it’s straightforward … what about it don’t you understand?
In discussing the Labor Party effort of the 1990s (which lasted only about ten years) Mark Dudzic mentions the Green Party:
“We said we would run candidates who are accountable to the Labor Party when we had any constituency where we had the capacity to run a credible election. This meant that you had to have a substantial support from the labor movement in that constituency. You had to show that you had the capacity to run an election down to the precinct level. I think that’s what it would take to run a real candidacy. Anything else is just kind of self-serving, a Green Party-type model.”
He seems to say this disparagingly. As if the Green Party has come up with some kind of problematic model.
Why problematic? Why do people complexify this kind of thing?
There’s a significant movement for social and ecological sustainability. It’s worldwide, obviously. And all over the world it manifests in the electoral arena. There are Green parties in over a hundred countries. That includes the United States.
In the US, the Greens don’t want to be just a pressure group vis-a-vis the Democrats. We believe the Democrats are part of the problem and not part of the solution. Both of the establishment parties need to be challenged by alternative candidacies. So the Greens run candidates. That’s what parties do. What’s complex or “self-serving” about it? If you think we don’t run enough candidates (a common criticism) … then volunteer to run!
Green campaigns have more resonance in some countries than in others, but in general the Green politics movement is growing. It’s beyond me why leftists who don’t happen to agree with us ideologically disparage the straightforward (and clearly popular) efforts to build Green parties and run Green campaigns.
Duh.
