The Nation and its DSA bromance vis-a-vis the Green Party

I have longly, loudly and repeatedly, for many years, bitched about The Nation's refusal to give any real coverage to the Green Party. Said oversight is not just limited to presidential election seasons, and it is clearly deliberate.

The Democratic Socialists of America? Different story. Now that Bernie Sanders has made it OK for Bernibros to come out of the closet or whatever, they are. And so, the mag has run not just one but two stories, by John Nichols and by Jesse Myerson, puffing the DSA.

And, "puffing" both are.

First, Nichols talks about the DSA's "long, storied tradition."

So, let's look at that tradition.

First, the DSA is NOT a political party. It's merely an activist group. It is arguably the most conservative splinter of the breakup of the old Socialist Party, per its Wikipedia page. While I'm no David Cobb fan, Greens should note the DSA endorsed John Kerry ahead of Cobb in 2008, and Barack Obama ahead of both Cynthia McKinney in 2008 and Jill Stein in 2012. (Of course, the Communist Party USA also endorsed Obama, showing just how far tokenism can go at times.)

Unfortunately, judging by a Facebook group, there's plenty of Greens who have a DSA bromance, too, and not all of them are Berniecrats wearing (for now) Green get-up.

Second, on Myerson's piece? I'm more a socialist than the Berniebros, by and large, and I'm certainly more of a socialist than Bernie himself.

And, re Myerson's breathless reporting on its growth rate? First, that's the old fallacy of appeal to the crowd. Second, the Green Party, though having a disappointing 2016 presidential run, is also growing.

Next, the likes of Maxine Phillips opposing a full-on BDS illustrate, among older members, just how conservative the DSA is.

Speaking of, Nichols in his piece ignores reporting on how perennial Socialist candidate Norman Thomas was long on the CIA payroll, a fact that I am quite sure he knows, especially since he wrote a whole book on the party. World War I-era socialists, even before Wilson Administration persecution, never would have done that.

Some people may claim the DSA is leftist by its voting at this year's convention to leave the Socialist International. Big deal. The Socialist Party USA, which is an actual party as well as an activist group, did that back in 2005. Unlike the DSA, the SPUSA, per Wiki, does not in any way, shape or form collaborate with the Democratic Party. It may not run many candidates, but it runs more than the non-party DSA. It may not be big, but at least until this year's DSA convention, it was at least as big as the DSA.

None of this, though, will ever be reported by The Nation. And, as a result, "none" is what sort of subscription I will ever buy, or money I will ever send.

And, as for Greens? Basically, to riff on a GP name or two above, the DSA is kind of what AccommoGreens like Cobb and Stein would like to make the Green Party — an activist organization to prod Dems left first (remember Dear Leader asking for that, then getting mad when anybody did it), and a political party of the left a distant second.

As for Greens shouting over the DSA having a libertarian sectional at this year's convention? I accept certain elements of libertarian socialism, while noting that not all libertarian socialists are anarchic, that I am definitely not, and that I reject anarchic ideas for the Green Party.

Otherwise, is the DSA "bad"? No. Am I glad it's moving further left? Yes.

But, Greens? For any of you having a Nation-type bromance for the DSA? Again, what presidential candidates have they endorsed?