Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
--- Begin Message ----Caveat Lector- [Responses to 'The Avocado Declaration' (see <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/portside/message/5293>) by James E Vann, Bill Sell, John Kavanaugh, Mark Whitroth, Martha Nunn]The Avocado Declaration -- Response by James E Vann Peter Camejo's writings on issues of political importance are always clear, well thought out, and brilliantly expressed. His essay (to which I respond), " The Avocado Declaration," could be subtitled "How the Green Party Differs From the Republican Party and Democratic Party," which, as a diatribe against the major parties and except for a couple of minor facts, I can fully agree with. However the primary issue before us is the November 2004 election for leadership of the US for the next four years. I contend that that question is not dealt with, and certainly not adequately dealt with by "The Avocado Declaration." Disclaimer: While I am an active and long-term advocate of independent politics and know and respect many Green Party members, I am a member of an alternative party that is not the Green Party. Therefore my aim is not to critique Green politics, nor to comment on its internal functions, decisions, or directions which, to me, are the sole province of the Greens Party and its membership. What I find disagreement with is that part of "The Avocado Declaration" that fails to address the calamitous decision that 2004 presents. Early in his essay, Camejo states: "We do not believe it is possible to defeat the "greater" evil by supporting a shame-faced version of the same evil. We believe it is precisely by openly and sharply confronting the two major parties that the policies of the corporate interests these parties represent can be set back and defeated." I have been a consistent opponent of "lesser-evil" politics, still am, and will always be. No condemnation of the Democratic Party is too severe, nor of the repeated complicity in the despicable actions of the GWB administration by most of that Party's representatives. I do not advocate support of the Democratic Party. My argument is that November 2004 represents a situation so unique and so radically regressive in the unprecedented evil it portends for the nation and the world that the upcoming election decision arguably transcends the "lesser-evil" analysis. I also contend that no intensity of campaigning or critique by Green Party candidates at the presidential level will have a measurable impact on the outcome of Election 2004. The progressive, political, and Left movements are still in their infancy, still too disparate in factions and visions, and still lacking even in aspiring toward unity. A "head-in-the-sand" posture is certainly one that is within the purview of the Green Party to take, however, such stance neglects, and will have no influence whatsoever on the doomsday scenarios more than likely to be visited on the planet by a GWB holdover in the White House. To my mind, the GWB cabal is incomparably different from any previous administration and demands a different analysis and manner of addressing the unique evil it promises. As visibly shown in the three GWB years, the policies and directions already implemented are not those of a misguided ideologue, elected or endorsed by the people, nor by a leader who is capable of formulating and communicating ideas and directions to the electorate. I contend that the dynamic confronting us today is a radically different one. The current White House occupant is, in my view, significantly lacking in morality, shame, or guilt, and does not have the self-awareness to know even when he is outright lying. What is now in the White House is essentially a "puppet" -- one who is manipulated by others for their own ends. I contend that the policies and programs that issue from the GWB administration are not decisions that result from deliberation of available alternatives. Instead, a closely selected cabal operates behind the scenes and dictates what is to be done based on a prior-formed agenda beneficial to only a narrow set of corporate interests. We have as president one who neither cares or knows to care about the consequence of his actions, so long as it is he (due to humongous inferiority and lack of self-worth) who publicly announces the decision or policy being handed down to him. To me, GWB represents a danger so unconscionable that no person of left or progressive leanings should contribute -- either direct or indirect -- in his remaining in office. I fully agree with Camejo later in the essay, where he states: "Nothing is more important than the appearance of candidates and mass actions that tell the full truth, that call for the rule of law, respect for the Bill of Rights, and speak out for peace and social justice." The administration of GWB is so different in makeup, so destructive in policies, and so unconscionable in the horrendous damage it has already done that my response is one I have never felt before to an equivalent degree. Even more -- if this administration remains in the White House -- it poses, through its freewheeling unaccountable "handlers," the severest of threats to all that the Constitution is supposed to stand for; to the peace, security, stability, and sustainability of the rest of the world; and to the very earth itself. To me, the grievous-most error possible by the US electorate would be to underestimate the incredible danger this administration represents to mankind -- an error with no possibility of being corrected. I refer to a greeting I received from the recent Socialist Party presidential candidate, David McReynolds: "... Meantime, may this Christmas be a joyous one, and the New Year bring us what we all need -- a president different from the disaster sitting in the White House ..." I hold no illusion that should a Democrat succeed Bush, that the successor will not be responsible for regrettable policies -- but change, it must. Ultimately, it must be acknowledged that the combined Left and independent political movements are, at this point in time, deplorably weak in our ability to assure the political outcome we prefer, or even to influence whatever may be the political outcome of the present dilemma. Unfortunately, it is less than wishful thinking, given the present state of the Left, to expect that a progressive, even a Nader, can be elected this time around, or even can have a measurable impact on the outcome of the 2004 election. The Left is not sufficiently developed, nor does it command the numbers, nor have the influence to affect this 2004 election result with any