SocraticGadfly: Hawkins (Howie)
Showing posts with label Hawkins (Howie). Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hawkins (Howie). Show all posts

May 05, 2023

So Howie Hawkins is cutting blank checks to Ukraine?

 

 

And Eric Draister, Mr. Counterpunch Radio, is along for the ride?

(Howie, at left, is addressing North Texas Greens in Denton, Texas, in 2019, and not, surprisingly, the Council on Foreign Relations or some Nat-Sec Nutsacks™ Harvards.)

I missed when this started in January, but I'm still weighing in.

Howie is a founder or cofounder of the Ukraine Solidarity Network. Interestingly, though he, and Margaret Flowers, have repeatedly urged the West to judge China "on Chinese terms" on things like the slave labor and cultural genocide — I did NOT say "genocide," pseudoleftists! — of the Uyghurs, she did not cosign this piece of bullshit. (I totally called them out on cosigning Xi Jinping's bullshit.) I guess she thought it was a Potemkin bridge too far. (I do love mangling metaphors.)

I saw it when I saw "Green Party" trending on Twitter a week ago. Turns out, a lot of it was about the British Green Party, but the top tweet in the list for me was Ajamu Baraka calling out Howie over this.

I quote-tweeted Baraka and said that Hawkins and Draitser should both read or listen to some Norman Finkelstein, who says good leftists don't have to apologize for Russia fighting a war of self-defense. Baraka then referred to Angela Merkel's use of the Minsk Accords as a stall tactic, and other things related to that, which I've covered here.

Draitser, I discussed about a year ago. I later noted he's gotten pushback within Counterpunch, over his review of a book on the war by Medea Benjamin and Nicholas Davies. 

From that CP link, I'm going to quote, because it applies just as much to Hawkins and his Ukraine Solidarity Network:

The review begins by accusing Benjamin and Davies of presenting a one-dimensional view of the war that is too close to the official Russian narrative used to justify the invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Draitser scores some points here; this history, strongly influenced by the authors’ opposition to the role of the U.S. and NATO in helping create the conditions for the conflict and then escalating it, ignores certain complexifying facts and tends to relieve Putin of all responsibility for the invasion. But he does not advocate a shared responsibility for the conflict and a shared duty to end it. His conclusion (which he labels a “sound leftist position”) is that Ukraine needs to win the war and the Russians need to lose it.
Eric may be right to allege that the Ukraine conflict is more than an “easily understood proxy war,” but whatever other factors may be involved in this conflict, it is a proxy war by definition. Eight years of civil warfare in the Russian-speaking Donbas provinces are not simply the result of some demonic Putin plot.
In any event, this is not the main reason anti-war radicals call for peace negotiations. They do so not only because Russia has legitimate security interests that the U.S. and NATO have refused to recognize, but also because seeking a “victory” by the Zelensky regime is likely to kill hundreds of thousands more people, turn Ukraine into a bombed-out desert, and generate escalatory spirals.
The key questions, it seems to me, are how to end this ghastly, increasingly destructive war, to guarantee Ukraine’s long-run independence and security, and to establish a sustainable basis for peaceful relations between Russia, the U.S., and Europe. Advocating a Ukrainian “victory” by any means necessary does not answer these questions even if the advocacy is dressed in the language of self-determination. Negotiations – the sooner the better – are urgently needed.

There you are.

Or, let's reference John Pilger's piece in Counterpunch recently. 

In 2014, neo Nazis played a key role in an American bankrolled coup against the elected president, Viktor Yanukovych, who was accused of being ‘pro-Moscow’. The coup regime included prominent ‘extreme nationalists’ — Nazis in all but name.
At first, this was reported at length by the BBC and the European and American media. In 2019, Time magazine featured the ‘white supremacist militias‘ active in Ukraine. NBC News reported, ‘Ukraine’s Nazi problem is real.’ The immolation of trade unionists in Odessa was filmed and documented.
Spearheaded by the Azov regiment, whose insignia, the ‘Wolfsangel’, was made infamous by the German SS, Ukraine’s military invaded the eastern, Russian-speaking Donbas region. According to the United Nations 14,000 in the east were killed. Seven years later, with the Minsk peace conferences sabotaged by the West, as Angela Merkel confessed, the Red Army invaded.

Again, there you are.

And, Draitser, by retweeting a piece like this about Western (and Saudi) oligarchs grabbing Ukrainian land, Zelensky's land law of 2020 showing him to be an EU-US economic lackey and more? The longer the war drags on without a settlement, under Zelensky's regime, the more it becomes a Western economic lackey.

As for other signatories? I don't recognize a single major GP thought leader. There are a lot of DSA Roseys, which IMO just denigrates the whole movement more. Note this long piece by two DSA Roseys that, despite Pope Francis' repeated calls, despite Xi Jinping's mentions, and despite the Goldilocks three bears of Kissinger, NYT op-ed board and Chomsky's urgings a year ago, never mentions the phrase "peace talks." Also, that piece has a certain degree of smug to it, where, in talking about things like the Maidan and its aftermath, the two Roseys claim that many leftists, in essence, don't know what they're talking about. Of course, Draitser has a certain amount of that smug, too.

