One SoCal Green

Closet Greens & the Green Fringe

2008-09-27T17:27:00.000-07:00

I am ever amazed at how much effort active Greens make to render the party unpalatable to all but the already marginalized; the bizarre infighting, the pet conspiracy theories, the not-so-subtle socialist infiltration that has no business in a party deemed "not left, not right, just Green."

Sigh.

Meanwhile, more than a few Greens are making progress in light of the popularity of the small-g green movement. But it is almost easier to make green progress without the tainted Green Party brand.

Although I have previously described how one goes about gaining political creditability (often in non-partisan settings), I fear that a creditable Green Party presence will not emerge on the scene until sufficient mainstream-thinking but correctly Green folks begin to emerge locally.

I am hopeful that as less anti-social Greens work quietly to earn individual community support and run for office -- based on their ideas and records, not a tainted party label -- that the party label can gain the respectability the 10 KV deserve.

If you are a closet Green -- one for whom the 10 KV resonate, even as party machinations and efforts to drag the party to the left have you thinking about the dreaded Decline to State -- I'd love to hear from you. There must be a way to swing this party into the mainstream. I think the quiet Greens might just be the ones to do it.

G3 Green: Can the Green Party Evolve, But Keep its Idealism and Values?

2007-12-31T10:57:00.000-08:00

Watching Green Party politics for the last few years, I think the Party's history can be condensed into three major epochs, or generations if you will; and a lot depends on how Generation 3 plays out.

The first American Green Party members were pioneers. They were outsiders frustrated by an electoral system hell bent on destroying the country, and the world. United at first in their forward looking, biology-centered thinking, the first generation came to differing ideas on what a Green Party should become. Accordingly there now exist both "electoral" and "lifestyle" organizations with confusingly similar names.

Generation Two, at least in the "electoral" wing, tends to be made up of political outsiders. That is, folks who never quite fit in with the rest of the mundane world, folks who were early adopters of sustainable technology and relaxed and revised social norms. Folks who were hot for concepts like environmental wisdom and social justice.

As non-Rotarians and folks unlikely to find themselves recruited as Masons, G2 Greens naturally turned to the time-honored tools of protest and complaint. Coupled with public education, protest and complaint can be an effective tool to get a problem, and sometimes a solution, noticed. If a large groundswell of complaint ensues it can, sometimes, swing society (and with it our government) more to the a particular point in the political spectrum.

Protest and complaint are tricky, though. Sometimes they go unnoticed, or are dismissed as the further rantings of a bunch of cranks; sometimes they are noticed and there is widespread pushback. And very occasionally they are noticed and a problem is addressed and a solution found.

In addition, it is easy to become addicted to complaint and protest. The more one dwells in anger, the easier and more reflexive anger and complaint becomes. The more one is accustomed to having one's ideas ignored or belittled, the fewer ideas one tends to put forward; the fewer actual ideas one proposes, and the less people listen to the angry rant.

It is a self-perpetuating circle of defeat, and some G2 Greens seem to have fallen into this "Angry Impotence" mode. I have even seen folks actively resist evolving into G3 Greens, dismissing actual mainstream political participation as ineffective.

Nevertheless, and make no mistake, Generation 3 Greens are here: Some having grown up politically as G1 or G2 Greens have evolved; others see the party as ready for the next step, and came on board as G3 Greens.

G3 Greens are attracted to the Green Party for many of the reasons the G1 and G2 Greens were. But G3 Greens are here not only because they believe wholeheartedly in the 10 Key Values, but also because Greens have begun to govern and there is hope for the greater culture.

There are elected Greens and appointed Greens and green (small g) policies and programs popping up all over.

This is the beginning of the Third Age of the Greens.

And brothers and sisters, the times they are a changin'.

One of the difficulties I see pretty regularly is that many G1 and G2 oriented Greens are simply not comfortable with real electoral politics. Most have never had the occasion to govern a group of citizens -- as opposed to working with or leading like-minded activists or factions within a single group.