significance. Even if every possible stripe of the Left, and all manner of progressives came together totally united in advancing the perfect political strategy for 2004, the real truth is that our numbers are so small that even with 110% unity, our impact on the political outcome of November 2004 will register nary a blip. Although I don't advocate a vote for any particular candidate, I urgently hope that every person of voting age will vote. It is, however, my fervent hope that the present occupant of the White House will not be elected to a new four-year term. Nevertheless, my greatest fear is that the Left movement will do irreparably harm to itself through endless and impossible internal arguments about something the movement cannot affect -- no matter how long or fractious the arguments become. The strife of internal warfare among progressives in debating 2004 options portend scars between factions that threaten the long term unity of the Left, which unity will soon be critical for advancing the independent political movement -- once the country is free of the incorrigible Bush era. The critical bottom line is that over the next twelve months, the real losers are likely to be concerned progressives. I fear that our rhetorical interchanges will seriously divide the movement. In the end, what we progressives tear ourselves apart over won't really matter. Given the Left movement's questionable impact on the 2004 election, juxtaposed with the potential long lasting repercussions of acrimonious intra-faction debate, I make the suggestion that each adherent of Left politics and progressive movements -- personally and individually -- should adopt a "moratorium on debating in public Left strategy alternatives relating to the 2004 election. Such moratorium would recognize the uniquely critical nature of the period the world faces; accept the helpless state -- hopefully temporary -- of the general Left and Independent Party movements at present; and leave the decision of what action to take in the 2004 election to be a personal act of conscious for each individual Left activist to make in the privacy of their own minds, beliefs, and aspirations. James E Vann Oakland California === response to Camejo Thanks for the Camejo article and there is much about it that I like, but he is too hard on folks who have disagreements with him. Like, surely it IS debatable whether there are two dominant parties, or one in America today? There are definite distinctions, even while some Dems are your basic cowards. May I quote Peter Camejo first? "For over 130 years the two major parties have been extremely effective in preventing the emergence of any mass political formations that challenge their political monopoly. Most attempts to build political alternatives have been efforts to represent the interests of the average person, the working people. These efforts have been unable to develop. Both major parties have been dominated by moneyed interests and today reflect the historic period of corporate rule." --PCamejo I dissent. I point to the Goldwater faction which rose up and took over the Republican party from 1964 (after a smashing defeat), a big victory in 1980, and hegemony in 2002. The lesson would seem to be that working within the system IS effective. I point to Truman days when the Dem Party stood up to the Dixiecrats. Today Repubs have abandoned the core Goldwater (freedom first) faction; the honest ones have no political party today. Are Greens soliciting them? The conservatives who honestly believe in small government are being shown the door by the Repubs. The Medicare squeeze in the House will have echoes; are Greens paying attention. Government medical care is your issue; and small government conservative Repubs were pressured in a 3 hour voting delay to change their vote to the Medicare "reform." Politics is about inclusion. If you are vilified by the Dems, defend yourself and then offer something better. It is a tried and true road to success. But vilifying the Dems (and independents) who have some agreement with you, hardly seems smart politics. Moral clarity is not the same as political clout. Moral clarity feels good (and that is what Bush offers the Right today, but it leaves an Achilles heel for a target) Yes, the Dems need backbone; SO they need to hear from us. Please talk to Independents, Dems, everyone. I got a fund raising call from DNC and told her why I give only locally -- weak-kneed national Democrats. She was grateful that I was not RUDE to her? What is going down? Are we becoming like that villain of our times: the lock jaw talk show hosts with permanent screams etched into our faces? The Greens agenda is so sweeping it is breathtaking and exciting, both - and maybe daunting to some, maybe Quixotic to others. The Greens screeds are long and -- yet -- tiresome to read over and over. Like Camejo's is. I suggest focus. There is power in focus. The one Dem Pres Candidate who has a focus is gathering large support and he is NOT a liberal. He is accused of being a liberal by the same folks that are naming everything to their pleasure and getting away with media dominance. I could mention one focus or two for a third party: (1) Removing personhood from corporations; (2) Getting even one state to allow prioritizing in the presidential election; (3) Making a place for religion - not imposing values on others, but bringing people inside who have convictions about social justice issues but no home. Focus would provide a center of gravity, while keeping all the other priorities in view. Focus does NOT mean giving up the Ten Principles. It means picking a key issue as a means to a larger end. As a way to a victory. The Saul Alinsky school of organizing requires a methodology that identifies: enemies, friends, and those who can be persuaded. I don't see this at work in the Greens. You know your enemies, and you believe they are many; but... are they? I know I can be persuaded and have supported Greens in my vote. I know Dems and Independents who agree with you but shut up rather than argue with the moralisms. Talk to us; lower the volume. In the words of a great American who beat the US military: "Let us all sit down together and see what life we will make for our children." Bill Sell === Re: The Avocado Declaration If i might, i would make two suggestions to the green party: to me, it is obvious that every "body" is needed to defeat the shrub. This is no time to be a purist when it comes to the presidency itself. However, to me, it is also becoming more obvious each election cycle, that a third party alternative is seriously needed. The democrats