Under lesser GP leaders is a national committee member from California and another from Wisconsin. There's one former GP elected official, but as vice mayor of a smallish town in California where municipal elections are officially nonpartisan. There are several identifying as "Green Party member." And that's it.

Further trumping Howie? Andrew Cockburn notes how US sanctions (nowhere discussed by Hawkins) may have actually HELPED Putin do some internal reforms. This is based on a paper by James K. Galbraith, here. And, speaking of that, for people who really follow Russia-Ukraine war issues, and may have heard of Nadin Brzezinski? They were a nutter long before this. (I'll be writing in more depth about the sanctions issue next week, and that is now up.)

That said, there's a problem with the callout by Baraka and others. Hawkins is, as I now see it, not just half-wrong, but closer to two-thirds, on Russiagate. But, he's not totally wrong. So, I disagree with them that (DNC PR portions aside) it is totally a hoax. And, I'm sure they would disagree with my callout of both Hawkins and Flowers (and others) on China. And, by the end of 2019, as I noted, this had led to the rise of conspiracy thinking on the issue within the Green Party. Howie's going in the tank will only increase this.

Dario Hunter still is not likely to have a change. Instead, libertarian pseudo-Greens and their new, currently unrecognized AFAIK state parties will try to crash the stage with Jesse Ventura. Others will promote Jimmy Dore or some other conspiracy theorist.

And, this is why I'll continue to remain an independent leftist, which has passed the 2-year mark.

January 29, 2021

Xi Jinping Thought further exposed, further weakened

Chinese President Xi Jinping is actually throwing the motor into reverse on "rule of law" in the country, especially when it applies to private sector businesses.

First, contra neoliberal Democrats who are now giving at least face time in the Biden Administration to taking a new look at trade issues, and contra old-line Big Biz Republicans (aka Bushies) this shows that Trump was right. "Engagement" has done nothing to open up China. 

Trump, of course, botched how he handled China by also engaging in tariff wars with the EU and Canada at the same time as with China, rather than recruiting them as allies.

Second, contra Howie Hawkins, Margaret Flowers and Kevin Zeese, Rainier Shea of the People's Republic of Humboldt Bay, and Aaron Maté and the rest of the allegedly outside-the-box stenos who claim that Uyghur concentration camps don't exist, this further shows that you can't trust Xi, and that guzzling Xi Jinping Thought Kool-Aid is addictive. (Don't forget that Aaron's pal Max Blumenthal even writes for Chinese equivalents of RT, even as people like them like to talk about the likes of Voice of America as propaganda.

Fortunately, such addicts are becoming a smaller and smaller part of the voice of the Western world in general. As of late last year, Xi's global approval rating was almost as low as Trump's.

November 12, 2020

Texas progressives: Election post-mortem, more

Rather than the normal "bug" for Texas Progressives, we use this great photojournalism shot by Brendan Smialowski.

Texas politics

Off the Kuff had some initial thoughts and observations about the election.

Whistleblowers against Texas AG Ken Paxton detail their allegations.

Dade Phelan says he has the votes to be the next Speaker of the House.

Dems' woes with Hispanics continued, as Trump actually picked up a county at the edge of the Valley and vastly outperformed his 2016 performance. And, no, it was not "just rural voters." The Valley has multiple cities of over 100K. Instead, Texas magnified an issue nationwide — Biden's slipped performance, as compared to Hillary Clinton, among Hispanic voters. And Blacks. (See below.)

And, on Texas Hispanics, if it's that they're now voters, just more Trump voters than in the past? Maybe it's MORE than about damn time that Texas Democrats mayordomo Gilberto Hinojosa et al dump the "demographics is destiny" claims, as Mezzcans for Trump has put paid to the old "non-voting state Texas" claims. I've said for more than a decade that this is wrong on religious grounds. I've said for almost a decade that this is wrong on religious and other grounds. Actually, even more trye that it's time for Texas Dems to dump the "demographics is destiny" claims? It's time for Texas Democrats to dump Hinojosa.

Per Texas Observer, a Hispanic husband and wife from El Paso, divided on their presidential support, and STRONGLY DIVIDED, even, illustrate just how much demographics is not destiny. 

Speaking of? DosCentavos gives us his take on the Texas Latino vote and how Dems missed an important issue in South Texas. Stace has some good insights.

And, just like state-level Texas Dems (and some in this county) have been talking for years about turning Collin County blue, they still haven't.

That said, I blogged a year ago that state redistricting, especially for state House seats would be "fun" and might well cause internecine GOP infighting. I stand by that. And, in the case of declining population in rural Texas, demographics IS destiny.

Meet José Garza, the new Travis County DA.

Ed Espinoza presents his notes on the election.

Elise Hu recaps her Election Night.

Therese Odell leaned into the Veep comparisons while things were still up in the air.

National

Yesterday, National Review told Trump, Bill Barr and their bullshit lawsuits that "it's over." Period and end of story.