For example, one who governs cannot realistically define oneself as who one is against, but rather what one stands for, what policies will be legislated and implemented, and how opposing viewpoint holders will be accommodated or educated.

Another difficulty is the filtering in of folks from other, shop-worn political viewpoints -- both right and left -- who seem to have climbed on to the Great Green Bandwagon because it was sexy, but want to turn the Party into an echo of what they left behind. Folks from the way-far-left who see the 10 KV as the next best thing to Socialism misunderstand the social element of the 10 KV; libertarian refuges likewise mistake grassroots democracy and local control for "no control"and find themselves mis-advocating for a sort of loose eco-anarchy.

It is my hope for the new year that Greens can focus on evolving into G3 Greens; politically active, politically savvy, actual leaders of policy change at the local level, and on the road to electoral substance. People in general are ready for the 10KV, so long as they come in a resonable, respectable package.

Blogging live from the route of the Rose Parade in Pasadena, California, a very Happy New Year to you all!

Suggestions For Sonoma: Three Key Areas

2007-02-09T08:38:00.000-08:00

Near the end of the month the GPCA is convening a little confab to look at going-forward strategies for the GPCA. Since I can't be in Sonoma then, I offer my suggestions here:

As I noted on a comment on CA Greening recently, the Green "brand" often has negative connotations for voters, whereas the Green 10 Key Values are often embraced when presented without the Green label. Clearly there is a disconnect between the Green image and Green aspirations. For any electoral strategy to work, Greens need a brand-building strategy -- both for Greens and potential non-Green voters for our candidates.

I think there are three major contributing factors to folks having the wrong idea about Greens.

Watch Your Language! Toward A Green Lexicon

First, our choice of language to communicate with the public and each other needs to be cleaned up. We often describe something acceptable or even desirable to mainstream America in such strident cant that it is perceived as fringe and crackpot.

For example, many folks who have chosen a Green Party path have come in from the left, perceiving that some Green core values at least mirror their own values. With those folks has come the language of the left: Terms like "solidarity" "struggle" "class warfare," etc. pepper their left-leaning dialogue -- and, not incidentally, public-oriented Green Party communications.
This gives the false impression that to be Green is to be on the left. Maybe even on the far left.

There is, to be sure, some confusion about this even among putative Greens. (See my "Left, Right and Green" for a longer screed on this topic. )

Fundamentally, while many of the ideas of the 10KV have been espoused by the left in some forms, the Green Party form is new; there are also values that have been espoused by the right in other forms. One needs to be mindful of the saying attributed to Petra Kelly, "Not left, not right, but forward Green."

One would not want to issue a Green press release "in solidarity with the worker's struggle for liberation in the battle against capitalist corporate criminals," and yet I have seen language nearly this trite and nearly this stereotypically "red" in Green writings. Neither would one want to steal from the radical right and rail against "activist federal judges who impose immoral practices and condone immoral laws" in order to promote "Grassroots Democracy" and the right of a state to have stricter environmental standards, for example.

In each case there is a Green way to phrase the same point, without either resorting to the failed lexicon of the right or the left.

A Little Green Education

The unvarnished 10 KV are appealing to a broad spectrum of people. When presented in the frame of reference of the average American, and stripped of the language of the extreme left or right, many people find the 10 KV common-sensical and non-threatening.

Sometimes though a little education is required. "Ecological Wisdom" can sound all "weird and treehuggerish" or can it be a simple common sense injunction to conduct our activities so we don't poison our planet. There are many ways to engage in ecological wisdom without emphasizing gloom, doom and sacrifice. (For an example, see my "Get Off Your Would-But" at my other blog-space.)

By highlighting the 10 KV (in neutral language) and providing a modicum of person-to-person education, and then explaining that these are Green Party, not just greenie values, the Green Party brand might acquire a better, more true, more electable image.

