Greens grapple with the same issue of building a real political party

At Z-Net (via Third Party Watch), Dr. Kim Scipes, a sociologist at Perdue University North Central and Green Party member, discusses the same transformation for that party as I have been discussing here: how to turn an issue-oriented movement into a real political party.

Intriguuing--ideological differences aside--Scipes makes many of the same points that I've been making about the Libertarian Party, especially that such a party has to be built by running credible candidates for major Federal offices at the State level:

Yet I'd suggest there is a way forward. First of all, a snowball has a better chance in hell than a Green president has in being chosen this year. And even if a miracle happened—and it truly would take a miracle—we couldn't back her/him up in Congress to get anything done. And the American people know this—as do, I suggest, most Green Party members.

However, I think where there is the best chance to win—and there are many factors—would be in Congressional races, especially if a Green can win in a district where both mainstream candidates are conservative.

Winning a Congressional seat would increase Green exposure dramatically, especially in any state where it happened. And it's "high" enough in position where it would draw attention.

So, what makes the most sense to me as a way to proceed is this: individuals who want to run can do so upon meeting the respective State party's requirements, but they have to be dependent on their own resources. However, where the Party should focus its members' efforts, its resources (including financial), and its energies is where there are the largest congressional district concentrations of Greens in the state and where good candidates can be recruited to run: and then the Party needs to organize these members to make a strong run.

All I can think of to add here is the modest note that great minds think alike.

Comments

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here: chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.” The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point: Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo: Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1. Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...

Search This Blog