Some thoughts on my relationship to the Green Party and other political issues for 2020 and into the future

I am going to preface this with a couple of observations.

First, about 15 years or so ago, the Dallas Morning News ran a "Where are they now" piece, maybe a series, about local civil rights advocates from the 1960s. If I recall rightly, about a full half of the people interviewed said they had dropped out of electoral politics entirely. That said, about half of that half remained involved with some form of socio-political activism.

I've grown in "member activism" within the GP over the past five years. I've also become more watermelon red on the inside as an ecosocialist, and seen more and more of the anarchist and libertarian green resistance to that. I have little use for anarchism in general, and have made that clear with blog posts here about the Black Bloc, the Occupy movement, etc., for more than a decade. (In summary: Most alleged anarchist groups actually do have leaders — Occupy NYC clearly did, contra myth — and I have no doubt the Black Bloc, various groups all claiming to be "Anonymous" and others do, too. Second, violence-based anarchism, including violence against property as well as persons, often seems to exist for performance art as much as anything. Pass.)

Another problem is the issue that I have long labeled "AccommoGreens" when talking about persons. Howie Hawkins is not as bad as Jill Stein or David Keith Cobb at this, but, he still has some AccommoGreen bones. He had said on many occasions that part of the purpose of previous political runs has been to push Democrats leftward. That's nice. Or, "nice." In New York State, I think he's oversold his degree of success, but that's secondary to the political philosophy issue. I want third-party candidates running because they back their third party's stances, period. If that happens to change other political parties, fine. But, an expressed public desire to change another political party shouldn't be the reason for running.

I can't remember Cynthia McKinney's stance in 2008, but St. Ralph of Nader in 2000 is the only Green I recall who clearly was not an AccommoGreen. That said, for the unaware, he pledged to run a safe states strategy and then broke that promise. Not the only problem he had, either.

Some of these issues tie to the division between the GPUS and GPUSA, which I wrote about a few years ago when I learned more about it. It bears continued reading, especially with my personal thoughts on the "decentralization" issue, of which more below. (That link also has more on some of Nader's issues.)

Then there's the Dario Hunter whining issue. For the record, I think there were small amounts of brushfires behind the smoke Dario saw. I commented on the Twitter PR that Howie selectively got. But cheating? No.

With his independent run (there is no such thing as "Independent Green" in my book) he's burned his bridges with me, as he also has in his alliance with Jesse Ventura backers. I expect him to make a GP run again in 2024. And I expect the Presidential Candidate Support Committee to, at least for public consumption, welcome him back with open arms, even absent any apology.

Next, there's the possible expulsion of the Georgia Green Party. No, it didn't happen at this year's convention, but the Green Party has a national meeting every year. Howie's on record as saying that, while he opposes expulsion, he things the GGP is totally wrong and the Lavender Caucus is all right. He's also gone along with the LC on believing its claims to have science on its side. Even short of expulsion, this stance from the party leader isn't acceptable to me.

I'm not a radical feminist of any sort, though I am a feminist. I'm not a gender-critical feminist, but I am a gender-skeptical one, as there's more than two sides on this issue. There are.

Sex is biology. Gender is culture. Human reproductive development sometimes badly botches sexual development, but sex is still biology and gender is culture. Gender, gender roles and gender ideas are based on biology, yes, but they're ultimately cultural expressions.

Decentralization has long been a GP bugaboo, to pull some links out of the GPUS vs USA issue.

One is that, from a piece on the original drafting of the Ten Key Values, they were never meant to be absolutist; "appropriate centralized regulation in certain matters" is explicitly mentioned. That said, the author of them, Mark Satin, was also a FAN of Nordhaus and Shellenberger, reflecting the still-neoliberal roots of many early Greens. Or radical centrism and New Ageism, both in Satin's history. Both of those two issues still have a fair amount of infusion in the party. That's another reason another wing of the party has resisted an ecosocialism push. In addition, the hyperfocus on "consensus," back to his New Age radical centrism already in the 1970s, had many people talking about a "diddler's cult." PERFECT description of much of what is wrong with today's GP.

Per the Green Pages News account of the split and related issues, the Green movement started in the middle 1980s.  And, the party as party is no further along than it is. Decentralization is not the only reason for that, but it is one reason for sure, IMO.

I mean, boasting that you're a federation of state GPs? That's often interpreted in a "confederation" sense, it seems. Other than that, you see "confederation" once, prominently in American history. And, the Articles of Confederation were a primer on how NOT to have a national government in America. The U.S. Constitution, besides compromises with slavery and other things, and being a conservative second American Revolution, is nonetheless much better, and MUCH much better on the issue of national government as a general concept.

Within this presidential election cycle, other problems with abuse of the idea of decentralization have popped up. The Rhode Island GP refused to send presidential delegates to the national convention, and semi-endorsed Joe Biden for bad measure. Texas GP co-chair Laura Palmer was Yang Ganging then Tulsi-stanning over basic income, then, after the GP nomination, touting indy candidate Mark Charles for the same reason or similar. The Alaska GP went off the board to nominate the loathsome — yes — Jesse Ventura.

