The Socialist Party USA (an actual political party of actual socialists, not a "lite" interest group within the Democratic Party) has its presidential and vice presidential nominee, per Twitter.
The Socialist Party is excited to announce our 2024 Socialist presidential ticket of Bill Stodden (Iowa) for President and Stephanie Cholensky (Minnesota) for Vice President!
There you are.
First of all, who are these people, focusing on the presidential nominee?
One weird thing about Stodden right away. The Salvation Army is a church, not just a religious organization, and a fundagelical one on doctrines at that. (In this current century, the Army, both in the US and abroad, has put this fundagelicalism into action with anti-gay activity and other things.) Why is he a Salvation Army bell ringer and not just an individual one, but a PR flak in his area? Indeed, per below and even more, why is he the "executive director" of the Ames, Iowa, "chapter" if I'm correct? I'm positive that's him as Google and Duck Duck both return hits from old newspapers that have a man with same last name, presumably either father or grandfather, in a "story obituary," and this person was part of the music faculty at Iowa State.
Secondly, I'm sure it's this guy, former Marine vet protesting Iraq war in Rapid City, South Dakota. (That's confirmed below.)
U.S. Marine Corps veteran Bill Stodden was trained for possible war in Iraq before his honorable discharge in 1999. Now with the Socialist Party USA, he helped organize the Spearfish march and also marched Sunday.
"I wanted the veteran's voice to be heard. It's important for people to know that not all veterans support the war," Stodden said. He understands why the U.S. entered World War II and Vietnam. "I just don't see a reason for this war … and I don't want to see my brothers and sisters in uniform die."
If that's the case, the obituary person would be his grandfather, or a great-uncle? Probably not enough age difference to be a great-grandfather. And, given that he was a delegate to an SPUSA national convention back in 2007, the timeline fits.
NOTE: I am updating and editing my original update based on additional comments by Stodden, and inserting them in-line in the original, rather than all at once.
First, contra one of Bill's more sneering comments? I'm not an investigative
reporter with the NYT, as far as misidentifying his grandfather. I
didn't address that in comments, but, Bill, if you want to keep doubling
down on the Obama vote and other things, be careful; I might just do a
full second blog post.
Second, Bill, re the claim the Rapid City paper had a retraction?Per your additional comment, I've deleted that. I accept that you were anti-war on Vietnam as well as later. Duly noted that you weren't a Quaker at the time. That said, one doesn't have to be religious to have antiwar activism. It's also duly noted that, while your grandfather wasn't on the music faculty, you haven't said what your dad was, career-wise. And, since I said I have cut off comments, and have no desire to get into a big swinging dick contest, I have no desire to further discuss families of origin or income levels.
That said, genealogy aside, even with him being anti-war going back to Vietnam, in combination with his flacking for the Salvation Army, and his defensiveness about the 2008 election, I doubt I'll be signing his ballot access petition here in Tex-ass if he has one. (So, it's back to trying to make a decision on both stratchery and ethics grounds on whether to sign Bob Jr or Cornel next spring. And, even should Stodden get on the ballot, it's a decision between Cornel, if HE gets on the ballot, the official GP nominee, or undervoting.) If you want to reform something, start with the Salvation Army.
Stodden also answered a party questionnaire (PDF) courtesy of Independent Political Report and its piece on the nominations. So did Cholensky, below.
INNterestingly, he became an ex-Socialist Party member, at least on leadership, when he drank the Dear Leader Kool-Aid in 2008, per Stodden's questionnaire. He came back in 2012, but says he doesn't regret his 2008 Obama vote. As someone who did my duopoly exit back in 2000 and never looked back, this also isn't good.
Other background? PhD in political science, not being used professionally. Runs a non-profit that focuses on food and shelter. If not the local Salvation Army chapter, what is it? Because the Iowa public radio station linked above says:
Salvation Army's Bill Stodden visits with us about Bell ringers and the Red Kettle Campaign, the Food Pantry, the Fresh Food Market, rental assistance, The Angel Tree gift shop, Toy Drive, and the need of support as needs increase and past support has diminished.
And, there we go. No wonder he said he runs a "small non-profit." And, as "executive director," not "captain" or whatever his Salvation Army military rank is. A lot of SPUSA people would, or will, probably balk at the Salvation Army.
So, we have a guy in a fundagelical church that conflicts with SPUSA thoughts on personal sexual liberty, and beyond that, is quasi-fundagelical on "you must believe in Jesus." We have a guy with the two-party party line on the Vietnam War who then voted for Dear Leader. Pass.
