Green Party Visibility Used to Manipulate Votes
The Green Party has never been known as the most visible of political groups, but they’re becoming more and more present as years go on. This is especially true as other groups become more extreme in their rhetoric and positions, opening territory for the moderate and environmentally friendly Green Party to show its color proudly. Unfortunately, some groups are more than willing to use this struggle for visibility to manipulate the polling process.
It’s certainly true that Green Party representatives are more akin to Democrats than Republicans, and it’s for this very reason that Republicans are helping Green Party representatives get their names onto the ballots. Conservative groups have donated heavily, helped campaign, signed petitions, and sidestepped pushing their own representatives into too powerful of positions. And why?
The theory is that having Green Party representatives on the ballots will successfully tip the scales toward Republican nominees due to the fact that more liberal votes will be more split between the Green Party and the Democrats. The tactic may go back to historic evidence from the Bull Moose party in the early 1900s, when a "similar to Republican" nominee who formed his own party got enough of the votes siphoned off of the Republican nominee that the Democrat went into office.
The case and point for this tactic is Texas, where even Republican officeholders have been giving handouts to Green Party nominees in order to make them more visible.
This creates a large amount of controversy, and a more difficult ethical decision. Is it right to me more visible—and struggle for that visibility in whatever way possible—even when it might tip the scales toward a counterproductive political agenda? Should Green Party nominees continue to accept these gifts and petition signatures, knowing that it will hurt the Democrats and help the visibility of the semi-transparent Green Party?
Important Moments in Green Party History: ’06 Mid-Terms
The Green Party saw a lot of controversy during the presidential elections. The fact that they were negatively impacting the Democratic candidate (more in 2000 than ’04) led some liberals to feel that the Greens were, in a practical sense, defeating their own objectives. Much of this sentiment was born out of the fact that the Greens never seemed to place a candidate—merely campaign enough to deprive similar groups of votes.
However, the Green Party saw immense growth from 1996 to 2004, and they were ready to launch aggressive campaign in numerous places in the 2006 mid-terms. Across the nation, strong campaigning efforts centered on local regions made the Green ticket more viable than it ever had been in the past. The end result was that the Green Party won sixty-six total elections in those mid-terms. More than twenty of these were in California, and nearly a dozen were in Wisconsin.
Among other representatives was one Gayle McLaughlin, who was elected into the mayorship of Richmond. While other mayorial campaigns were won by the Green Party, Richmond was the first major city to have a Green representative.
Maine was another territory for victory. While they failed to get the Governor spot, a large chunk (nearly ten percent) of the voices cried out for Pat LaMarch, a green candidate. Additionally, numerous members were elected to the Portland City Council.
Illinois saw similar gubernatorial figures to Maine, but saw additional high figures with Tom Kelley as a Congress candidate (over twenty percent of the vote).
Pennsylvania saw a large amount of support, but was unable to get on the ballot because of an obscenely high petition threshold.
With numerous victories throughout the States, the Green Party proved in 2006 that they were more than a party of deprivation. They were a legitimate alternative for those who’s needs were better met by the Green Party.
Important Moments in Green Party History: Greens and the War in Iraq
There’s no doubt that the tragedy of September 11th was devastating for America. Yet somehow, the "War on Terror" moved quick quickly into a Middle-East conflict that was only tangentially related to terrorism. Presence in Iraq was not merely difficult for America—it made a statement about how our country would relate to the rest of the world. The statement was simple: our way or violence.
The Green Party quickly made a statement vehemently opposing the War in Iraq. The war had never been declared by congress, since it managed to swing through the "conflict" loophole. It brought more disorder and conflict to already tumultuous parts of the world. It was simply wrong.
The Green Party did more than just make a statement about the events happening around the world, however. They began initiatives that called for impeachment of President Bush and immediate withdrawal from Iraq and other locations in that part of the world. Other similar bills were posed by other groups and organization, and the Green Party did what they could to sponsor these.
The result was astounding. Nearly nine million Americans actively lent their voice to the cause, calling out for withdrawal. There are certain states where initiatives for exiting the Middle-East won in a clear and evident way—such as in Wisconsin, where more than a three-quarter majority favored that withdrawal; and Massachusettes, where less than twenty percent voted against initiatives with similar language.
Those who pay any attention to the news are fully aware that we did not leave Iraq. Further, while President Obama did withdraw from Iraq, he did so only to put more support into other foreign territories. Nonetheless, the action from Greens when it comes to the conflict in Iraq send a strong message about what the group can do when it combines concerted effort and intelligent campaigning.
The Green Party Stance on Palestine and Israel
Conflicts in the Middle-East are a strong part of many political agendas, but they tend to focus on the conflicts where the U.S. is directly involved. One situation that is often disregarded to too great of a degree is the conflict between Israel and Palestine. The violent clash between the two sees much bloodshed, and the Green Party saw a need to create a full statement in November of 2005.
The following points were struck on in the official statement:
1. A demand that Israel be boycotted and non-recognized until such a time that they fully restore the rights to the Palestinian people, both as individuals and as a group.
