When will the Green Party ever learn?

When, finally, will the Green Party accrue the wisdom necessary for it to recognize the false prophets that come under the pretenses that they can transform the Party from its presently obscure and politically inconsequential status. Such charlatans publicly pronounce their affinity for Green Values. However, more times than not, the opaque agenda of such aspiring politicos incorporates the Green Party as merely a vehicle for personal political aggrandizement.

As it stands now, the Green Party suffers from a lustful wish to become a competitor in mainstream politics. As a result, the Green Party is always seeking to run candidates for high level governmental positions; political offices that any Green Candidate possesses a less than negligible chance for winning; or, for that matter, to even marginally compete with the candidates nominated by the two major business parties; and, more likely, the Green Candidate will either fail to acquire a slot on the ballot, or, under the remarkable condition that ballot access is obtained, the Green’s electoral success in the election will fail to pass the threshold for the Party’s automatic entry onto the ballot for forthcoming elections.

This impetuous disposition on the part of the Greens - whereby they shoot for the stars; a strategy reflecting their considerable lack of sociopolitical farsightedness - has engendered a condition were possible Green candidates who possess some notoriety are either courted by High Standing Party Members, or, contrarily, the Greens acquiesce to the prominent newcomer’s desire for the spot on the Green Party ticket.

As we observe the latest inner-organizational events occurring within the Green Party, as the Nation moves closer to a new Presidential Election, it appears that the impending quasi-celebrity to be embraced by the Greens will be no other than the former Georgia Representative, Cynthia McKinney. The only difference, however, between McKinney and other quasi-celebs who have used the Green Party in order to advance their own political aspirations is the fact that McKinney’s public persona - albeit recognized widely - is, more often than not, associated with feelings of contempt and annoyance.

McKinney’s public conduct has been one characterized by somewhat of a paradox. On the one hand, she advocates important issues about social problems that impact the most vulnerable members of American Society. In fact, she is one of the few politicians to publicly admit that the crisis in the Middle-East is primarily attributable to the Israelis and their violations of international law as the Israeli colonists strive to usurp more and more territory from the subjugated Palestinians.

Nevertheless, whatever goodwill might be garnered from McKinney’s tenacity for speaking forthright is obfuscated by her supreme arrogance and elitism. She is, of course, the Representative who assaulted a police officer, who had stopped her because she stormed through a corridor when entering the Capital Building that was reserved for members of Congress. McKinney’s reaction was to strike the police officer, as if he was out of line and he had no business even approaching her.

What is important to remember about this event is that McKinney was not wearing her Congressional Pin - which would have identified her as a Member of Congress - therefore, for her to suspect not to be stopped seems to rest upon an inflated ego that instructs her to presume she is pervasively known and recognizable to everyone, and therefore should not be subject to the same inconveniences as the rest of us, even if she neglects to have the alacrity of mind to wear appropriate identification.

This rather minor incident, however, could have been quickly resolved if McKinney simply apologized and explained her actions as being kneejerk and quite clearly inappropriate. Nevertheless, McKinney’s hyperbolic ego got in the way, and she elected to cry bigotry, going so far as to accuse the Officer, whom she had struck, as being motivated out of racism when stopping this Congresswoman who had decided not to wear the lapel required for her to be recognized as a Member of Congress. In other words, McKinney - overestimating her self-importance - was willing to ruthlessly attack the civil servant, who, in this context, was the actually vulnerable, underpowered party in the dispute; not the other way around, as McKinney suggested.

So, considering all of this, why does the Green Party - or, at least, quite a few of its notable members and supporters - seem to embrace McKinney and her decision to run for the Green Party’s ticket for the Presidency? I suspect the answer to this question rests in the fact that she has acquired national recognition, and among the leftist extremes in American political culture she is still looked upon with credibility and respect. Nevertheless, from my own vantage point, I am prepared to denounce McKinney as just another self-absorbed false prophet, who is less concerned with the incremental growth of the Green Party as she is obsessed with herself and her own ascendency to higher offices.