Re the Salvation Army? Per my one response to Bill, doesn't matter in my book if the fundraisers are a separate division from the individual churches. Catholic Charities is still part of the Catholic Church, as a counterexample. I give money myself to the area regional secular food bank. Haven't bought items from a Salvation Army thrift store in 20 years.
As for voting? Bill, it's a pure sneer. You're both unrepentant AND hugely defensive about what I'm going to call, per a common Twitter phrase, your "duopoly re-entrance" in 2008. And, by your logic in your comment to me, per BlueAnon screeds, you should have voted Biden in 2020, and per their claim that "democracy is at stake" in 2024, you shouldn't be running for president on the SPUSA line this time around.
And, even more than per my earlier italics, if you get more defensive yet on comments on that, here, I will do a follow-up piece.
Again, since I said I have cut off comments, and have no desire to get into a big swinging dick contest, I have no desire to further discuss families of origin or income levels. And, since you decided to go sneering on that, I'll do so at some point in the future.
It's nice to beat the rush and get disenchanted right away rather than have to be disillusioned months later.
Cholensky, here, rejects the SPUSA's outright opposition to GMOs and nuclear power. As do I with both it and Greens.
Now, the big picture stuff.
First, a stragery one. As for the question of why the early nomination, the party doesn't have ballot access in most states, so it's usually subject to the even higher hurdle of independent candidate ballot access petitioning. I used to wish it would wait until early 2024, but if this is part of why (I assume, but don't know) that it does this in 2023, then I accept that.
Second, Bill Stodden is not a Green and not a Green Party candidate, so unlike 2019/2020, there will be no co-nomination.
Now, the Texas angle. SPUSA has no party line ballot access, so Stodden's campaign will have to do like Mimi Soltysik in 2016 and get on the ballot as an independent. I can sign only one ballot access petition, and he's third in line behind Bob Jr. and Cornel. (For various strategery reasons, I may sign Bob Jr.'s petition and not Cornel's.)
Oh, as for the number of signatures? Here in Tex-ass, it's 113,000 and change. I think it was a lot lower for Mimi Soltysik in 2016; the high presidential turnout in 2020 plus increased population has jacked the number. It was 90K in 2020.
I mention Soltysik because I nearly voted for him in 2016. Had the Hillary Clinton campaign allowed for early voting in its oppo research against Jill Stein (Al Gore didn't have to consider that vs Ralph Nader in 2000), seeing her with oil/defense/tobacco stocks via mutual funds, just like St. Ralph in 2000, would have been the tipping point for me to write in Soltysik, who was available here in Tex-ass in 2016. Knowing what I do off the bat against Stodden, though, I don't have to worry about that road this time. I was hoping that the SPUSA would have had a better alternative for next year, but ... it doesn't.
Indeed, mentioning both the SPUSA and the Greens? I don't follow the Socialists as closely as I still do Greens, let alone as I did pre-2020, but if the party chose Stodden, it must have had at least as craptacular of an overall presidential candidates list this year as the Greens do without Cornel West.
Hi, thank you for the feedback, I constructive critique like this is important on the left. Note that unless stated otherwise, the following is my opinion and may not represent the views of the Socialist Party, all of its members, or our 2024 presidential campaign.
ReplyDeleteI won't claim to speak for Bill Stodden’s or anyone's religious beliefs other than my own. Stodden comes from a Quaker background, and staunchly upholds these views, especially when it comes to peace and helping the poor. Though I will ask him about this, I am certain he doesn't share the Salvation Army's views on, for example, LGBTQIA+ rights or ways they differ from the SP-USA platform. In the interview, he mentions all the proceeds he collects go directly towards the support the people who need the most help in his community, and as this has been a successful way to achieve this goal; I personally don't read anything else into him bell ringing. The SP-USA does not ban members based on their affiliation with any religious group specifically, but it is a fair assumption the SA would be in opposition a few of the SP-USA's platform points. Personally, (and as long time Wobbly myself) I prefer the viewpoint of the Salvation Army as depicted in the song 'the Preacher and the Slave'. If I had the voice to do so, I'd love to sing this song this next to Bill's bell ringing, to see who could raise more for those in need!
I have known Bill since I was a wild teenage anarchist and atheist, we haven't always seen eye to eye on politics or philosophy, but always agreed on the type of world we hope to leave for the next generation, and the type of political economy we fight for. This strikes some as odd, but in a multi-tendency party that is fairly common. We have always managed to work together on shared goals regardless of our differences. I believe that is a great strength of both our campaign and our party.
