential nominating process is arguably one example. Different state parties' stances on fusion candidacies if their states allow them, or not, is another. Whether to have dues-paying membership is another.

I'm not arguing for abandoning the idea entirely. Centralization is no more a shibboleth for me than decentralization. I do think it needs to be dropped as a "Key Value," though. Along with that, the national party needs to be more empowered for creating greater unity across state party positions. It also needs to include clear positions forbidding state party delegates or administrators from engaging in activities to boost candidates of other parties or candidates of other parties. Lause notes the New York state party pushed for such an issue for the national party to adopt in 2004 and it didn't happen. That needs to be revived. Standard minimum requirements for state administrative positions would also be good. Per Dixon, the lack of centralization, and lack of organization that goes with it, arguably contributed to problems at the 2017 national meeting.

On political positions, de-emphasizing decentralization would also be good. Greens need to look national-first for many issues, starting with core issues of environmental concern. Other regulatory issues, including financial regulation above all, are also not amenable to decentralization.

Yes, many Greens will note that the description of decentralization doesn't make the party's focus on that absolute. However, from what I've seen on social media, many "in the field" Greens take it as at least near-absolute.

Per Lause, Dixon and others, better organization and clarity at the national level would not only trickle down to the state level, but promote better political focus there, too. Both, and others, discussed these and other issues at the recent Left Forum in New York City.

Will Rogers once said, "I'm not a member of any organized party; I'm a Democrat."

What would he say of today's Greens?

==

Note: I have blogged before about all Ten Key Values.

Independent Political Report has select meeting highlights. Here's the GP's annual meeting subpage.

Margaret Flowers, now a national co-chair, wrote about some issues the party faced back in late 2016 and reposts it now. That includes, though she doesn't use the word, AccommoGreens, though she does mention the safe states strategy.