2. That all Green Party groups, associated groups, or supporting entities join in boycotting Israel entirely.
3. That governments around the globe needed to boycott Israel in a similar manner, and that individual states within the U.S. should join in this cause.
4. That all Campus Greens (a student organization of Green Party members) should work alongside other groups within their campus, as well as their campus administration, in order to make sure their entire institution was effectively boycotting Israel.
5. That all groups affiliated with the anti-war efforts of the Green Party (most notably the Green Peace Action Committee) should both a) boycott Israel as an institution and b) encourage all others they are associated with to do likewise.
6. That the international committee of the Green Party was to work with all other Green organizations and other associated groups across the globe in order to achieve international support of this boycott.
While the boycott itself didn’t see a strong amount of support on a high echelon of the political spectrum, numerous institutions, online degree programs and some regions sponsored the boycott. Other political action groups with a similar outlook on the conflict used the GP boycott as the foundation for their own action.
‘Corporate Welfare’ and the Green Party
- Image via Wikipedia
The 52 words of the preamble to the US Constitution include the phrase “promote the general welfare” as one of the objectives for creating the Constitution. In today’s setup in Washington, D.C., however, the welfare of corporations is more of a priority than that of the general public. The concentration of wealth, coupled with a lack of governmental regulation on corporations and their exchanges with lawmakers, has allowed corporations to amass power and control over the creation of law. Although it is illegal for a corporation to donate directly to a federal candidate, the leaders of corporations get around this by hosting lavish fundraisers as individuals and inviting their wealthy colleagues to donate money to the candidate who is sympathetic to their cause. Judicial rulings in recent years have only been more favorable to corporations when it comes to prorate political spending. Now, instead of a government “Of the people, by the people and for the people,” it is one that is “of corporations, by corporations and for corporations.” These shadowy power-mongers operate in backrooms and at expensive galas. They exchange information through their devoted lobbyists, many of whom worked as lawmakers, or for a lawmaker immediately prior to becoming a lobbyist. The connections are many, and the implications are even more abundant. The stamp on “corporate welfare” came in the form of a bailout, when large financial institutions and auto manufacturers were propped up by taxpayer money. Due to their lack of regulation, corporations are also given carte blanche over what they do to the planet, and its inhabitants. When a corporation becomes so massive that it crosses dozens of national borders and has no real face, it becomes too powerful to hold to any real rules. For the sake of true democracy, rule by the people, it is time for the United States to reevaluate what defines a corporation, and to establish laws that ensure these corporations do more good than they do harm.
Race Relations: How Far Have we Really Come?
- Image via Wikipedia
It’s surprising to some parents how their children can go to school and pick up bad words or bad habits. But what some parents have been completely shocked about is that their children have been picking up racism in schools.A study carried out by CNN in public schools across America tested both young elementary school children, and older, junior high children for racist tendencies. The results were stunning, especially to the children’s own parents. When young Caucasian girls were presented with pictures of five dolls, ranging from light skin tone to dark, they inevitably picked out the doll with light skin for having good traits, and the doll with the dark skin and being deviant.The same was true in reverse: African American children were more likely to choose lighter colored dolls as being mean or dishonest.When Americans start to think that they’ve come a long way regarding race, they are right. And yet, there is still a long way to go.It just takes one scenario like the 2010 spat between the NAACP and the Tea Party movement to see just how sensitive the topic of race still is in the US.For years, the trend was for parents to raise their children to be “color blind,” seeing other children, and people in general, for what they were on the inside, not the color of their skin.Nowadays, however, the term “color neutral” is preferred. That’s because if you ignore the issue of race completely, you’re not educating a child. You’re sweeping something under the rug that, to a child, is very obvious—people are different. Why not explain where the pigmentation comes from, and the histories of various peoples, so that there’s no ambiguity or fear on behalf of children when it comes to interacting with those who are different than them?
The Fall of the Newspaper: What it Means for Society
- Image via Wikipedia
The evolution of America’s newspaper press has seen good days and bad. It’s seen the rise of “Yellow Journalism,” in which sensationalism and tabloid headlines screamed of half-truths. It’s seen the much more respectable era of the Pentagon Papers and the investigative reporting that led to the unraveling of the Watergate scandal. To this day, politicians and leaders in the corporate world know their greatest watchdog is the nation’s media. And yet, the silent death of newspapers is imminent. It’s been a tough several years for the nation’s newspapers, both large and small. Furloughs, layoffs, and major reductions of staff have changed the face of the nation’s mainstream press. The main reason is a loss of subscriptions, due primarily to the Internet. The younger generation, for the most part, does not see the point in purchasing a hard copy of the newspaper when most papers publish a good portion of their content online. Old-timers lament the imminent loss of sitting down with a cup of coffee over the daily news. This loss of revenue has led to the shutting down of entire departments in some papers; in others, the pages have been reduced. Hardly a newspaper in the nation has the means to pay for investigative reporters anymore, because they require doing so much work “in the trenches” before ever producing a single story. What this means is a loss of one of America’s, and democracy’s, dearest friends: the newspaper. Other, more specific, publications have and will continue to pop up in their place. But the newspaper always had its eye on the community it served. When its pages are cut, and its staff are reduced, it cannot report on as wide a scope as it once did. For the larger newspaper, this means it cannot be as much of a watchdog as it once was.
