Press Action

Greens Endorse Kerry: The Politics of Mendacity (Part 2)

Posted 08/04 |

You must register to comment.

It’s unfortunate that the US electoral system makes it difficult for non-Democrats and non-Republicans to gain parliamentary representation, and impossible for them to show their real preferences. It must be one of the Green Party’s long term goals to change the voting system. In the meantime, the proper course for the Green Party is to state their policies clearly and stand up for their principles without regard to Democrat complaints about ‘spoiling’. The differences between the two major parties are so small, and both are so contrary to the policies of the Greens that it is useless to favour one side or the other. David Cobb’s approach is a great disappointment.

Posted by Ronald Henderson from Sydney, Australia on 08/05 at 08:30 AM

Joshua rules! Regarding Ronald’s ‘review’, permit me to say Cobb’s “mistake” is far worse than a “disappointment.” Rather...as per Jeffrey St. Clair’s recent comments, it is the Death Knell...not only for the Greens, but for Third Party...stuff. The stuffing’s been knocked out of electorals now, and there is no more time to tolerate the tortoise pace of the “possibility” of reform. Patience has zero to do with it, the giving up on the charade. Any Green who knows a damn about the environment --without turning into Edward Abbey-- knows that they must move in other directions now. Best in solidarity, Richard

Posted by Ox from on 08/05 at 08:53 AM

Thanks for the praise Ox. One note though. In defense of Abbey. Despite his views on immigration, “give Mexicans a gun and turn them back”.. he gave birth to a radical form of direct action environmentalism, that has inspired a whole generation of enviro activists. Including myself. A more just reference may be to point out what has happend to Dave Foreman, the old E-Firster!. Point being, lets not outweigh certain Abbey views by his much more important contributions.

Posted by Joshua Frank from on 08/05 at 02:19 PM

Abbey made a contribution --as you point out-- but my reference was in a very specific context...trying to get them away from the likes of Dave Foreman and his umbra...off their fannies...and into doing something. Yes, the kind of Direct Action you speak of...might be fine for starters. It’s an honor to receive supportive words from you, J. Merci x 2, Oxy

Posted by Richie Bear from on 08/05 at 04:14 PM

Additional thought to my above comment is that any environmentalist who thinks he/she can make a green improvement while simultaneously being callous to certain groups...will take many steps backwards. As with many of the figures I attack on this site --who have made important contributions-- their weak areas/negative areas must be spotlighted so that we can move ahead constructively (optimally)...as there is no reason no to be critical. Hugs, Oxbear

Posted by Richie Bear from on 08/05 at 04:28 PM

Addendum to above required...respecting Abbey’s attitude toward Native Americans; I don’t remember him showing an ounce of respect toward them. Not looking for arguments here, but, rather, underscoring that IF that’s the case...no environmental advances made by such Abbeyists would stick...would be “advances” in any sense of the word. Pattrice Jones makes use of Abbey’s monkeywrench allusion peripherally in her recent feminist critique of the Animal Liberation Front...but I’m not at all clear on whether or not she’s actually for his tactics; my sense is that she’s not in full. And...I think that’s the case for many who do find an admirable this or that regarding Edward A. One has to be careful, if I may say so, of Michael Moore syndrome...whereby a lot of negative strains attached to a personality are overlooked in the name of voicing approval of a highly public (positive), highly lauded stance they’ve adopted. Forgive the lecturing tone, please, but I do feel it’s imperative that all “progressives” get behind the need to come together on certain fundamental points, not avoiding certain unpleasant confrontations. It’s too easy to have a superficial sense of agreement, too easy to fall back into a pseudo-hippie mantra of “everyone must agree that it’s not necessary for everyone to agree on anything.” Force in some form on certain fronts will be necessary to push revolutionary action. Hugs, Ox

Posted by The Ox from on 08/05 at 06:37 PM

Joshua Frank’s two-part commentary on the Cobb campaign hinges entirely upon—and could easily have been boiled down to—a single premise: that there is no significant difference between a Bush presidency and what we might expect from a Kerry presidency. If you agree with that assessment then what Cobb is doing is crazy. Conversely—and clearly Frank is in an extreme minority on this point—if you believe there is some difference and that the outcome of the general election could depend on the outcome of a few key states, then Cobb is simply showing integrity (and perhaps educating the ill-informed electorate) in publicly recognizing what should be an obvious strategy for voters.

What I can’t figure out is why a few hardcore Nader supporters seem so bent on attacking the Cobb campaign? Instead why don’t you promote the Nader campaign? In-fighting isn’t going to help anyone.

Posted by Blyden Potts from on 08/05 at 07:55 PM

Thanks for the hug Ox. I don’t think Abbey had any Eurocentric tendencies, as some argue. In fact the birth of E First!, which in great part came from Abbey’s novel, was also grounded in the spirit of Native American’s respect for the Earth. I can’t recall in any writings of Abbey’s other then a novel, which was written as if the character was a racist red-neck, where Abbey blasts Native Americans. Please prove me wrong if I am. He was sour for sure. Grouchy at best. But I don’t think Ed was a racist. I think he despised what the whites in his border state had done to the natives and each other. He despised all people equally I think. Whites, Mexicans etc. He saw us as ignornant and abusive towards nature. I am not convinced that his hatred was race based.
But we don’t need to split hairs on this issue.

Posted by Joshua Frank from on 08/05 at 07:56 PM

I like Joshua’s Nader stuff. Regarding the race question and Abbey, my recollection is that his negative attitude had more to do with thoughts (definitely expressed*) that Native Americans had made mistakes/been weak...lost their opportunity to defend their land...and so...he...Abbey was braced to do right by the land irrespective of the outcome for the indigenous people. More of a callous disregard for them...in eyeballing his prize. *The source might be easily obtainable...the next time I hit “that shelf” in the local bookstore; any find will be directed your way. I had been perusing the Abbey shelf. Another hug, Ox

Posted by Huggy Bear from on 08/06 at 08:19 PM