It wasn't "shy Trump voters" skewing polls, but it was (in part) QAnon Trump voters, who in many cases, might also be called "fuck you, pollsters, Trump voters." (I do NOT consider "shy Trump voter" a proper identifier for people like this; rather, it's for a person who, if it were known to their friends that they were voting for Trump, would be ridiculed.) That said, I don't buy this as a total explanation. There weren't THAT many Black and Hispanic QAnoners. 

Per what I said above about Biden in Texas? Nationally, Biden ran lower than Hillary Clinton among both Hispanics AND Blacks. Maybe, per Nikole Hannah Jones of the 1619 Project, it's past time to ditch "Hispanic," which is about as meaningful as "Asian" as an ethnic category. (For that matter, re "African American," where do you fit new or newish Nigerian immigrants who came to America freely vs the descendants of slaves?) More here from Margaret Sullivan, where that Twitter thread link was seen. 

Meanwhile, ConservaDems in Congress are making new noise about moving that old Overton Window further right. That's even though, per Mondoweiss, "Squad" type new Congresscritters won most their races. 

Beyond more states legalizing pot, and California sadly getting snookered by Uber and Lyft and (paid to play?) drivers to pass Prop 22, another measure from California could have national implications in the near future. Voters there passed Prop 24, which toughens California's previous privacy law passed by the state lege and just in effect for one year. It bans data sharing, not just selling, among other things. Plus, companies must provide a clear link on a webpage for people to opt out of data sharing. AND? It creates a state agency to enforce this. I can't imagine that a lot of websites will bifurcate webpages. EFF said this summer it was a mixed bag. I agree on wishing it had opt-in rather than opt-out, but I think their pay-for-privacy worries are overblown.

Beyond drugs, Colorado voters passed a referendum to reintroduce wolves. Reportedly, the occasional Yellowstone wanderer has gotten into NW Colorado already — since confirmed by Colorado Parks and Wildlife — but the referendum calls for an active state reintroduction program like what brought them back to Yellowstone decades ago. I find it interesting that a lot of support came from southwestern Colorado. True, Durango is hippie-blue, but there's also lots of Mormons and lots of oil and gas folks there. Speaking of, and showing that "American Indian" is perhaps not much more monolithic than "Hispanic," the Southern Ute tribe opposed.

Daniel writes an excellent, in-depth piece about the old tu quoque fallacy and related modern whataboutism re the presidential campaign. 

Besides Trump himself and his family? Yes, it will indeed be nicest to say goodbye to Bill Barr.

Some centrist Catholic type, writing in Merika for British paper The Independent, says Biden should pardon Trump. Wrong. Ford's pardon of Nixon, without saying what he was being pardoned for and without publicly confirmed guilt (even if accepting a pardon insinuates that) was itself wrong, and her citing it as a precedent shows how all wet she is. In reality, this just enables bad behavior.

Matt Bai, in the face of Trump's staff egging him on in the votes issue, GOP Congresscritters carefully circumscribing their responses, and right wing puntry egging Trump on even more than his own staff, and ignoring that COVID got Biden elected, laughingly claims "Trumpism has been repudiated." (The latest example for why Bai has faded from punditry prominence.)


Per numbers from Great Lakes states in this National Review piece, Howie Hawkins 2020 finished well behind Jill Stein. Partly not his fault, I'm sure; likely that 2016 Greens had many "safe candidate" Berniecrats who went back to the Dem tribe this year. Hey, the Rhode Island Green Party even gave them an excuse. "Well, if GREENS are saying 'You have to vote Biden,' ..." you get the results pictured in the poll.

And, while the relatively small numbers on the poll on this blog make it anecdotal, it is an anecdotal confirmation.

Non-politics

SocraticGadfly takes his first look at what the St. Louis Cardinals might do and probably will do this offseason.

Traces of Texas has an amazing photo of the Astrodome.

Sara Cress sums up her experience running the super popular Harris County Clerk Twitter feed.

Grits for Breakfast evaluates the state of criminal justice reform after the election.

Texana/national/global

All three, since he's not native to Texas and no country owns Antarctica. Meet Wayne White, the man who has spent three winters at the South Pole as station manager of the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station.

Sustainable farming, at least at the leadership cadre level, is racist.

November 09, 2020

Elections 2020 personal post-mortem

PROLOGUE: (And update.) In comments, Tiago asked me, per my graphic, what exactly I meant by a non-Marxist post-capitalism rather than anti-capitalism. 

I can now offer a specific example. I'm not saying I agree with it totally, nor am I saying it's the only post-capitalist option out there, but? "Doughnut economics," as described in this story, are one example, and an example with an explicitly environmental focus. Is it perfect? Of course not? Is it even going to wind up being the best option? As currently formulated, likely no. Is it a good starting point, despite bashing from non-wingnut conservatives to Branko Milanovich on the left? I say yes. Robert Hunziker has his take on doughnut economics at Counterpunch.

And with that, on to the original post.

FIRST MAIN POINT: As I said more briefly in the middle of a couple of blog posts elsewhere late last month?

I didn't vote. I've defended principled non-voting by others for years, and now I'll defend it in my own self.

So, WHY?