I would appreciate if you'd please clarify the following: although I have differed with the party platform on the issue of GMOs and nuclear power in the past, I am certain I have always made it painfully clear when I am giving my personal view versus representing the party, if anyone has reported otherwise they are mistaken or being dishonest. My personal views on this tend to align with the Union of Concerned Scientists, I see GMOs and nuclear power as tools, not good or evil in and of themselves. It comes as no surprise that a system built on exploitation and greed uses these tools for the short-term profit of the few rather than sustainably to help all.
The reforms to the agriculture platform, which is now closer but not perfectly in line with my views as both a socialist and a scientist, stemmed from over two years consulting with members of the SP-USA's Ecosocialist commission, party locals, and party members. This was a to ensure the most accurate picture I could muster on where our members stand on these issues. Both Bill and I take the SP-USA platform very seriously, as it is a living document that produced by countless hours of labor, debate, discussion, and research by party members and party leaders. Despite being one of the longest serving Co-Chair and National Committee member in recent party history, I have rarely proposed radical changes to our platform, because of my dedication being certain any proposed changes truly reflect where our members stand and fully preparing for, discussing, and addressing all conflicts. And though I may be biased, I do believe the SP-USA has some of the best minds and organizers the far left of the US has to offer!
Hi, thank you for the feedback, I constructive critique like this is important on the left. Note that unless stated otherwise, the following is my opinion and may not represent the views of the Socialist Party, all of its members, or our 2024 presidential campaign.
ReplyDeleteI won't claim to speak for Bill Stodden’s or anyone's religious beliefs other than my own. Stodden comes from a Quaker background, and staunchly upholds these views, especially when it comes to peace and helping the poor. Though I will ask him about this, I am certain he doesn't share the Salvation Army's views on, for example, LGBTQIA+ rights or ways they differ from the SP-USA platform. In the interview, he mentions all the proceeds he collects go directly towards the support the people who need the most help in his community, and as this has been a successful way to achieve this goal; I personally don't read anything else into him bell ringing. The SP-USA does not ban members based on their affiliation with any religious group specifically, but it is a fair assumption the SA would be in opposition a few of the SP-USA's platform points. Personally, (and as long time Wobbly myself) I prefer the viewpoint of the Salvation Army as depicted in the song 'the Preacher and the Slave'. If I had the voice to do so, I'd love to sing this song this next to Bill's bell ringing, to see who could raise more for those in need!
I have known Bill since I was a wild teenage anarchist and atheist, we haven't always seen eye to eye on politics or philosophy, but always agreed on the type of world we hope to leave for the next generation, and the type of political economy we fight for. This strikes some as odd, but in a multi-tendency party that is fairly common. We have always managed to work together on shared goals regardless of our differences. I believe that is a great strength of both our campaign and our party.
I would appreciate if you'd please clarify the following: although I have differed with the party platform on the issue of GMOs and nuclear power in the past, I am certain I have always made it painfully clear when I am giving my personal view versus representing the party, if anyone has reported otherwise they are mistaken or being dishonest. My personal views on this tend to align with the Union of Concerned Scientists, I see GMOs and nuclear power as tools, not good or evil in and of themselves. It comes as no surprise that a system built on exploitation and greed uses these tools for the short-term profit of the few rather than sustainably to help all.
The reforms to the agriculture platform, which is now closer but not perfectly in line with my views as both a socialist and a scientist, stemmed from over two years consulting with members of the SP-USA's Ecosocialist commission, party locals, and party members. This was a to ensure the most accurate picture I could muster on where our members stand on these issues. Both Bill and I take the SP-USA platform very seriously, as it is a living document that produced by countless hours of labor, debate, discussion, and research by party members and party leaders. Despite being one of the longest serving Co-Chair and National Committee member in recent party history, I have rarely proposed radical changes to our platform, because of my dedication being certain any proposed changes truly reflect where our members stand and fully preparing for, discussing, and addressing all conflicts. And though I may be biased, I do believe the SP-USA has some of the best minds and organizers the far left of the US has to offer!
I don't doubt that Stodden's Salvation Army donates charitable proceedings where noted. But it still is a Salvation Army outpost. I could say the same about a Catholic parish priest and his parish having a food bank.
ReplyDeleteAnd hence, in my eyes, it remains "interesting" that, on his questionnaire, he doesn't say that it's "Salvation Army."
And, Ms. Cholensky doesn't address Stodden's support for the Vietnam War or his unrepentant vote for Dear Leader in 2008. The latter, even, being unrepentant, would be a voting bridge too far for me to cross. The former, unless he's changed his mind since then, would be WAY too far a bridge to cross; it shows he still has internalized too much US imperialism.
Second issue: Did Stodden rebel against that childhood Quaker background? We didn't have a draft in the late 1990s, but he was a Marine. Maybe it wasn't that solid of a background? I don't know. But, given his statement about Vietnam, it's also interesting.
