 |
 |
|
Satya has
ceased publication. This website is maintained for informational
purposes only. |
To learn more about the upcoming Special Edition of Satya and Call for Submissions, click here. |
|
When you hear the name "Green Party," the image most likely to come to mind is a political party whose main goal is to save the earth. That's certainly what I thought when I took on the task of running for the U.S. Congress twice as a "Green" candidate. In the process, I learned more about the Greens and the involvement of the left in the "Green Movement." As Kermit the Frog said, "It's not easy being green!" The Green Party originated in Europe, where it evolved as a new socialist movement that stressed concern for the environment. Frustrated by their limited success here in the U.S., some socialists and radical leftists saw the "Green Movement" as a new vehicle for themselves and tried to form an American Green Party. When environmentalists joined them, tensions arose over the emphasis on a radical leftist agenda versus an environmental one. Trying to pacify both groups, they became the "Greens/Green Party USA," a dysfunctional group whose very name reflected their dual identity. Unfortunately, these environmentalists went down the same road as the British Green party and sought to save the earth by stressing changes in personal life style. Those English Greens became known as "Marxist-Lentilists" before their group folded. Conversely, in America the radical leftists, who openly opposed any involvement in electoral politics, came to dominate the emerging movement for a Green party. Eschewing the electoral arena, they tried to make the Greens primarily a group that favored the "direct action" of marching and demonstrating. Apparently, they didn't understand John Lennon's admonishment, "If you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, you ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow." The second wave of American Greens came from Jerry Brown's 1992 campaign for President. These people brought new life to Green efforts, but re-ignited the conflict between those who favor action through electoral politics and those who did not. To defend their control of the "Party," the radical leftists invented something they called "Green Politics" with a definition (seemingly etched in stone) of what it means to be "Green." The obvious question that arose, is who gets to be the judge and jury that decides whether an individual is or is not "Green?" The third wave of new Green party advocates came from Ralph Nader, who allowed different Green groups to put his name on the ballot in 1996. Rather than share power with new Greens who favored electoral politics, the leftists tried to do an "end run" around the newcomers by filing a fraudulent application with the Federal Election Commission. Hoping to co-opt the Green party name, the radicals made applications on a national basis and also for one individual state -- New York. Notably, out of all the states backing Nader, only the New York State Greens did not comply with his condition that contributions and spending for his campaign be limited to a predetermined amount. As a result, Nader went to the FEC to renounce his connection with the NY State Greens' candidate for Vice-president. Those of us who would like to have an environmental party in New York wonder if these Greens will self-destruct with the internal power struggles that are the hallmark of the left. Greens must learn to move past traditional left-right issues and offer a new vision that can appeal to diverse segments of society. A key to creating any vital political movement is to inspire young people, who are now completely turned off by politics. Sadly, the Greens, too, have failed to capture the imagination of today's students.
|