All Politics Is Local; Most Politicos Were Local Yokels Once

I've said it over and over. So I'll make it brief: Greens should concentrate on gaining local non-partisan elected and appointed office, both to gain experience in actual governance -- something we lack -- and to build a base of local voters who know Green leaders as good leaders they can vote for in partisan elections. Local partisan elections won by known local leaders can translate into state-level partisan elections, etc.

Again see my prior screed "Musings on City Planning Leads to A Local Government Primer for Local Greens."

There it is, in a nutshell:

1. Speak to America in plan American-speak -- not political-cant nor activist rant.
2. Politely educate on the 10KV
3. Go Local

These common sense approaches could go a long way to getting past the distorted image that the Green Party has accumulated over the years, and let the actual, common sense Green approach recomend itself.

How to Get Appointed: Primer, Part II

2007-01-30T20:19:00.000-08:00

In a prior post it was suggested that Greens need to become active in their communities -- or rather, active within the governments in their communities, in other than elected positions. This, I suggested, would influence policy at the most useful level, train Green community members in the nuances of actual governance, and introduce Greens to their neighbors as effective leaders in non-electoral (but governmental) settings.

This long winded post is a consideration of some of the ways to participate in public meetings, including some basic thoughts on how to get oneself appointed to various committees and commissions.

How does one penetrate the political fog that surrounds those positions and get oneself appointed? Read on!

Be Active!

Be out in the community, attending public meetings, providing community input, helping craft solutions.

Most cities these days have myriad meetings for residents and other stakeholders before making major policy decisions, or in the process of creating Environmental Impact Reports for major projects by both government and private contractors.

Go to the meetings. Speak up. Sign in.

When the next round of meetings comes up on a certain project, or a certain type of project, you may get an email or snail mail directly inviting you to attend. Congratulations! You are now a recognized community activist or stakeholder.

What good is going to these (very often boring) meetings? There is a threefold benefit:

1. Your voice is heard: A rational voice in favor of sustainable options is important, a thoughful voice against options that are not supportable from a social or environmental perspective. Both need to be part of the record.

2. You are educated: At these meetings you learn a lot about how to craft a technically and legally adequate alternative option that is also an appropriate policy or construction approach, or legally effective way to hold private developers to greener standards. You also learn who the local powers are really, and what it takes to sway them.

3. You are seen, and remembered: Your rational, thoughtful, articulate expression and help with problem solving to achieve a more sustainable and just community will be noted by city professional staff, and, if you are at City Council meetings too, by the elected officials. Remember it is elected officials who appoint folks, sometimes with suggestions from constituents and even City or developer staff.

Politics, as usual.

Some of the appointment game comes down to old fashioned "money and connections" politics. In a very large city (like Los Angeles) with some very powerful commissions, getting appointed can be a little harder, and can be based on access as a result of pure political clout.

Most of us do not have the cash to be players at this level, and in any case it is probably distasteful to most Greens to buy access. But Greens are great at volunteering during elections, at hosting coffees and the like. And in non-partisan local elections, especially, there is a great deal of party-line crossing based on issues. It may mean that one has to choose between supporting an openly Green candidate versus a green-friendly candidate who is a front runner; that choice is left to your own conscience. But in a race with no avowed Green, many non-partisan candidates are interested in your issues strongly.

Your efforts on behalf of a candidate create a chance to become known to the candidate and the candidate's advisors. It also helps you understand the candidate's issues, and be in a stronger position to represent -- or modify -- the ideals of a new council member later.

Yes, I said modify. Many Councilmembers are open to your opinion as a commissioner, and will discuss things at length to help them come to the best conclusion for your community.

Community Events: Picnics and Pancake Breakfasts

Again, to be a known quantity to the folks doing the appointing, it can be helpful to be involved in community events. Most cities have Earth Day events in parks, with local politicos in attendance, enjoying the day and chatting up constituents. Earth Day is especially appealing to Greens, for obvious reasons.

