Georgia Green Party disaccredited; I am more "not a Green"

I posted originally a "just the facts" of the vote followed by some analysis on Independent Political Report. It's got two comments as of yesterday, one from Jonah Thomas, and one anti-Andrea Merida Cuellar one.

So, here's the numbers. 

Here's some final adieus to the Green Party from (so far) Hugh Esco, Jimmy Cooper and Denice Traina.

 

As I've previously noted, I've gradually grown more and more disenchanted with the GaGP and allies over the past few months. I still agree with parts of their message, mainly parts that I have held on my own since becoming involved with this situation. Other parts of their message, and their background, which were partially or incompletely visible to me in some cases at the start, and in others, not at all, I partially disagree with, or even reject totally. A biggie? If the Lavender Caucus et al conflate "transsexual" and "transgender," then many GaGP and allies erase "transsexual" as part of rejecting "transgender."

 

This is probably connected to gender critical radical feminism. As I said months back, I see things to like in both it and critical race theory, both of which I've actually done some reading in, though more the latter. But, I see things to dislike, too. 

Then, when many of these thought leaders saw the handwriting on the wall, they shifted to an explicitly GCRF angle and asked others to sign on. I said no way and explained why.

Finally, I offered my Solomonic angle: Expel both the Georgia Green Party AND the Lavender Caucus (and allies of both). Of course, that's never happening, and since I'm no longer a Green, it's little skin off my back.

The Green Party was crumbling already in 2016, per Mark Lause. Howie Hawkins' suck-up to Xi Jinping in 2020 was the last straw and I wouldn't vote for him. (I wish that, as a "marker" if nothing else, I had voted Mimi Soltysik of the SPUSA in 2016.)

The party has crumbled more now, tolerating threats of violence by the likes of Mike Gamms and allies against GCRFs. These people are despicable.

But, there's no way I would ally with an alt-Green party that contained the expellees. Besides the erasure of transsexuals, there's intellectual dishonesty, ignorance or both galore. Claiming the GP bylaws require this decision to have been made at a national convention is simply untrue. Hugh Esco's apparent claim of approval of the Women's Declaration of Sex-Based Rights shows lack of openness to his state party. (And, that's an issue he never tried to dispute with the Accreditation Committee or National Committee.) Per what Lause once said about Bob Fitrakis and Ohio Greens, I get the feeling that Georgia was also a paper party, or close to it. 

Also, per the farewell link, that's just a sampling of conspiracy thinking involved here. Much of the conspiracy thinking even goes beyond the issues at hand.

At the same time, while I think much of the "purge" talk is conspiracy thinking, Greens like William Nogueras are determined to prove me wrong.

So, what am I? I don't know. I've heard the SPUSA is struggling over this same issue. (David Keil is connected to it as well as is [was] to the GP.) Plus, Hawkins was its nominee, as well as Greens', in 2020. (I've called more than once for the SPUSA not to select its candidate a year in advance.)

Right now, I am what I say at the top of this blog: An independent leftist. Movement for a People's Party is amorphous, may be nothing further left than DSA roseys, and already has definite teething troubles. I'm not a Marxist or Communist, whether originalist-textualist Leninist, Trot, Tankie, or Maoist. That I know for sure. 

And, I'm definitely not an Adolph Reed Marxist who votes Dem. Blech.

At the national level, I'll view politics as, more and more, being entertainment, then heartbreak.

As for the core issue? I'll continue to maintain the actually science-informed point of view, versus the wrongs of both the GaGP and the LC et al, that I held before getting involved with this issue.

==

Update: While "TERF" is a technically accurate alternative description, it can be a pejorative. Besides, it's a #twosiderism framing issue, as I note on Twitter, as part of a thread written in response to David B. Collins' recent post:

Calling GCRFs "TERFs" is kind of like pro-lifers calling pro-choicers "anti-life," or like pro-choicers calling pro-lifers "anti-choice." I don't do either one, partially rejecting at least the worst of #twosiderism on that issue 2/x

— Crushes Xi Jinping Thought Kool-Aid peddlers 🚩🌻 (@AFCC_Esq) July 30, 2021

Per Wittgenstein and people yet more modern, it's a linguistic "game" issue.  And, I am not playing on either of the two sides who aren't the only two.

Collins is also misinformed, or more, uninformed, otherwise. Not all supporters of the GaGP, even ones more willing to accept their alliances, are gender-critical radical feminists.

Collins also doesn't mention calls for/threats of violence by the likes of Mike Gamms, and the GPUS and LC's failure to disavow them.