I can't resist David's invitation to put in my several cents about the
Green endorsing convention.
Mayoral contest -
RT -
as a developing electoral politics junkie who had an investment of time
and emotion from spending a whole day at the DFL convention a month ago
supporting RT Ryback in his thrilling challenge to the incumbent, i went
into the Green convention leaning heavily toward RT. (Note- before the
DFL exclusivists complain, there were also DFLers participating in the
Green convention). I think RT is a good candidate for the DFL
nowadays. I was far from totally convinced that RT is worthy of a Green
endorsement. RT is a good progressive reform candidate. He has a good
concept of how money has corrupted politics, and has implemented that in
limiting what kinds of donations he accepts. Other positive areas
include the obligatory criticism of the City's huge giveaways to
corporate developers, a background in community environmental activism,
and a variety of other senstivities on social justice issues.
The problem is that a serious commitment to the Green Party's ten key
values really requires a commitment to more than just reform. In order
to really bring about ecologicial wisdom, grassroots democracy, social
justice, etc., the system must be TRANSformed. This requires candidates
who are willing to at least make some fundamental and controversial
criticisms of the status quo, and preferably express some vision of a
different alternatives. RT does not and would not claim to go this
far. For example, he emphasizes in background in business management
and development and disccusses how the city can do business better in a
way that is more responsive to the community and the environment. At
the same time, RT would not be discussing the unbelievable inequalities
and ecological degredation inherent in our current economic system and
proposals for replacing the current system with alternative more
egalitarian and democratice structures. On the other hand, a viable
ideal Green candidate is probably an impossibility at this time, and RT
appears to be the best out there and is distinguishable in substance and
style from the incumbent.
Another problem for many Greens is that RT has made it clear that he is
a DFLer, and they want a candidate who is tied to the Green party.
Although I did not go into the convention feeling strongly about this
point, I did become more concerned about this issue based on RT's
statements at the convention, From my personal conversation with RT and
listening to his presentations, it became clear that he really was not
willing to identify with the Green Party in a signficant or sufficient
way. He told me that he was not a member of the Green Party by
deliberate choice. (Lisa McDonald and RT's top two campaign honchos at
the convention were all Green Party members - why was RT unwilling to
make such a statement). Although RT had told the screening committee
that he would identify on the ballot as a "Green DFL," during his
presentation, he stated a couple times that if he got the Green
endorsement, he would be describing himself as a DFLer with Green
support. It was problematic that a candidate would be asking for a
party's endorsement while having such an unwillingness to accept that
party's label.
Lisa McDonald -
Lisa McDonald has been taking some laudable positions during the past
couple of years, including the unavoidable criticism of the City's huge
corporate giveaways, challenging some of the policies of the police
department, and advocating for green space and other
environmental/quality of life issues. While Lisa's campaign positions
certainly earn her a friendly and open audience at a Green convention,
there are factors which probably make endorsement an impossibility.
First, she offers good practical criticisms and proposals, but does not
articulate a coherent philosophy that binds her positions together. Her
approach is pragmatic, but as explained above, the Green Party's values
are idealistic and visionary.
A second related specific point is that unlike RT, Lisa does not address
the problem of money in politics. She expresses pride in her ability to
raise a lot of money. I think there is a consensus in the Greens that
the domination of the political system by monied interests is central to
the prevention of grassroots democracy, damage to the environment and
social justice and other key Green values.
Another problem is what has been exposed on the list - that Lisa has
just adopted many of her positions during the past could of years. She
previously seemed to go along much more with the status quo. GIven the
Green Party's great value on social change activism, it is difficult to
accept a politician without only a brief record of good positions.
Finally, it was mentioned by the screening committee at the Green
convention that Lisa McDonald's husband is a "moderate" Republican. I
don't know how many people were influenced by this information, but I
did sense overall vibes of disapproval in the room. WHile there is a
lot of justified Green rhetoric that there is little distinction between
the Democrat and Republican parties, the reality is that a Republican
almost always represents an anathema to Green values. I personally have
been bothered by this factor. Although someone should not be
responsible for the politics of his or her spouse, I have read that
Lisa's spouse has played an active role in her last and current
campaign. I also read on the website provided by Dave Brauer
(www.tray.com) that in 1999, he donated $750 to George W. Bush's
presidential campaign. A close political connection with someone who
would support such an atrocious excuse of a human being, not to mention
heriditary emporer of the United States, is too close for comfort.