But there are many many other non-political events, too, and it can be important to be in attendance there also. Picnics, evening concerts, fairs, openings, dedications and pancake breakfasts all abound. If you chat with city staffers and make low key, effective -- and not incidentally sustainable -- suggestions, or even chat with electeds in an informal setting, you are establishing your reputation for thoughtful, helpful discourse.

These events can also be an opportunity to connect with electeds as people, not as elected representatives. Again, this is especially true in more modest cities, where "elected official" is often not a full time job.

Such interactions can also, frankly, be helpful to you in evaluating candidates on a level you may have only imagined. One year, a would-be Council Member arrived at our neighborhood association picnic on a bike with his two children in a bike trailer. Although his opponent was a progressive union official and former President of the Neighborhood Association, that chance meeting and conversation with the bike-riding candidate cemented my belief in this otherwise conservative-looking fellow as an excellent council member.

Have To Buy A Ticket To Win

Rarely will anyone spontaneously ask you to serve on a commission. If they do, you should be writing this advice not reading it. In general, you have to apply. (Timing can be key, however. See below.) Different commissions have different technical requirements to be appointed, which should be observed. (But note: evaluate your own qualifications carefully; a decade of activism in an area may make you eminently qualified, even if you think you lack paper credentials like degrees in a specialty area!).

The application forms are often available online, along with lists of commissions. Some commissions require financial disclosure forms, some do not. Although an official application is almost always required, rarely will a bare application dropped into the city hopper result in an appointment.

Get Appointed, Then Apply !?!

There is a lot of groundwork to be done before making an application. Indeed, although I am about to be appointed, tonight, to my third city commission in 10 years (and have served on or chaired a dozen city working groups, committees or steering committees), I have never applied to a commission position until it was determined that someone would like to appoint me!

Of course there should be an opening on the commission to which you wish to be appointed, or an opening which may come open in the near future. The trick is that commission appointments may involve a certain degree of personal relationship between the commissioner and the appointing official -- it is never helpful to complain about a commissioner and ask to replace him, for example. It is also helpful to suss out which commission appointments might be coming open but for which there is already someone in mind.

The best way to start the process, to my mind, is to simply bring it up in casual conversation with the elected or the elected's field representative. Bring up your interest in being active in the community. Mention how well something you have participated in worked out, or how you look forward to working on a solution to an existing problem. Mention that if there were any commission appointments coming available, you would be interested in serving in that way too, maybe even on the (blank) commission, where you have the most experience.

Don't look for an answer at that point, although you may get one. Something temporizing, or something letting you down slowly is far more likely. That is to be expected -- and should be met with equanimity on your part, with a low key "well, keep me in mind won't you?" For you have now done the hard work: Broached the subject of your interest.

You may have also gotten valuable information. "Well, you know Helen on the Parks Commission was just appointed last year, and has three years on her term to go," or something similar. That tells you who to work with on these issues, but also identifies the possible timetable for expressing interest again.

Track the Commission

Track the doings of the commission you are interested in serving on. Be familiar with the players and the issues; show up once or twice on issues of interest to you. Don't dog the commission. But you would be expected to be conversant with the issues if appointed, and reading minutes and reports is an excellent way to do that ahead of time.

In addition, sometimes commissioner's "retire" or move on -- and will recommend a replacement to the appointing official. I have done this; I have seen other commissioners do so. If a current commissioner recommends you, it can save the appointing person the trouble of finding a qualified person with a similar political agenda.

Be Reasonable

Throughout this Appointment Primer I have deliberately mentioned your thoughtful, helpful input on issues, your willingness to help craft solutions to problems, your efforts to create community consensus even if your ideal solution is not going to be adopted. I did this deliberately, because this is what governing -- and commission service -- entails.

