Friday, March 10, 2006
Green National Committee
Well, my comments on the "Earthflower" question seem to have been rejected by most who got them. My own state's representative voted in favor of this stupid attempt to control and micro-manage every aspect of what Greens do with the party's logo. Sorry Lou, while I appreciate your pointing out that I don't have enough links to the national party, and I don't, but if this passes, I will not submit to the party's demands on how to use my own party's logo. I will only use a text based link, and if anyone doesn't like that they can start their own blog.
This is emblematic of the Green Party at this time, in my humble opinion. We are trying to control what should be an organic growth of the party. If you care to read more of my rant, well, that's what the "Read more!" link is for. :-)...In a piece forwarded to an email list associated with the Chlorophyll Blog by Holly Hunter, Joshua Franks interviews John Murphy
Part of John Murphy's position vis-a-vis the Greens seems to be that the PA Greens were unwilling to place him on their ballot line. Accusations of inappropriate behavior are made, which I cannot and won't attempt to prove or disprove. In my opinion, every state must be free to determine, within state law, who does and who does not get on the ballot as our nominee. We should resist, where we can, the tendency to allow unqualified candidates or candidates who will misrepresent us to be our nominees.
Some state parties have little control over this. In North Carolina, for example, if the Greens were able to secure enough signatures to get on the ballot, they would be free to nominate candidates at a party convention the first time they offer candidates for office, but in following years they must hold primaries. No effort to limit who can run in a primary is allowed in most states, although some states do allow parties to demand registration from their candidates. The end result can be that the Greens wind up with a silly person winning our nomination by virtue of no one else seeking it.
If we try to keep out qualified Greens with a difference of opinion however, I fear we are treading close to authoritarian tendencies. To be frank with you, I feel these authoritarian tendencies more in the GDI than other places, but the entire party leadership seems at cross purposes more often than not.
It makes me wonder if we shouldn't devolve to some extent. The national staff, at least the two I deal with, Emily and Brent, are doing an outstanding job and should be getting a lot more money both for themselves and for their work.
But the National Committee and the rest of the party super-structure seems to ignore reality. My state, South Carolina, has absolutely no one on any national committee. There are no South Carolina members of the Women's Caucus as far as I know, nor any other caucus. Our two supposed members on the National Committee have cast very few votes, and David Whiteman, our alternate, is almost always alone in casting a vote. I can't imagine that my state is alone here.
Maybe we should streamline things. Less centralization, factionalism and distrust and more love. It feels as though we have lost some of the vision. Maybe we should encourage a new generation of Greens to take leadership, not new generation as in younger, but younger in the party. Think about it, if I haven't been able to get a meaningful chapter going in my own town, and I haven't, what in the hell makes me think I should run the national show?
But how many of our "leaders" is a member of a strong local? How many members of the National Committee are supported by their local chapters, and how many are "loners" like me who have relatively little local support, but a smattering of support across the state or region or nation?
Frankly, I fear that too many of our "leaders" have no one following them. I know I don't.
This is emblematic of the Green Party at this time, in my humble opinion. We are trying to control what should be an organic growth of the party. If you care to read more of my rant, well, that's what the "Read more!" link is for. :-)...In a piece forwarded to an email list associated with the Chlorophyll Blog by Holly Hunter, Joshua Franks interviews John Murphy
Part of John Murphy's position vis-a-vis the Greens seems to be that the PA Greens were unwilling to place him on their ballot line. Accusations of inappropriate behavior are made, which I cannot and won't attempt to prove or disprove. In my opinion, every state must be free to determine, within state law, who does and who does not get on the ballot as our nominee. We should resist, where we can, the tendency to allow unqualified candidates or candidates who will misrepresent us to be our nominees.
Some state parties have little control over this. In North Carolina, for example, if the Greens were able to secure enough signatures to get on the ballot, they would be free to nominate candidates at a party convention the first time they offer candidates for office, but in following years they must hold primaries. No effort to limit who can run in a primary is allowed in most states, although some states do allow parties to demand registration from their candidates. The end result can be that the Greens wind up with a silly person winning our nomination by virtue of no one else seeking it.