In part, semi-technical reasons. I need to renew a piece of plastic, and I hadn't transferred it from a previous address, and the powers that be that oversee such things said I couldn't transfer the address or renew it over the Interwebz, and COVID. I will get it taken care of, but I didn't before the election. But, it also offered me a backup excuse beyond the real reasons.

At the presidential level, it was a mix of national Green Party and Howie Hawkins factor. Both the party's Presidential Candidate Support Committee and Howie's own campaign treasurer, Travis Christal, the former despite MULTIPLE emails, never gave me the so-called "letter of interest" submitted on behalf of Jesse Ventura by who knows who. (I asked Travis as I had his email, and explained I had asked the PCSC multiple times by email and hadn't gotten the time of day. I DID get a "welcome to the Green Party PR type email the first time, which only cheesed me even more.)

And, exactly that is the problem.

I want to know who, given all the shenanigans, and what exactly it said. That's doubly true as we could have another round of this bullshit in 2024. Background on Jesse, the letter of interest, and his desire to have his not-rose-scented ass kissed is here.

Related? The Green Party Facebook group, which is an official Party organ, after all, censored more than one of my would-be posts there, and I was able to prove it. And, I'm not the only person to have had such complaints. (The group is moderated, and favoritism by moderators, beyond censorship, seems to be a problem.)

Third? Not doing anything about the Rhode Island GP for endorsing Biden but threatening to do something to the Georgia GP because of "trans activists." I'm not a GCRF, as I've said before. I'm a GSHF. That is, I'm a gender-skeptical humanist feminist. I don't have a problem calling out misbegotten SJW-ism when it happens, even if I don't agree with all GCRF claims. Somewhat more on that issue, as well as the "trans activist" issue in general, is here. More on how trans activists both inside and outside of the Green Party get a lot of issues of biology wrong is here. And, Howie was at least a "fellow traveler" on all of this.

Fourth? Something I explicitly blogged about, Hawkins, along with top campaign advisors Margaret Flowers and the late Kevin Zeese, drinking the Xi Jinping Kool-Aid. I have long voted Green precisely because of foreign policy as well as domestic policy issues. That said, the U.S. foreign policy establishment isn't always wrong, and it's not wrong by default. Twosiderism that abets concentration camps is simply unacceptable.

Fifth? Yeah, a certain amount of Rethuglicans and Democraps believed some of the coronavirus conspiracy theories, too, but they ran hot and heavy among Greens. Howie himself supported vaccinations, and didn't support any of the conspiracy theories, but? The party needs to be more explicitly pro-science on this (and other badly stereotypical "Green" issues) in the future. Per the graphic at right, I not only vote based on foreign policy issues, I vote based on broad insight issues.

I saw no reason to vote below that level. Greens had two statewide offices for which I could vote. BUT? Reading between the lines of Texas Supreme Court rulings, had either David Bruce Collins or Katja Gruene won, the TSC said that Secretary of State Ruth Hughs could retroactively charge the campaign finance fees. And, would surely make them due immediately. Had Hughs and staff not screwed the pooch on trying to charge GP candidates within the party, before nomination, Collins and Gruene would have been dead in the water legally.

As far as Dems? Hegar left me cold. I had no clue about my CD 13 Dem for Congress. I know a ConservaDem ran against Drew Springer for the state House. And, all county-level races were primary-decided.


SECOND MAIN POINT:
OK, now, what did "we" get wrong in the general election?

It wasn't "shy Trump voters" skewing polls, but it was (in part) QAnon Trump voters. That said, I don't buy this as a total explanation. There weren't THAT many Black and Hispanic QAnoners. 

Nationally, Biden ran lower than Hillary Clinton among both Hispanics AND Blacks. Maybe, per Nikole Hannah Jones of the 1619 Project, it's past time to ditch "Hispanic," which is about as meaningful as "Asian" as an ethnic category. (For that matter, re "African American," where do you fit new or newish Nigerian immigrants who came to America freely vs the descendants of slaves?) More here from Margaret Sullivan, where that Twitter thread link was seen.

And, on Texas Hispanics, if it's that they're now voters, just more Trump voters than in the past? Maybe it's MORE than about damn time that Texas Democrats mayordomo Gilberto Hinojosa et al dump the "demographics is destiny" claims, as Mezzcans for Trump has put paid to the old "non-voting state Texas" claims. I've said for almost a decade that this is wrong on religious and other grounds. 

Meanwhile, ConservaDems in Congress are making new noise about moving that old Overton Window further right. That's even though, per Mondoweiss, "Squad" type new Congresscritters won most their races. 

THIRD MAIN POINT: Playing off the first main point, Democrats still don't "own my vote." As of now? Neither do Greens. They may, or may not, regain me, starting with the 2021 convention and what they do or don't do vis-a-vis Rogues Island, the Alaska GP nominating Jesse, and Georgia.

Otherwise? Per a "where are they now" piece in the Dallas Morning News about Metroplex area 1960s civil rights activists, with many of them saying they were civically active, but not politically active to the point of non-voting? I'm OK with staying that way myself.