Another issue, NOT in the Ten Key Values even (more on that below), consensus-building, is even more of a shibboleth to many long-time as well as shorter-term party members, and even activists and leaders. And, IMO, it's even more of a roadblock to building a better party. And, while the GPUSA did point out the issue of dues-paying as one disagreement with the GPUS, it had zero problems with this. One can applaud making an initial run at consensus, but it's too often pursued too long as a will o'-the  wisp. And, as I noted, made into a shibboleth.

As for those Ten Key Values? I have had some degree of unease with multiple ones of them for some time, and over the last four-five years, that unease has grown.

3. Ecological wisdom? Too often, some version of New Age bullshit. Flat-out pseudoscience in the party's official opposition to GMOs. Encourages antivaxxerism, anti-5Gism, and COVID denialism among many Greens.
5. Decentralization? Beyond its problems within the GP party structure, from someone who's seen plenty of classism in small towns, decentralization of resources, processes and inputs isn't a problem-solver. Sometimes, it's even a problem-booster.
6. Community-based economics? Per what I said above about decentralization, I'm fine with this when appropriate. Too often, it's not, and it can be used as a wedge against socialist needs.

The New Agey stuff has been an issue for years. And, by the relative paucity of openly self-acknowledged secularists and atheists I've run into in Green dialogue, I don't think that — or the degree to which it contributes to Green pseudoscience, will change.

This said, I have left two email lists related to dialogue over the Georgia GP issue. One person had largely hijacked the group at times. This, and other issues, which I won't discuss for obvious group privacy issues, nonetheless would, for non-Greens, reinforce several stereotypes.

I have not yet left the GP Facebook group. But, another outbreak of censorship will probably make that happen. I am going to do my level best to reduce participation there.

So, 2020? I may, or may not, give money to Howie. (He just asked again on Aug. 13.) I may, or may not, have a high degree of enthusiasm for his campaign.

For 2024? I respectfully suggest the Socialist Party USA wait until 2024, rather than acting in late 2023, to choose its presidential nominee. I think that's part of larger work on growing the party and its credibility. I might lend a bit of help. If you want it and support the idea. After all, I joined the GP in part because it was a party of the left. If we can build a better, better organized party of the left in the SPUSA, forward!

For 2024, part 2? I wouldn't support Dario if he gets the GP nomination, without some contrition.

For 2024, bigger picture? While I am an ecosocialist, I am not a Marxist, and I reject Marxism and anything that calls itself Marxist economics unless it TOTALLY drops anything associated with Marxism itself. Why? It's pseudoscience. No, literally.

Hegalian dialectic was, and still is, crappy philosophy. It's non-scientific, like most philosophical systems-buildings are. Made as the basis for a theory of social science, it then becomes pseudoscience on traditional grounds of judging what science is.

Related to that? I'm not an anticapitalist. I am a post-capitalist of some sort, but not an anticapitalist. And I even invented that new logo.

That said, there's a bigger ticket picture here.

Several years ago, late friend Leo Lincourt talked about, not just in politics, but in a lot of the big-ticket items of life in general, at trying to find the sweet spot in a Venn diagram overlap of some sort of left-liberalism (for him) or become more than that (for me) in political point of view, the best of non-scientism scientific thinking including new ideas, and the best of non-Gnu Atheism, non-Skeptics™ scientific and philosophical (especially for me) skepticism. (I first ran into Leo in the old Skeptics Circle blog circle. Those were the days.)

Unfortunately, the Green Party just doesn't seem close enough to that sweet spot. Jill Stein's footsie on vaccines was something I was a quasi-apologist for. Wouldn't do that again, especially now that we have a prez candidate, David Rolde, and others, going beyond her on smartphones to 5G nuttery. (Howie Hawkins, as nominee, seems sane on these issues.) And, the number of Greens horseshoing on COVID conspiracy theories (in part working off an antivaxxer base in many cases) is just ... too much.

Then, there's Howie getting attacked over alleged "Russiagate," but, while more right than wrong on that, him screwing the pooch on China-stanning for Xi Jinping Thought, or at least getting in bed with them, including his late campaign manager, Zeese. More on Xi Jinping Thought-stanning here.

So, to conclude?

I've said many times in 2016 and now that "Democrats don't own my vote."

Well? "Greens don't own my vote, either."

I'll likely still vote for Howie Hawkins. I doubt a Trot will be available for a protest write-in vote. If I give any money, it will be to Hawkins, not the Green Party, though. And, I may not do even that. I've emailed directly to his campaign finance guy, Travis Christal, asking for a copy of the "letter of interest" submitted on behalf of Jesse. And, if they're not going to cough it up, especially with the Alaska GP now nominating Jesse, then why should I care? (Travis has never emailed me back.)

I didn't get my voter registration changed in time, and didn't bother trying, and didn't really want to bother trying, per the strikethrough above. It wasn't entirely about this year's election, but it was in part. I vote based in part on foreign policy, and although Howie actually did do decently on Russiagate, his Xi Jinping Thought stanning and other things .... were just losing me. A tipping point, along with other things.

As for 2024? None of the 2020 candidates other than Hawkins is acceptable.