ReplyDeleteSince you asked. I was born in 1976.
ReplyDeleteYou read a Rapid City Journal article from the early anti-war protests in like 2001 or 2002 which mis attributed me as a Vietnam war veteran.
You didn’t read the retraction they printed a week or so later which admitted they had gotten that point wrong about me. I was a USMC veteran who served from 1995 to 1999. I never saw combat but like millions of young American men and women from poor and working class backgrounds, I enlisted in the military as a job. Not out of patriotism or a desire to murder foreigners. I served one enlistment and got out honorably, because I already knew another war was on the horizon and by 1999 had learned my lesson and wanted no part of it.
You have no idea who I am or what I believe. The little information you can find on me you deliberately misrepresent, and for what? Do you can tear down a left wing campaign whose strategic goal is to raise awareness about Socialism and working class and poor issues, peace, racial, sexual and gender equality and justice, and working class power, and to build the long term organizational capacity of this Party?
If that’s your goal with this, then there really is nothing more to say on the matter. If your goal is only to destroy things that others are building, I invite you to get out of the way.
If your goal is something different, something positive and constructive, I would invite you to ask me some questions you may have of me, and I’ll answer them honestly. I’m happy to talk to you, but you have to correct the misinformation you are spreading in this post about me and this campaign. Because otherwise you aren’t doing anyone any good. Not even yourself- right now you just look uninformed and petty.
Peace.
Re Mr. Stodden's comment?
ReplyDeleteFirst, I did my "duopoly exit" in 2000, in case that wasn't clear. And stuck by it. So, I never voted for Obama, let along unrepentantly voted for him.
Second, I didn't misattribute you as a Vietnam veteran. I commented about your stance on the Vietnam War. If, as you indicate, that was incorrect, that's good. My internet searching didn't find a retraction. And, to be honest, that would have to be a bad screwup, IMO, to get you right on World War II but wrong on Vietnam, especially when the direct quote part of the statement says "THIS war."
So, Bill, since you know where this site is at now? Straightforward: Did you back then support the US involvement in the Vietnam War or not? And, if you did, do you still support it today?
Third, as noted in the "first"? And all across this site? I did my "duopoly exit" over foreign policy as well as domestic policy. That includes US military interventions before the Iraq War. Growing up, I didn't know enough to question Vietnam at the time. I do today.
So, "tear down the left"? You obviously overlooked, or chose to pass by, my saying that I considered voting for Soltysik in 2016 before voting for Stein again.
So, to wrap up? If you respond, you can tell me straight up what your stance was on Vietnam in 2002 and if it's changed today.
First:
ReplyDeleteOf course I do not support US involvement in Vietnam. Nor do I support US involvement in Guatemala in 1952, Iran in 53, Korea, Cuba, Brazil, Dominican Republic, ANY of the African Conflicts, the bombing of Laos and Cambodia, Chile, Colombia, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Haiti, Grenada, Panama, Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Ukraine, and Israel/Palestine. I don’t support ANY US militarism anywhere. War only kills workers and the poor; the wealthy who prosecute them never have to fight them. Also, the US has only been a bad faith actor since AT LEAST the beginning of the Cold War (but I also endorse Smedley Butler’s argument that war is a Racket, and his critique of pre-WW2 US militarism as well.)
As for my unapologetic support for Obama:
ReplyDeleteYou did your “duopoly exit” in 2000. Good for you. I presume you never voted for one of the two major parties again after that. That sort of ideological purity is nice. You have certainty. You cup is already full then. Nothing more can be added. It is clear that you missed the point of the declaration that the wise man knows that he knows nothing. If you know everything already, there is nothing to learn. Fine.
Obama in 2008 was the only vote for a major party candidate I ever cast, in my life. We can go through my voting record some other time, but I never did a “duopoly exit” because I never did a duopoly entrance. I voted for Obama because 1) I believed that he was sincere about being anti War. I was wrong. Sorry about that. I’m not the first person to be lied to by a politician. And 2) I believe that the election of a black dude would give the racists in this country heart palpitations. And about this, I was correct. His election was like lifting the rock on the facade of civility. I don’t give a damn what anyone says about this: dragging the racists and bigots out into the light is always a good thing. If that’s the ONLY positive thing his election did, I say it was worth it. Because while neither you nor I may like it much that one one or the other of the duopoly gets to win, that is still a fact. I’d rather it be the one that was elected. I voted that year for the one of those two that I thought would do the most good. I didn’t vote for him again in 2012. It was a principled vote and I even resigned from the SP to do it, because I also believe that you don’t get to call yourself a socialist if you are voting for Democrats. I am not about to apologize for that. I apologized for reigning from my Party at the time.