Community Involvement in the Green Party: Why Small Scale Can Make an Impact
- Image by The U.S. Army via Flickr
Imagine if government only worked on the large scale—if the only people who cared about keeping an eye on their elected officials and making their country better did so just from within the boundaries of Washington, D.C. What would happen is that the community structure on smaller governmental entities—counties, cities and regions—would fail to thrive as they do now. In fact, what keeps America’s communities successful is talented, educated leaders who choose to make a difference on the small scale. It’s the pastor in a rural country church who oversees the only Alcoholics Anonymous meetings in a 100 mile radius. It’s the schoolteacher who has made it her goal to eradicate illiteracy among adults in her town. It’s the network of hospitals and clinics that join together in a city to say, “We are not waiting on the federal government: we are going to make a difference in getting health care to those who cannot afford it.” The Green Party has always believed that change, and thus government, starts at home, on the small scale. That’s because each community knows it people better than any outsider ever will. Local grant-making initiatives are likely to go to the places that need the money most. Individuals volunteering in a community are likely to spend their time where helps is needed most. While communities no doubt benefit from outside forces;federal and state grants, the services of national watchdog agencies, and more;the true power still rests in the hands of locals. It’s everyday workers, parents, and retirees who can make a difference in making their communities better. And if that is done in communities across the nation, it completely revolutionizes the need for jobs traditionally provided by the federal and state governments. In the end, the people on the ground who know their communities are likely to pour more passion into making their areas better, because it’s ultimately helping the people and places they have come to know and love.
The Right to Vote: What Happens When It’s Not Valued?
- Image via Wikipedia
The right of Americans to vote came in waves: it did not originally belong to all Americans. It was withheld from millions on account of their skin color or gender. But now, the right is there for all who hold the status of citizens.
Yet, whenever Election Day rolls around, only a fraction of those in the world’s superpower cast ballots.
Why is this? In fledgling democracies like Iraq, illiterate widows and poor farmers risk their lives by going to polling places which have in the past been a prime target for bombings. They proudly dip their thumbs in ink and show the world they made their voices heard in government that day.
In the country like Myanmar, formerly known as Burma, pro-democracy activists like Aung San Suu Kyi risk house arrest, imprisonment or torture with every speech they make. In Egypt, President Hosni Mubarak has been reelected so many times by a reported percentage of nearly 100 percent that he has now ruled longer than several Pharaohs.
What the people in these nations wouldn’t give for true representation of the people in government. It is likely perplexing to America’s troops engaged in warfare overseas that so many of their family members back home don’t take the time to vote.But what really happens when that right is taken for granted on such a wide scale? Someone else inevitably fills the gap. The entity that takes the place of grassroots voters, however, has an entirely different face than an individual walking into a ballot booth and casting his or her vote.
Special interest groups thrive where voters are dormant and nonchalant. Corporations and forces that crave power see a non-voting population as an opportunity. Power must always rest with someone. If the power is not in the hands of the voters—and it’s virtually impossible to be when hardly a fifth of all Americans vote regularly—then it will certainly surface in the hands of someone, or something, else.
Splintering of the Media is a Form of Self-Censorship
- Image via Wikipedia
Since the days of Thomas Jefferson and John Adams slinging mud back and forth in the nation’s early media, Americans have valued and fiercely protected the freedom of the press. Scorned have been the nations and dictators who have suppressed and censored the journalists and newspapers of their peoples.
In recent years, however, Americans have come to embrace a form of self-censorship that has some of the same effect as government-controlled media.
One television network prides itself as being the voice of conservative America, while maintaining the slogan of being completely
objective and non-partisan. Another network leans left, hoping for the riders of the other train to jump on board. Most leading newspapers are now known for which slant they take politically.
The concern is that Americans are not tuning into hear the news; they are tuning into hear the statistics, stories and voices that support what they want to hear.
In a way, this mirrors the behavior of a dictator who fears losing a grip on power. In most countries throughout the Middle East, for example, the government controls the media. Thus, the front page of the newspaper contains a complimentary report about the president, every day of the year.
What results when this happens is that information is stifled. A plurality of ideas never surfaces, and each side gets more and more boxed in. It’s well known that when a person is making an important decision, he or she should weigh all options first. Today, however, it is less likely than ever that Americans can rely on one news outlet to bring a well-rounded scope of an election or other news event.
The man who established the world’s first school of journalism, Walter Williams, wrote in his Journalist’s Creed that the “suppression of the news, for any consideration other than the welfare of society, is indefensible.” Today’s media can learn a lesson from the masters of old-school journalism and, once again, report all angles of all stories.