are so thoroughly intimidated and, (when they finally do win an election) so wedded to the tired and failed policies of the past that they are a deterent to correcting the problems of the present. Thus, as a second suggestion, i would argue that the greens begin to build the party at the local level: in particular, by running candidates for city councils, school boards, state reps, mayors, etc. And, using the rhetoric of voting green in order to get rid of some of the tired ass democrats that are standing in the way of progress. John Kavanaugh detroit, michigan === mark whitroth Re: the Avocado Declaration The problem with the Avocado Declaration is that it makes the mistake of tarring all Democrats with the same brush, and even (*horrors*) all Reptilians, though given their lockstep party discipline, that is more nearly correct. Several things it pointedly ignores about the Dems that are specifically relevant this year: 1) the very much grass roots revolt against the decades-long slide of the Dems to the right, as represented by Dean, Kucinich, and Moseley-Braun, and to a lesser degree, Edwards; 2) the *fact* that we are hearing from most of the candidates (we'll ignore LieberBush) things that I, personally, have been screaming for decades, and have not heard anything like from the Dems in 30 years: a new WPA, real national healthcare (and the AMA letter supporting what, 30 years ago, was called by the same group "creeping socialism"!), and things like a return to the real access to education that we had Back Then. Now, I have been saying that I do not want Sharpton or Kucinich to drop, because they are the counterbalance to LiberBush and Gephardt. Equally, I don't want nor expect the Greens to dry up and blow away. What I *would* like to see of the Greens is their working to build a mass movement, and take city, county, and state offices - which is how they can *directly* affect many Americans, and build credibility with the voting public. I would also like to see them push as serious a campaign as they can possibly put on - and I, and many others I believe, would work for: a Constitutional Amendment to get rid of the Electoral College. There is no need for a Constitutional Convention, and especially with the power the GOP wields right now, that would be utterly dangerous - think of school prayer, and 10 Commandments monuments, and forget *completely* Roe v. Wade.... But a simple Amendment, on the order of the 22nd, would be jes' fine; something on the order of ************* Section 1. The twelth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed. Section 2. The President and Vice-President, who shall not be an inhabitant of the same state for at least one year prior to the election, shall be chosen by the majority vote of the people of all the states. Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several states, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission her eof to the states by the Congress. ****************** It seems to me that it might be harder for the Dems to bring this up, but I do believe that there would be a serious percentage of the public who would support this...and it would raise both the visibility and credibility of the Greens. So, Greens, how 'bout it? whitroth === Responses to ' From: Martha Nunn Re: The Avocado Declaration To Camejo's entire piece, I have only one thought--what a crock! Is there a SINGLE progressive who can honestly say that there was "no difference" between Al Gore and George W. Bush in 2000? Yet this is precisely what Ralph Nader repeatedly campaigned on, and once again, Peter Camejo is saying the SAME THING! It should be clear to even the most dimwitted person walking the earth that this country would be a very different (and far better!) place with Al Gore in the White House. As to the Green Party, my own observation is that most have never even bothered to become involved in the Democratic Party! They stand back and criticize it without offering anything substantive to change it. They may not "like" what has become of the 2-party system, but the reality is that we DO live in a 2-party world! Not even Theodore Roosevelt with the Bull Moose Party could make headway. And look at the most recent legitimate attempt to start a political party from the top--Ross Perot in 1992! If people in the Green Party really WANTED to change the status quo, they would become actively involved in the Democratic Party, just as the Christian Coalition did in the Republican Party over a decade ago. As it stands now, the Green Party on a national level is just another third party--only they happen to be siphoning off votes almost exclusively from viable Democratic candidates. If the Green Party really wanted to build another party to supercede the Democratic Party, then they SHOULD have started at the bottom and worked their way up! But there's no "glory" in that--just hard work and a lot of thankless elected offices, like local school boards and city councils, on the way to obtaining some legitimacy. Believe it or not, most politics are still local, and until a political movement or party is able to change the local political dynamics, they are dead in the water on a state or national level! Is there a SINGLE state in the union where the Green Party can boast a substantial portion of mayoral offices, city council offices, school board offices, etc? The answer is, of course, NO! Until that happens, the Green Party are, and will continue to be, wanabes that never will be on a national level. __________________________________________________________________ New! Unlimited Netscape Internet Service. Only $9.95 a month -- Sign up today at http://isp.netscape.com/register Act now to get a personalized email address! Netscape. Just the Net You Need. portside (the left side in nautical parlance) is a news, discussion and debate service of the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism. It aims to provide varied material of interest to people on the left. Post : mail to '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subscribe : mail to '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Unsubscribe : mail to '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Faq : http://www.portside.org List owner : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web address : <http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/portside> Digest mode : visit Web site Yahoo! Groups Links To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/portside/ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ www.ctrl.org DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
--- End Message ---