And lastly: I do not currently work for the Salvation Army. My job title There was “Event Coordinator”, not “Executive Director,” or “captain” or whatever nonsense you claimed. I take your point about the Salvation Army being a church, but a) there is a whole other branch of the organization that has nothing to do with the church, which is the social services branch, and acts more like a office; my service center had a food pantry that provided more than 6 tons of food to local individuals and families each month because they were hungry, as well as rent and utility assistance, representative payee services for vulnerable populations, and emergency disaster assistance. B) joining the church is not required to be an employee of the social services branch of the organization. I am a Quaker: I’m not in any way affiliated with the church and c) the service center is self funded, meaning we got zero support from the church side. We had nothing to do with them, and we didn’t ask anyone what their sexuality was. There were plenty of people who came in who made it clear to us that they were gay or identified as transgender, but we assisted them the same way we assisted everyone else. That was not a thing. Our division, the Central Division, even explicitly stated that there was no discrimination in hiring or health services. If there WAS a problem, it’s that the SA didn’t have to offer unemployment insurance. That was the biggest problem.
But, regardless, I do not work for them now. I work for a DIFFERENT organization which I don’t particularly care here to broadcast because I don’t particularly care to associate my work place with my political activities.
ReplyDeleteWhat’s this nonsense about my grandfather being a member of the music faculty at iowa state? My grandfather worked as a car manufacturer at Steudebaker in South Bend. People can live in a different place than they grew up.
Look. Vote for me if you can or don’t. To sum up, my stance on the Vietnam war in 2002 was “I was opposed to it. The US did nothing good in that country and not only murdered tens of thousands of Vietnamese people in an effort to prevent the people of Vietnam from selecting the government of their choice, but also murdered tens of thousands of our own citizens, and psychologically shattered hundreds of thousands of others. It was a waste and a crime.” And I feel the same about it today.
Peace. And next time before you try to appear informed, actually do a little work to find out what you’re writing about. This is embarrassing.
One comment re Stodden's last three comments:
ReplyDelete1. Fair enough on Vietnam and I'll correct the record. (That still leaves open the idea of why someone of Quaker background would serve in all-volunteer armed forces, even if enlisting during peacetime.)
2. Yes, I have never looked back, at the presidential level, from 2000 on, Bill. (That includes conscious undervoting of the presidential race, as I did in 2020.) I didn't trust Dear Leader on things besides the war. And, by your logic on voting for him, you should have voted for Biden in 2020, as all the BlueAnons screamed. Or, to twist deeper, you shouldn't be running yourself on the SPUSA line this year because "democracy is at stake." So, your sneer in the first paragraph of your second comment is indeed taken as a sneer, and a defensive one.
3. Your Salvation Army take, and its various divisions? Catholic Charities is still part of the Catholic Church. I give money to the secular regional food bank. I don't buy clothes either from a Catholic thrift story or Salvation Army. I do from a regional chain that I feel is generally trustworthy, or another that's run by a hospice. That said, I can understand why you wouldn't want whomever you actually work for now to be tied to your political activity.
1) I became a convinced Quaker in 2010, largely because I had become so anti war. I did not adopt that position until well into my time in the Marine Corps and only formalized it and started activism around it in 2001.
ReplyDelete2). Why would I have voted for Biden? He is now, was then and always will be a warmongering neo-liberal. Not to mention a racist, a centrist and a classist.
3). Congratulations. Clearly you are privileged enough to be selective as to where you get your clothes and such. People who are looking for food because they and their family are hungry generally aren’t so lucky as to be selective based on a very narrow ideology. My job was to raise money to help acquire food to give them food for free. No strings attached. If that makes me wicked and disqualifies me from getting your vote, then so be it.
Just please, correct your factually inaccurate characterization of both mind and Stephanie’s positions and biography.
Thanks.
A. Duly noted.
ReplyDeleteB. Beyond you being a sucker on "no more dumb wars" Obama, he, like Warmonger Joe, was a centrist and a classist at the time you voted for him. And, people reading between the lines on his "no more dumb wars" could have figured stuff out.
C. More sneers. Who said I'm rich or even close to it? Second, while Goodwill isn't perfect, at the same time, it's not as bad as some crack it up to be, and I have bought stuff there as well. I'll venture there's a Goodwill in your area.
That said?
1. I consider comments here closed. You're not going to win the argument on B, because you can't.
2. I commented on that, on the previous post.
3. I am going to write something else. And probably wont' allow comments on that in the first place.