The GP needs larger reforms to hold on to me. The SPUSA needs to move its nomination to 2024, not 2023, so that it can have a clearer idea of whether or not to have the potential Green nominee also be its candidate.

As for the party?


Per numbers from Great Lakes states in this National Review piece, Howie Hawkins 2020 finished well behind Jill Stein. Partly not his fault, I'm sure; likely that 2016 Greens had many "safe candidate" Berniecrats who went back to the Dem tribe this year. Hey, the Rhode Island Green Party even gave them an excuse. "Well, if GREENS are saying 'You have to vote Biden,' ..." you get the results pictured in the poll.

UPDATE, Nov. 20: Via Ballot-Access News, "others," as in the really minor candidates, outperformed Hawkins, who is listed at less than 400,000 votes. (As of late January, Wikipedia confirms that "others" did outperform him, with more than 600,000 votes. That's not totally new; if you lump McMullin with other "others," Stein lost by about 20 percent in 2016. She lost slightly in 2012.)

And, while the relatively small numbers on the poll on this blog make it anecdotal, it is an anecdotal confirmation.

Partially his fault? Probably. Partially internal GP things outside his control? Almost certainly.

July 30, 2020

John Nichols licks Biden's "green" taint, finds it tasty

The Nation's John Nichols, who has never missed a chance to diss the Green Party through silence, and is another reason I wouldn't pay a plugged nickel to subscribe to that rag, is at it again, claiming that Sleepy Joe Biden (Dopey Joe? Grumpy Joe?), by presenting an alleged environmental plan, has opened himself to being pushed from the left.

Bullshit, as I told him in a trio of Tweets, which I shall post and further explicate.

Start here:
And, yes, Nichols should know that. Places even less librul (it's NOT leftist) than Nichols' rag reported the "no fracking." It was all over Twitter within hours after Biden releasing it.

Please, John.

That said, I take one thing back.

Your lie about what this plan is DID get the Green Party in the story.
Julian Brave NoiseCat, the director of Green New Deal Strategy for the research group Data for Progress, suggested that “Biden’s clean energy and environmental justice plans are, in my view, a Green New Deal in all but name.” Green Party presidential nominee Howie Hawkins disagreed, arguing that “Biden is nowhere close to the GND. Besides having a timeline for emissions more than 20 years slower, he leaves out the other half, which is an economic bill of rights—guaranteed jobs, single payer healthcare, housing, etc.”
John doesn't openly agree with Julian the RabidDemCat, but I know where his sympathy lies.

That's because John says it himself:
That movement is what matters.
On to tweet 2:
And, that too is very true, and Nichols also knows that.

Beyond that, Gang Green enviros aren't into pushing from the left anyway. And, per the origin of the term, AND the laughs it drew from more activist groups, Nichols knows THAT as well.

And, on to Tweet 3:
None of this surprises me about Nichols. Per the "butt-hurt" above, he's gotten butt-hurt when I've called him on his anti-Green bona fides before.

In addition, John, RabidDemCat and others know the Paris Accords are toothless Jell-O. Related? Yale Climate Connections estimates that Dear Leader vastly underpriced the "social cost" of carbon emissions.

June 24, 2020

Green Party: Howie Hawkins clinches and the haters are hating

Just after Jesse Ventura crapped on the Green Party — and surely timed for that effect — Howie Hawkins clinched the Green Party presidential nomination.

And the hating, lying and conspiracy thinking erupted.

If not Jesse-stanners, it was Dario Hunter-stanners, claiming Howie has run a corrupt campaign.

Er, no! If anybody's run a corrupt campaign, it was Dario, for his part in tweaking the certified candidates issue, then lying to Ian Schlakman about it.

Then there are the people who drink the Kool-Aid of Aaron Maté, Matt Taibbi, Max Blumenthal and others on Russia issues, and call Howie a Russiagater. In reality, I don't entirely agree with him, but I think he's fairly nuanced. And, per that link and many others, the conspiracy theorists ignore that RNC as well as DNC computers were hacked.

I'm not linking to any of the official Green Party Facebook threads. I don't want to give these people more airplay, nor do I want to indulge conspiracy thinking in general. (Many of the Howie-haters, besides disliking his stance on Russia, are conspiracy theorists in general, especially horseshoe theory coronavirus conspiracy theorists. I've also run into, and blocked, more than one chemtrails person.) Besides, I'm tired of the censorship levels there.

Then there were the lies, claiming Howie hadn't clinched. In reality? He had, per the official GP list of accredited delegate numbers. With nuttery like this, many Greens ARE like Libertarians. Disorganized as hell. The actual accredited number was 350 as of last week and he had more than half of that. Period and end of story.

On the third hand? Issues of favoritism DID pop up last year. Is that "corruption"? I think not. But ... it was bad optics.

On the fourth hand, for various reasons, I may not vote Green this year. (Down, Democrats. Not you either.) I think the crack-up Mark Lause wrote about, and I blogged about off his post, four years ago, is near.

