Greens in America

[michael murphy]

Looking back at the 1990s, the Green Party in America was growing fast. It gained national attention with the 1996 Presidential Campaign of Ralph Nader. In 2000, Nader's 2nd campaign put the Greens in the spotlight as never before.

And then George W. Bush became president.

Eight years later, rightly or wrongly, Nader has been tarnished as the Great Spoiler and much of the young activists that were involved in the Green Party turned their attentions to Obama.

What do you think about the future of the Green Party in the United States? Will they ever break the Two Party system? What will happen if Obama wins? What about McCain?

[mountainhiker]

Looking back at the 1990s, the Green Party in America was growing fast. It gained national attention with the 1996 Presidential Campaign of Ralph Nader. In 2000, Nader's 2nd campaign put the Greens in the spotlight as never before.

And then George W. Bush became president.

Eight years later, rightly or wrongly, Nader has been tarnished as the Great Spoiler and much of the young activists that were involved in the Green Party turned their attentions to Obama.

What do you think about the future of the Green Party in the United States? Will they ever break the Two Party system? What will happen if Obama wins? What about McCain?

The future of the Green party will have nothing to do with who wins the current election.

The Greens have failed this year to get their message out and have selected candidates that were already "tainted" as being labeled "nuts" by their own actions. Very hard for the young activists to get charged up by someone that has already been labeled a loser before they start (and in one case only joined the party in the last year).

We really need a third party but they have to be seen as addressing the issues that voters are really concerned about. The "our issues are more important than yours" mindset, only plays well in a very small circle.

The media is also a major reason that the Green party has a hard time getting "face time". The media this year has played to Obama because he was the "dream candidate" for the key newscasters who played to the ultra left and the "management" wing of the Democratic party (the inside good old boys). Hillary was the candidate of the rest of the party and was great for generating viewer ship since she was a woman(and a Clinton).

The Greens could not compete with Hillary because their "woman" was a certified nut case and Obama finished them off. Maybe next time, they will figure out that they have to get the message out that they are addressing the issues that the majority are concerned about.

[Simon]

USA badly needs a few more politicial parties that could shake things up.

Last election here in Sweden there were like 3-4 new parties you could choose from. And that was besides the 3 other new parties, that have been around for a while but havent yet gotten into the action. Most of these parties were "leftist" or stoled a lot of "leftist" votes. That is one of the reasons the current right-wing alliance won the election.

So, my point is, if there would be more political parties in USA they would probably attract "leftist" voters. The big loser here would then be the Democrats - not the far-right Republicans. And no matter what you say, the world and USA is better off with Democrats ruling the country than the Republicans...

[mountainhiker]

USA badly needs a few more politicial parties that could shake things up.

Last election here in Sweden there were like 3-4 new parties you could choose from. And that was besides the 3 other new parties, that have been around for a while but havent yet gotten into the action. Most of these parties were "leftist" or stoled a lot of "leftist" votes. That is one of the reasons the current right-wing alliance won the election.

So, my point is, if there would be more political parties in USA they would probably attract "leftist" voters. The big loser here would then be the Democrats - not the far-right Republicans. And no matter what you say, the world and USA is better off with Democrats ruling the country than the Republicans...

Not true because you make the mistake of assuming that all Republican are Far-right and that all Democrats are the same. The BIG problem that the democratic party has today is the FAR-Left part of the party. And you really dont want them in power. Huge problem that the democratic party has in this election is that they have stopped talking about the issues and gone to personal attacks - a real turn off. As the issues have become more important, the democrats act like they are still running against Bush - Democrats have failed in California, and are still failing, at the wrong time. Those clowns cannot get a budget passed! Is that really who you want run the country? :lol:

[michael murphy]

Not true because you make the mistake of assuming that all Republican are Far-right and that all Democrats are the same. The BIG problem that the democratic party has today is the FAR-Left part of the party. And you really dont want them in power. Huge problem that the democratic party has in this election is that they have stopped talking about the issues and gone to personal attacks - a real turn off. As the issues have become more important, the democrats act like they are still running against Bush - Democrats have failed in California, and are still failing, at the wrong time. Those clowns cannot get a budget passed! Is that really who you want run the country?