If we try to keep out qualified Greens with a difference of opinion however, I fear we are treading close to authoritarian tendencies. To be frank with you, I feel these authoritarian tendencies more in the GDI than other places, but the entire party leadership seems at cross purposes more often than not.
It makes me wonder if we shouldn't devolve to some extent. The national staff, at least the two I deal with, Emily and Brent, are doing an outstanding job and should be getting a lot more money both for themselves and for their work.
But the National Committee and the rest of the party super-structure seems to ignore reality. My state, South Carolina, has absolutely no one on any national committee. There are no South Carolina members of the Women's Caucus as far as I know, nor any other caucus. Our two supposed members on the National Committee have cast very few votes, and David Whiteman, our alternate, is almost always alone in casting a vote. I can't imagine that my state is alone here.
Maybe we should streamline things. Less centralization, factionalism and distrust and more love. It feels as though we have lost some of the vision. Maybe we should encourage a new generation of Greens to take leadership, not new generation as in younger, but younger in the party. Think about it, if I haven't been able to get a meaningful chapter going in my own town, and I haven't, what in the hell makes me think I should run the national show?
But how many of our "leaders" is a member of a strong local? How many members of the National Committee are supported by their local chapters, and how many are "loners" like me who have relatively little local support, but a smattering of support across the state or region or nation?
Frankly, I fear that too many of our "leaders" have no one following them. I know I don't.
// posted by Gregg Jocoy @ 2:23 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
Gregg, I agree with much in your post here, but I can't see compairing restricting Green candidadtes etc. to causing problems including ballot access by having mutiple groups (including non-Greens) calling themselves the Green Party. (See my other comment to your original post.)
-Roger
-Roger
I didn't reply to your earlier post in part because I don't want to totally dominate the conversation here. I disagree with your assesment and didn';t want you or otheres to think that I am trying to demand or create total agreement with my beliefs here. I felt that answering your post directly would look like a possible attempt to styfle disagreement, something I don't want to do.
Non-Greens will always call themselves "Green" my former state representative told her fellow State House members, and I quote her, "As everyone knows, I am the most Green member oif the state legislature, but I cannot support a moritorium on new merchant power plant construction." Saying that one is a "Green" happens not because we are not controlling our logo, but because we are sucessful enough that people want to identify with the idea of being "Green".
Now, someone calling themselves "The Green Party" may seem more direct, but what about the GPUSA? We can "prevent" them from "Stealing" our logo, but what are we to do, sue them? That doesn't sound like a good plan to me.
My opinion is going down in flames on this issue, and I feel sure that the GNC will have passed this new regulation. I have to assume that the GNC have spent some time thinking about this, and that their collective wisdom is greater than my own. I sure hope so.
Non-Greens will always call themselves "Green" my former state representative told her fellow State House members, and I quote her, "As everyone knows, I am the most Green member oif the state legislature, but I cannot support a moritorium on new merchant power plant construction." Saying that one is a "Green" happens not because we are not controlling our logo, but because we are sucessful enough that people want to identify with the idea of being "Green".
Now, someone calling themselves "The Green Party" may seem more direct, but what about the GPUSA? We can "prevent" them from "Stealing" our logo, but what are we to do, sue them? That doesn't sound like a good plan to me.
My opinion is going down in flames on this issue, and I feel sure that the GNC will have passed this new regulation. I have to assume that the GNC have spent some time thinking about this, and that their collective wisdom is greater than my own. I sure hope so.
Well calling yourself Green, and saying you are a Green Party organization and that the national GP has said so are two very differnt things.
We know mistakes have been made before. That there is a proccess that includes the affliated states is a good thing.
As to litigation, it sometimes the case that the GP is the receipient of it, and the Green Party name being used loosely, with GP-US allowing such, can be critical to the state Green Parties prevailing.
-Roger
Post a Comment
We know mistakes have been made before. That there is a proccess that includes the affliated states is a good thing.
As to litigation, it sometimes the case that the GP is the receipient of it, and the Green Party name being used loosely, with GP-US allowing such, can be critical to the state Green Parties prevailing.
-Roger
<< Home