Russell Cole

Tags: congress, cynthia mckinney, government, green party lack of democracy, politics, third parties
Categories: Commentary, Politics, Third Parties, Congress
1 Comment »

This letter, which was originally a Green Party correspondence, is of interest because I would contend that the depiction of the qualities missing in the Green Party are, in fact, embodied by Populist America:
Thanks Again for an Insightful Response,

I agree with you that there is a lot of consensus among the Greens, and I am wrong to necessarily interpret that as a negative indication of things to come. I just fear that the Greens, who still symbolize a beacon of hope to college kids, for instance, do not transform into a replication of typical American Leftist organizations, which entail hierarchical structures and unegalitarian methods of decision-making. These are the kind of attributes that repel the kinds of people the Greens should be trying to court.

I had envisioned the Greens as more of a gathering ground for people to meet and discuss things with one another and discover their similarities and differences; both are equally as important. I say this because it is the proliferation of social difference that provides the multiplication of possibilities for stylizing one’s own distinct existence and political persona, because without diversity with which to juxtapose one’s self with various other social elements, there is no possibility to provide definition to one’s own persona.

For example, the identity of male is inextricably tied to the identity of female; the negation of male; because without the term female the term male would void of meaning. The lexicon, male, would be identical in sense to the lexicon, humanity, for example. In turn, without the term, animal, then the referring expression, male, would be depleted of any symbolic significance. Consequently, it is the proliferation of difference that allows for unique identities to form.

On the other hand, I agree that there needs to be a large degree of solidarity or the various elements of the social groups would simply disperse, and the result would be anomie. Further, I do think that there is an association between trust and social solidarity. Therefore, the position you advocate is certainly valid, but only valid under the parameters of a limited scope, since without difference, which involves a degree of enigma, according to the somewhat alien interpretations of an alternative identity, there would be no cultural space for individuality in society.

The trick, therefore, is finding some sort of balance between these two dynamics that we have identified: difference versus solidarity and trust. I think that the incorporation of another guiding-principle is in order, so to provide some insight into the process involved in assessing the most advantageous ledger between difference and trust. I propose that we have to consider the dynamic of power, as well as, the other two elements previously delineated.

Power is associated with control. Both power and control are opposed to the maximization of agential possibilities on the part of the object of power and control. So, we already know that the identity of male is connected to the identity of female; without one, you cannot have the other. Unfortunately these binaries seem to always possess an asymmetrical power dynamic in that the positive attributes of male, to use an exemplar, are defined by the negative attributes of female: Males are rational. females are emotional. The identity of female is not determined by the voluntary decision-making of the female; rather, it is imposed upon the female by the oppressive social identity of male. This is why it is important to maintain a degree of enigma or something that conflates to a lack of trust in society. On the other hand, there needs to remain a degree of the conflicting dynamic of solidarity or trust.

The only resolution that I can see for this problematic is creation of a social space where identities are maintained, but only under the auspices of friendship; a relation which seems to evade the power dynamic included in relationships between other identities in society. This is getting far too complex, but if the differences and similarities possessed by the male-female binary are subsumed under the institution of friendship, then, perchance, there is the possibility of an egalitarian society. I do not even want to attempt to sort out the network of relations among the elements comprised by the hypothetical mergers of friendship along with all the other binaries in society, so I will simply suggest the possibility, and go no further.

That is about as good of a response that I can reasonably come up with. However, I thank you for this exchange, because you have certainly stimulated a great deal of considerations on my part, and if you care to, we can attempt to tie all the loose strings together; or, even, ponder the possible connections between or among any more strings that you suggest for contemplation. Either way, you have directed down what I think will prove to be a fruitful path.

Regards,
Russell Cole

Tags: decentralization, direct democracy, green party lack of democracy, politics, populist party, Populist Party organizational structure, Russell Coles Blog, Social Change, third parties
Categories: Commentary, Populist Party, Russell Cole's Blog, Decentralization, Politics, Third Parties, Direct Democracy, Social Change
No Comments »