It's a common fallacy to label the party "far left" but the fact remains that the Democrats are firmly centrist when compared to their counterparts in the other Western democracies.

Besides, I think the left/right dichotomy is simplistic and misleading. The Democratic Party includes a panoply of opposed factions and ideologies just as the Republican Party does. A multiparty system would broaden the national discourse to include ideas currently marginalized within each party.

The Democrats have chosen to begin personal attacks on McCain because that's what the GOP has done to them for years and it's a proven strategy as most American voters make decisions based on image politics and the "relatability" of the candidate.

I still think that one of the biggest problems is that the ability to get elected doesn't always correlate to the ability to govern.

[Simon]

Huge problem that the democratic party has in this election is that they have stopped talking about the issues and gone to personal attacks - a real turn off.

Hmm wasn't it Karl Rove(!!!), one of many, that recently said that McCain's Ads Have Gone Too Far?

As the issues have become more important, the democrats act like they are still running against Bush - Democrats have failed in California, and are still failing, at the wrong time.

Well they kind of are. John McCain is an Republican. And Bush is an Republican. And John McCain have voted with Bush over 90% of the time.

Those clowns cannot get a budget passed! Is that really who you want run the country?

Ha! And how about the US economy after 8 years of REPUBLICAN ruling?

[mountainhiker]

It's a common fallacy to label the party "far left"

I did not say the party was far left and most people don't make that mistake in the US. One of the issues that the Democratic party has is that it is a divided party. You do have the centrists but the far-left faction of the party considers them to be on the right. Sort of a "if you don't believe like we do then you are against us". Obama lost some of their support when he tried to drift to the middle of the road. They refused to support Hillary at the start because they could not control her. ;)

[brettbh]

We really need a third party but they have to be seen as addressing the issues that voters are really concerned about. The "our issues are more important than yours" mindset, only plays well in a very small circle.

This old thread caught my attention.

I do not think that there is necessarily a need for new parties, either in the US or in other countries. Party politics/policies are made in response to public opinion. The parties want votes, and they create the policies that they believe will earn them votes. If enough people make clear to the parties that they'll be taking environmental policy into account when deciding which way to cast their vote, those parties will soon realise that they need to become greener.

Green should not be the domain of the left and nor should it be the domain of the right. Green needs to be the domain of both sides of the political spectrum. And it's entirely within the power of the voters to make that happen.

[mountainhiker]

This old thread caught my attention.

I do not think that there is necessarily a need for new parties, either in the US or in other countries. Party politics/policies are made in response to public opinion. The parties want votes, and they create the policies that they believe will earn them votes. If enough people make clear to the parties that they'll be taking environmental policy into account when deciding which way to cast their vote, those parties will soon realise that they need to become greener.

Green should not be the domain of the left and nor should it be the domain of the right. Green needs to be the domain of both sides of the political spectrum. And it's entirely within the power of the voters to make that happen.

Totally agree that "green" should not be the domain of either party or the "Green" party for that matter. Now that obama as started flipping on his promises we will see where he winds up. Hopefully we will still see a commitment to green power.

[brettbh]

Totally agree that "green" should not be the domain of either party or the "Green" party for that matter. Now that obama as started flipping on his promises we will see where he winds up. Hopefully we will still see a commitment to green power.

I must say, I'm not sure that I could actually bring myself to vote for the Green Party. Their policies sound appealing:

Centralization of wealth and power contributes to social and economic injustice, environmental destruction, and militarization. Therefore, we support a restructuring of social, political and economic institutions away from a system which is controlled by and mostly benefits the powerful few, to a democratic, less bureaucratic system. Decision-making should, as much as possible, remain at the individual and local level, while assuring that civil rights are protected for all citizens.

And this is certainly the direction in which our societies need to head, but I do not think that we can get there in one easy step. I think it would be a recipe for disaster for the Greens (or any other party, for that matter) to attempt to rapidly and radically overhaul established political and financial processes and to decentralize wealth and power. Such a move would be met with enormous resistance - so much resistance that it could well be that their policies would never be enacted.

To my mind, a better option is for the electorate to attempt to initiate a process of gradual change within the main parties. The process will be long and slow, but I think that it's the only way that we can get to where we want and need to be.