Jeff Booty and my thought process -
He was entertaining. I cannot describe his political philosophy or lack
thereof, but he did present himself through personality, anecdoates and
general pronouncements as a definite critic of the system along the
lines of the Green's key values. He started out describing himself as a
"freak" who believed strongly in being himself. To be honest, I then
stopped paying attention to him for quite awhile, figuring that I was
not going to place expend attention on someone running as personality
figure. I tuned in again to him during the question and answer
session. Someone asked the candidates if they would "kill CODEFOR" and
for general comments on police abuse. Jeff Booty was the only candidate
who said outright that he would kill CODEFOR. He went on to describe
police brutality that he personally suffered while participating in a
rally to support Mumia Abu-Jamal - (a political prisoner on death row in
Pennsylvania, who was falsely to convicted of killing a police
officer).
At this point, it struck me that Jeff Booty, by participating in such a
demonstration) had just shown that he was willing to challenge the
system in a more fundamental and controversial way than the other two
candidates. I thought to myself, and then expressed allowed, "When I
was younger, I definitely would have voted for Jeff Booty. I am
obviously getting more conservative in my old age. That is scary."
Now, I could not vote for Jeff Booty because he was not a serious
candidate. But I could not allow myself to become more conservative in
my old age.
On the first ballot, I listed Jeff Booty as my first choice, and RT as
my second choice. The Green Party has instant runoff voting (IRV) which
allows this to be done. The process for counting is still beyond my
understanding. Based on the IRV system, RT did not receive the 2/3
votes necessary for an endorsement on the first ballot, but got enough
votes to warrant a second ballot just for the purpose of voting on
whether RT should get the endorsement. By the second ballot, I had
decided that if RT was not even willing to be a member of the Green
Party or identify himself as a Green (in addition to DFLer), he should
not get the endorsement. I voted "NOTA".
Although I do not think RT is worthy of the Green endorsement, I still
plan to support him in the election as the best viable candidate.
City COuncil races (briefly because this post is getting long) -
Brother Shane price had an excellent engaging sort of presentation that
included the audience. He discussed at length his long-term commitment
to the Democratic party, and his growing alienation due to its failure
to represent the African American community despite their continuous
support. Brother Shane, as well as candidate Makeda Zulu Gillespe and
to some degree, Valdis Rozentalis, articulately addressed how the
incumbent (Joe Biernat) has not dealt with the serious crisis of
affordable housing, supports the police no matter what, is particularly
unresponsive to African American constituents.
Natalie Johnson Lee was also really impressive with an engaging
presentation and critique of how her incumbent (Jackie Cherryhomes) is
not responsive to most of the community. Natalie's main emphasis seemed
to be on affordable and low income housing, whwre she was obviously very
active in her ward. A lot of discussion about Jacki's leadership role
in the tearing down of hundreds of public housing units (I believe about
800), the failure to come close to replacing them, and how the number of
low income and affordable units planned for the new development at that
site keeps going down.
Jordan Kushner
Powderhorn
David Brauer wrote:
>
> Thanks to everyone for providing the results of the Green endorsing
> convention yesterday.
>
> As a DFLer who welcomes Green involvement in city politics, I'm as
> interested in what was said as who won. For example, in attendees' opinion,
> what did RT say that helped, or hurt his chances for endorsement? (I was
> surprised he got as much as 50 percent.) What about Lisa McDonald's
> rhetoric - what did she say to court the Greens' votes? And while several
> people have alluded to Jeff Booty's entertainment value, what major
> interesting issues/positions did he put forth? Also, any substantive info on
> Brother Shane Price would be welcome.
>
> Of course, this being Minneapolis-Issues, I can't resist asking one process
> question. It seemed from the vote totals that all Greens could vote on the
> Ward 3 endorsement, even Greens who lived outside of the ward. As a rule,
> the city DFL (whose Central Committee is currently debating how to fill the
> Park District 2 endorsement vacancy) doesn't let members outside the
> ward/district participate in that ward/district's endorsement vote. Are the
> Greens doing this differently because, pragmatically at this point in their
> evolution, they have fewer members, or is a conscious policy decision? This
> does open the party up to accusations that "non-residents" get too much
> power in a district's endorsement.
>
> David Brauer
> King Field - Ward 10
> Home of the city's newest Farmer's Market - Sundays 9 a.m. to 1 p.m., 43rd &
> Nicollet
>
_______________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
