David Wilbur wrote:
All of the important political and economic issues that affect people's lives are based on state (and federal) laws - housing affordability and availability; taxes; education; criminal justice; water; energy; land use (which they egregiously delegate to counties); regional transportation; etc.
Okay, I'm with you so far.
A group that purports to be a "political party," but doesn't define how it stands on these issues in a clear and meaningful way that the common public can understand, I don't believe is a credible organization worthy of two seconds of consideration.
What good does defining a position go us if there is not the organizational capacity to push those positions forward into policy? The Green Party of California...changing the world one press release at a time?
And it seems a bit arrogant and self-important for a local group of "greens" to usurp the name of the "Green Party," which has been built up over a couple of decades of work by people all over the world, and use it as a marketing tool to elect their favored politicians at the local level. This approach leads to part of the problem we have in San Francisco - politicians and other "leaders" who are either extolled or demonized, depending on the cadre of people who are "elected" or appointed to the County Council or who become "active". It's absurd to think that such a small group of people can think they should have such importance to those of us living "regular" lives and ride the "Green Wave" phenomena much as our mayor has done.
Ross was one of the founders of the Green Party, as was Nancy Marmol, Barbara Blong and Betty Traynor. I'd doubt you'd get more than one of those founders to fully agree with your thesis. The Green Party has a key value of personal and global responsibility. Many have held me to a high standard on that KV. Are you suggesting that candidates be held to a different standard? When candidates screw their grassroots bases, are you suggesting that the grassroots base just sit there and take it? Feminism is another key value of the Green Party that cannot be allowed to be swept under the rug for expedience. Would you expect women who do not match the "profile," "hips of a cub scout," to be treated like second hand citizens or those who do as sex objects for one's gratification? Do you expect people to warmly welcome and support a candidate who has spent the past 3.5 years nuking his base and closing in his circle to the few true believers, from such winners as Carlos Petroni through to Todd Chretien? Isn't that what did in Ammiano 4 years ago and caused his campaign to implode? Isn't that why Gonzalez was unable to field a team when he tried earlier this year? Does anyone really feel comfortable working on a campaign where Jim Dorenkott and David Sloane would be the gatekeepers?
More importantly, I couldn't disagree more with John-Marc's suggestions about the State Party, especially his suggestion that there should be a massive resignation of the state representatives. In my opinion such a maneuver would seriously decapitate the state party for many years to come - which would be great for the Democrats and the Status Quo!
The state party is already body-less, a worthless husk of bureaucracy process that cannot produce. Where would the head go onto the GPCA if we were going to decapitate it? There is no state party because it is not organized according to Green Values which would support bottom-up grassroots organizing as the only reliable way to build a statewide organization capable of anything more than holding a meeting. The past three elections for Governor have proven as incontrovertibly false the notion that we build the party by running candidates in quixotic races for impossibly high office. If we can't just show up with good ideas and carry the day, then we need to organize to put power behind our ideas to carry the day.
And the suggestion to reduce the state party to more of an "administrative role" would effectively mean there was no Green Party in the largest state in the country, which also happens to be the world's 5th or 6th largest economy, and would lead to random autonomous groups using the name for their own political purposes. I think this only leads to the fixation on personalities and fascination with power politics, and has nothing to do with changing the economic status quo, which is why I'm involved with politics.
The GPCA-CC is supposed to be the administrative body that facilitates the operations of the party between general assemblies. So much is already policy. Members of the Chamberlain/Camejo faction have taken the apparatus to be a base for their personal political power and jihads/fatwas against their designated opponents.
As I say as many Green meetings, "What does the Green Party stand for? What kind of housing system are they proposing? What kind of tax system are they proposing? What kind of criminal justice system are they proposing? Do I get to own a home in a Green world? Do I get safe streets and will I be able to earn a living to support my family in a Green world?" This is why I believe we need a strong national and state party - to answer these important questions.
The answers to those questions are much easier than electing people to make them happen. We have proven that we can work with candidates to win here. We have proven that we can bring the 10KV to bear on public policy here. We have proven that we can put the 10KV into ballot measures and organize winning campaigns around them. Few have proven that they can elect partisan legislators. We can talk about acting at the state level all we want, but until we can bring sufficient power to bear to elect candidates to move our agenda, we're talking out our asses.
Besides, the local Green movement in San Francisco may actually not be such a good thing - lots of "green sympathizers" have moved into the Mission, Lower Haight and Western Addition in droves in the past decade - many of them like me who are fairly homogeneous in income (higher than the median), college education and are often socially liberal or "alternative." Great. The Mission and Western Addition and Lower Haight are cool, vibrant neighborhoods. But where do the poorer, often Latino, African American and other nationalities live or get to own a home to raise their families after the cool people all move in because they can afford the higher housing costs that San Francisco commands? Tracy? Manteca? Dixon? Gilroy? Modesto?
Christina and I are working on those very issues.
I think many of us would agree that just because people have to move from San Francisco and don't live around us any more, that we shouldn't be concerned with the land use in those areas, or the energy use, or the crime, or the taxes people pay, or the pollution or transportation costs associated with their living situation.
If the consensus of the current CC and "active" SF Green Party members is to support a weakened state party, then I hope they at least have the decency to start using another name besides "Green" in their local political club name.
The current state of affairs has the GPCA almost paralyzed due to infighting and one faction trying to "win." What would you have us do, keep a structure that we know does not work and is manipulable by factionalists and opportunists with too much time or money on their hands, or try to improve on the first cut of GPCA, towards something more in like with the 10KV? -marc
dw
John-Marc Chandonia <jmc@sfgreens.org> wrote: Hi, There is some discussion of plenary proposals on the grns-cal-forum listserv, for people who are subscribed there. You can subscribe at this URL: http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/cal-forum
It looks like we're not going to get a chance to meet in person prior to the plenary (unless tomorrow night), so let's discuss any plenary proposals on the "delegates" and "active" lists.
I'm still of the opinion that we should reject all agenda topics other than a reorganization, with decentralization of power and funds from the GPCA to the locals. I think this is the only effective solution to stop the GPCA infighting--leave them no substantial decision-making authority or budget to fight over.
JMC