Speaking of? Even though he has lost, and even though the Lavender Caucus, along with Michigan, put Howie over the top, a group of Dario-stanners is continuing to meddle. And tell lies about the Georgia Green Party on trans rights, claiming that an olive branch was extended to Georgia Greens and they wouldn't dialogue. Given that Dario was at the Georgia GP convention, and saw its woman sex-workers' rights plank passed, and raised no objection at the time, this is the rankest of hypocrisy.

February 01, 2020

Howie Hawkins tells Chomskyites to STFU

Likely Green Party (and already SPUSA) nominee Howie Hawkins tells Noam Chomsky, Barbara Ehrenreich and other DemFirsters to STFU about their call for a safe states strategery. (It's a long read, but worth it.) And they DESERVE to be told to STFU. Chomsky, after all, pitched his tent in Hillaryland in 2016, then after the election called out everybody who attacked him for openly supporting lesser-evilism.  The Chomskyites responded in part to a Counterpunch piece by Howie late last year, entitled "The Green Party is not the Democrats Problem." A real disappointment on that letter is Norman Solomon. He's long called out Democrats for writing blank checks to Zionism. Sanders isn't writing totally blank checks this year, but the amount on them is no more than ... $27. And Solomon knows this.

Update, March 28: Ehrenreich, as I didn't know, is founding co-chair of the Democratic Socialists of America. Per this interview, she's a self-proclaimed Maoist. What she's doing inside the Democratic Party, I have no idea. At least, in the interview, she admits that until recently, the DSA was just like other Dems on Israel and Palestine. And that of course includes Sanders.

Gang Green environmentalist Bill McKibben also wants Howie to drop out, and also offers nothing in return, as Howie notes. Bill, you too can STFU.

And, so, they all need to hear what Hawkins says.

But, if you don't have time for the whole of Hawkins' long response, I'm going to pull out a few bits, at least.

First, Michael Albert, one of the signers, has been peddling this since pre-2004. I opposed David Keith Cobb as an AccommoGreen running a safe states strategy way back then. Jill Stein's flirtations with Bernie in 2016 came close to the same in some ways, and her open endorsement of him in the California Democratic primary plus hints she would stand aside for him were worse.

Second, Hawkins says that Albert and Bill Fletcher have ... misinterpreted, at least, some of his December 2019 words, Stein 2016 words and more.

Third, he claims "special pleading" by their claiming Trump is a "special danger" and notes we've heard that before. Like Bush 2004, and Cobb was dumb enough to go along with that.

Fourth, with the majority of Dem Congresscritters supporting Trump's defense bill, along with similar from Shrub Bush and Dem President Obama, yeah, national Democrats can't be trusted on this issue. Even Bernie, though voting against Trump's bills, has long been a "military Keynesian" on F-35s. I and others called him on this in 2016. Actually, I first called him out in 2015!

Fifth, what states are "safe" or not? Good point there. Look at 2016. Give these DemFirsters an inch and they'll claim 30 states, not 10, are "unsafe."

Sixth, at the state level, when Dems have had unitary control, they've bailed on things like state-level single-payer. Look at California. Perfect reason not to trust Dems. Neoliberal gov in Gavin Newsom, a state Lege that  undercut a referendum push for real online privacy, Betty Crocker as the senior senator and more.

Seventh and going beyond Hawkins, none of the letter signers offered any quid pro quo. Hawkins noted that presidential campaigns by Greens are used to try to leverage ballot access for state and local races. None of the letter signers offered to put their names behind easing Green (or general third party) ballot access.

Fuck em.

November 07, 2019

The difficulties for running for president as a Green

The Green Party is one of two relatively larger third parties in the U.S., along with the Libertarians.

Libertarians have generally helped their relative standing in presidential races by running either rich businessmen with leisure time and money to invest, or former Republicans with high profiles. True-blue Libertarian nutbar Michael Bednarik in 2004 is the only person since Andre Marrou in 1992 to not fit that profile.

Philosophically, Greens aren't running rich business leaders, and in the equivalent of ex-Republicans, former Democratic congresscritter Cynthia McKinney in 2008 is the only one of those.

Greens have instead, with that one exception, generally nominated people of moderate wealth (vis-a-vis the US plutocrats) and some of them with a name recognition level. Ralph Nader had that in 1996 and 2000 of course. Jill Stein had it in her second run in 2016, the name recognition. Both were rich enough to be multimillionaires and to be able to invest a small amount of personal money in their races. David Cobb was the one exception, and he got the Green nomination because of factionalism related to party organizing, or lack thereof, connected to claims that the party was conspiring to block Nader. (I at most halfway disagree with Jeff St. Clair on this. The GP is too disorganized to conspire successfully about anything at a national level, but its non-centralization plank has allowed state parties to run the show, and in many cases, to be overrepresented nationally.)

So, what's a candidate to do?

So far in the 2020 cycle, we don't even have moderately wealthy Greens. Here, Howie Hawkins has the advantage, at least, of being retired. He can hit the hustings for money and general support in person more than any other candidate. This is not to slight Dario Hunter or Ian Schlakman, both of whom interest me as presidential candidates as well, but simply to note the additional hurdles they face.

