GP Statement of Purpose Almost There, But Two Critical Changes Neeeded

The scheduled Ventura Plenary in June includes a proposal to amend Article 2 of the bylaws, to clearly state the "Purpose" of the Green Party. Although often a minor point in bylaws, here the proposed language has two small, symptomatic flaws that need to be corrected before they are adopted.

The proposed "purpose" currently reads as follows:

The Green Party of California, its county organizations and its individual members hold in common the Ten Key Values of ecological wisdom, grassroots democracy, personal and social responsibility, nonviolence, decentralization, community-based economics, feminism, respect for diversity, global responsibility and sustainability.

As the political party of California's Green movement, the Green Party is an electoral alternative, participating actively in the electoral system to incorporate these values into the policies, laws and activities of local, state and national government, and society at large, and to compete directly with the traditionally entrenched parties and others for elected office to advance these goals. (Emphasis added.)

While it is a generally good statement of purpose, and I have no gripe with most of it, I think the bold-faced words need to be removed. And here is why:

There is a significant group of Greens -- not always the active party types, but certainly the Grassroots -- who have a dream of Greens becoming a mainstream party, who hope for a world where consensus based, biologically-centered sustainable government is not seen as a sideshow but as one of the headliner approaches to governance and, well, life.

The proposed language tends to delay the arrival of that day.

In particular, although most Greens likely feel that we do provide an alternative to the same-old-parties, the label "electoral alternative" carries many negative overtones, including a lack of mainstream legitimacy.

It also defines Greens more by who we are not, i.e., Dems and Reps. But we are not merely the Anti-"Dempublicans," and we should not take our purpose or be defined by our opposition to others. We should be defined by who we are, and what we believe. Oh, we do offer a different approach, to be sure, but our alternative is good just because it is different but because it is a new and better approach. I would urge that phrase containing the words "electoral alternative" be dropped.

Second, the phrase "traditionally entrenched" again gives too much power to other parties, and contains the negative-pregnant "our traditionally impotent" party.

It is also verbally combative in a way that is both potentially off-putting to voters and unnecessary.

As consensus-seekers -- and when we govern we have to seek consensus with members of those other parties -- it is incumbent on Greens to promote the positive value of Green ideas more than the blow to "tradition" that we might represent.

This revised language, I feel, takes the GP one step closer toward the next level of political legitimacy and one step away from a role as perpetual outsider.

And as it happens, I think these two changes make the language cleaner.

Thus, I -- and I daresay the many many quiet Greens I have spoken with this campaign season going door to door -- would like to urge delegates to consider the following variation:

The Green Party of California, its county organizations and its individual members hold in common the Ten Key Values of ecological wisdom, grassroots democracy, personal and social responsibility, nonviolence, decentralization, community-based economics, feminism, respect for diversity, global responsibility and sustainability.

As the political party of California's Green movement, the Green Party participates actively in the electoral system to incorporate these values into the policies, laws and activities of local, state and national government, and society at large, and to compete directly for elected office to advance these goals.

Elimination of these two little phrases takes the party's purpose statement out of the realm of being the "lesser-evil" to the Dems and Reps and takes us back to the affirmative promotion of a superior set of governmental and societal values. It eliminates the "outsider" language and allows us to be -- or become -- insiders, who can be trusted to govern.

Does this mean Greens can't or shouldn't promote themselves and their party as a viable alternative to the "traditionally entrenched parties?" Not at all, and in many settings we should do so. But is the basic purpose of the party to be "Not Dems & Reps?" No. If it were, we would do better as the NDR party -- "Not Dems & Reps."

We are Green; we stand for something important in and of itself. Our Statement of Purpose should reflect that.