What Hawkins may do with any leftover funds he has, should he not get the nomination, I don't know. I've not yet donated to him personally, and in the past, all my presidential-related donations have been to the party, not to an individual candidate. But, he is raising the party's, as well as his own, visibility already.

At the same time, his push for ballot access in more and more states, and earlier and earlier, while it will benefit local Greens and will benefit whoever the presidential nominee is, whether Hawkins or not? I can see how some people see it as a Hawkins-party team interface.

I'm not sure exactly where I'm headed with my thoughts, otherwise. I will note that Hawkins is right on better organization all around, not just on fundraising, by the party is important. That includes training sessions on how to launch petition drives. The day before his Dallas appearance, he was in Arizona, and in part to help the party there with a ballot access petition drive.

I also get Hawkins' idea of running a two-prong platform by also seeking, and getting, the SPUSA nod. But, I still think he's breaking party rules.

Update, July 1, 2020: Old Green Party election language confirms that this is indeed the case, so shut up, Howie-haters. And, yes, Howie-haters are out there, and lying in ever greater numbers since he appeared to have clinched the nomination. Even before that, it became clear to me that the rule is a "spirit of" issue, made more clear by the fact that Stein also sought the nomination of smaller third parties, like Peace and Freedom, in 2016. (She didn't get it, but she sought it. She was not a registered member of that party — if it has registered memberships, but she sought the nomination.) So now, more and more, it looks like this is an issue being driven by a technical interpretation of the rule combined with Howie hatred.

November 05, 2019

Jill Stein slouches the rest of the way to Gomorrah

I'm still of multiple minds about her 2016 trip to Russia. It had elements of sincerity, as well as elements of a campaign stunt. I certainly don't think she, or Gen. Flynn, or Justice Party prez candidate Rocky Anderson, were under Russian control. But, I do think she and the other two had their appearances manipulated by Putin.

Stein discusses that, Russiagate and Howie Hawkins' take on it and more in this excerpt from an interview by Primo Nutbar, officially known as Primo Nutmeg. (I've briefly mentioned him before here, and run into him in more depth on Twitter. He earns the renaming.)

The "more"?

When Stein heard about the idea of libertarian Jesse Ventura (noted as such in my review of potential GP candidates), and conspiracy theorist Jesse Ventura (he is), running for the Green Presidential nomination, and that antivaxxer RFK Jr. would be his wingman if Jesse had his druthers, she was all for it. He's also a HAARP conspiracy theorist.

(Update, Nov. 15: New research, as written up by the Guardian, shows RFK Jr.'s World Mercury Project was one of the top two buyers of antivaxxer ads on Facebook.)

In 2016, I defended Stein from charges of being an antivaxxer. I said she was playing footsie with the issue for political reasons within the GP, but she wasn't an antivaxxer.

That defense is now officially gone, Stein. You're an antivaxxer.

You're also a relatively poor interview, per the first half of the interview. The halting, hesitant answers, as you seem to seek the right political ground yourself? You should be past that.

(Update 2, Nov. 15: Stein also, according to the Bezos Post, wants Tulsi Gabbard to run as a Green.)

That said, Stein is right on Ian Schlakman whining about the GP's accreditation process for "certified" candidates. And, since I've called Howie half-wrong on his angle on Russian election meddling, Stein is half right. Maybe more.

She's largely wrong about her recount, even if it got a few good results. The AccommoGreen still refuses to admit that the likely reason she sought the recount (I doubt she knew that state law blocked her in Minnesota and New Hampshire) was to block Trump, and maybe only secondarily, look at electoral issues.

Well, between this and Howie breaking party rules (while at the same time exposing the number of conspiracy theorists among Greens), the party is cracking up more and more, and needs to do so, IMO. I thought Hawkins getting the Green nomination would flush out some conspiracy theorists. It may still do so, but unless he gets a waiver on his rule breaking, I can't vote for him.

Mark Lause was both expecting and hoping for such a crack-up three years ago, as I blogged at the time. He seems righter than ever.

September 12, 2019

Howie Hawkins in Dallas



Green Party presidential candidate Howie Hawkins had about 2 hours in Dallas to visit with Greens and Green-leaners interested in getting to know more about him Saturday.

Hawkins was introduced by his campaign treasurer, Travis Christal. He then spoke for a little over an hour, then fielded questions. He apologized if anything he said was repetitious. He'd been in Arizona until late Friday, helping with a party ballot access drive there, and said he had only had about two hours of sleep.

He said that he got every Bernie Sanders backer who dropped by his ballot petition table to sign. Note the smartphone and the "Bernie" image in the photo at right; it embiggens when you click it.

He said that many of the signers said that, if Sanders didn't get the Democratic nomination, they'd vote Green in the general. We'll see; I'm sure many of them who said that in 2016 didn't follow through.

That said, Hawkins did say that, on the issue of "lesser evilism" voting that "You're defeating yourself before you even start."

First, one thing I liked was his realism. He said it's highly unlikely he'll be elected president, if he gets the party's nomination, but Greens need to be out there fighting. He cited his 2014 New York gubernatorial campaign, where he forced Democratic incumbent Andrew Cuomo to the left, including signing an anti-fracking bill, to get re-elected.

"We move the debate. We don't have to win the election to move the debate," he said.

Hawkins didn't cross the line into AccommoGreen territory, and I don't think he ever would (unlike Jill Stein in 2016) but that's always an issue that bears watching in my book. I agree with his idea, but Greens should never run assuming that that's going to happen or assuming they can make it happen.

Back to where I was two paragraphs ago.

Hawkins started his talk with ballot access issues. He noted that in Canada and Britain, a minuscule number of signatures were need to run for parliaments there, versus the thousands required for U.S. Congressional races of independent candidates or third-party ones whose parties lack ballot access. (Mike Gravel has now urged his supporters to help Hawkins on this.)

He said that being retired after more than 30 years of unionized labor gave him the time to help with this at various states, as well as the time to heed calls by many to put his organizing experience, and his political experience, to run for president. And this is important not just for 2020, but for the rest of the decade and beyond, he said.

Speaking of the unionized labor, he also noted that President Barack Obama, whom he later called the Deporter in Chief, had agreed to sign off on reducing pension protections, at the push of current Democratic presidential candidate and then Vice President Joe Biden.

From there, Hawkins enumerated three "life or death" issues:
1. Climate change
2. Income inequality
3. The revived nuclear arms race.

The first issue should be obvious to any Green. So should the difference between the Green Party's Green New Deal, spearheaded in part by Hawkins, and the Democrats' watered down version of that.

Here's Howie's now explicitly ecosocialist Green New Deal.

On the second? In terms of job security and other issues, Hawkins noted that, after FDR, every Democratic president has had at least one Congress in their term or two terms where the Democrats controlled both houses, and yet, income inequality and job insecurity have risen under them as well as under Republicans.

As an ex-Marine who has seen tactical nuclear weapons, Hawkins said that tactical nukes as well as a revised push for strategic level nuclear arms — especially missiles with much higher speeds and thus less warning times — were an existential threat.

I totally agree here. And ANY Democrat (that's YOU, Tulsi Gabbard) who voted to expand our nuclear arsenal is NOT a peace candidate. Period. This is another aspect of the Tulsi Kool-Aid vs reality that too many Greens are still drinking. That would be the "I support Moar Nukes" Tulsi.

So, it's Howie that is a peace candidate — along with other Greens who have the same stance on nuclear weapons.

Hawkins finished by looping back to ballot access and tying it to larger issues of Green organization. He noted that the largely white background of the party was an issue. However, he said just taking a walk in a minority neighborhood wasn't the best way to improve this. Rather, trust and relationships needed to be built, he said.

He didn't address a pet peeve of this blogger and a number of other Greens — namely that the national party's "decentralization" plank in its Ten Key Values tends to favor "paper" state parties in places such as Ohio. I don't know how much of an issue that part of party organization is for him. But it is for me. I see today's national GP as being like the Articles of Confederation era national government.

And, I did disagree on the issue of "open borders." To me, open borders is almost like free trade instead of fair trade. Yeah, the EU may have open borders (to a degree; you generally don't qualify for welfare benefits when you move to a new member state). But, that's within the EU only.

The US and Mexico's economies are not integrated to the degree the EU member states are. As far as something more parallel to that? EU member states in southern and southeastern Europe are tired of Middle East refugees coming to their countries, but wanting to ultimately go to Germany or Scandinavia, and then in turn being blocked.

As for the economics? Measured in purchasing power parity, the US per capita income is more than three times that of Mexico and far greater than that of Central American states.

The gap between Germany, the best-off larger EU nation (I'm excepting Luxembourg, Ireland and Norway) and Bulgaria is only about 2.25 to 1.

On the flip side, re refugees and the EU starting to rethink open borders? The gap between Germany and Syria is FAR larger than that between the US and El Salvador.

I don't know what else can be done better beyond ending military interventions and destabilizations (which is plenty big enough), but I'll take a pass on open borders. To me, in the US vs. Latin American situation, it comes off as a sort of Wilsonian nation-building internalized.

I do know it's not just me on this issue. About 15 years ago, The Nation had a piece supporting open borders and got strongly attacked by readers.

Had he meant something like Julián Castro's reduced penalties, civil only, for illegal border crossings, which Tulsi Gabbard has called "open borders" on wingnut media sites, it might be different. But he cited the EU and he clearly means open border.

Nope.

==

Note: I have not yet formally committed to a single candidate, but Hawkins is on my shortlist along with Dario Hunter and Ian Schlakman. I wish I had been able to squeeze in going to the state convention down in Temple to hear Hunter but I couldn't. I hope one or both is in the Metromess in the near future.

==

Down in Houston, David Bruce Collins still doesn't agree on Hawkins take on All Things Russia, but says we don't need purity tests and likes what he heard overall.

As for purity tests? We all have them. We just have different parameters for how we construct them and how loose or tight of boundaries they have.

==

Green candidates will be on stage together at the GP Black Caucus hosted debate Sept. 20. I'm now reminded of what Bruce Dixon thought of the mix of tokenism and paper-party issues that led to at least some people getting on said caucus last year.