Greens, as a rule, are people who are outsiders to much of "regular" society. If you are a registered Green you have taken a social step that many who share your beliefs are unable to bring themselves to do. If you have come to the place where a just, sustainable world is a key motivator for how you live your life, you are ahead of most people. If you have given up on the Dempublican / Republicrat system, the odds are fair that you are also not part of other standard institutions.

In part because of this outsider status, in part because we see the urgency of a Green approach to our community life, Greens are often passionate to the point of belligerence about their key issues. In part because most Greens have not been a part of the government before, they are also not conversant with techniques to communicate a political message and have a useful impact on political decision makers.

Most Greens are familiar with the tactics of pressure, and protest. Of mass movements and media attracting stunts. These are outsider techniques. They work, but only somewhat. It is better to be the insider, pushing for new ideas.

Most Greens are familiar with the tactic of complaint, and the level of frustration that can arise when leaders do the wrong thing anyway. Mere complaint, however, without presentation of effective alternatives, is another outsider technique. As a future commissisoner, one is asking to be part of the government, not part of a mass movement opposed to it; while participating in meetings and other opportunities, one is practicing governance of all members of the community, of consensus building, if you will, including governance of those most strongly opposed to one's own positions. This calls for a different approach than protest and complaint.

(Even if one is not angling for a commission appointment, it turns out that the thoughtful, reasoned approach to issues often is more effective than starting with impassioned speeches, name calling, sign carrying, overflow crowds of chanting supporters or the like. )

Participation in local governance puts Green ideas into the system, making the job of activist Greens easier; educates local Greens on actual governance, something most of us lack; and exposes Green leaders as community leaders, who may well be considered favorably in future partisan elections. Grassroots democracy starts with grassroots governance. It starts with you.

Masculinism, Feminism & Gender Equity: Time to Update the 10 KV?

2007-01-25T20:16:00.000-08:00

I live for diaper changing tables in the Men's Restroom.

They are a sign to me that the feminist movement of the 1960s and early 1970s succeeded beyond all expectations in a few decades.

And indeed, my wife, a Green, was complaining the other night about the somewhat outdated inclusion of the word "Feminism" as one of the 10 Key Values on the GPCA site. It's not the issue of gender equity that she finds odd, but the old-timey term which tends to rankle.

And indeed, the GPUS formulation has the dual title "Feminism and Gender Equity." One could simply lope off "feminism" and have an inclusive ideal that was non-sexist (and therefore, in fact, feminist to a significant degree).

Now I admit that I am old enough to remember when "Women's Lib" was new; feminists were the holy-warriors for gender equity, and worked to unsettle and unseat the "male chauvinist" norm.

A little later, when I was in college, even though I am male, I considered myself a relatively evolved feminist, going out of my way to work to undo old gender stereotypes. Later still, as a lawyer, I often worked for female partners, often prosecuting gender bias cases. But I think it was, in fact, when I started working for female law partners on behalf of female executives that I realized that the word "feminist" had really outlived its need.

Gender equity still needed some help, but "feminism" had seen its day.

As proof of this, I note that, last year our local Arroyo Seco Greens had at least two very active stay-at-home dads, of which I was one.

In fact, as part of my continued contribution to feminism -- er, gender equity -- I spent many hours pestering establishments with no diaper changing table in the Men's Restroom.

The Starbuck's in LaVerne at D Street and Foothill Blvd. now has a diaper changing station in the men's room. Only in the men's room. I am amused to say that this is my fault. I did it. In an act of unselfconscious gender equity, I think I shamed them into it. [Click the Photo below for a readable view.]

In making this happen, I did not see it as an act of feminism -- although it could be tagged as such, I suppose. It was, perhaps, a case of non-macho "masculinism:" I am a man. But I am a parent first, and value the bonding time last year with my newborn daughter. I also think it is important to resist the sexist message that "ladies room only" diaper changing tables present.

So there we were in Starbucks every day for most of a year. With no diaper changing table.
If you are interested in the whole saga of the changing table in the Men's Restroom (only), it an be found here (Part I) and here (Part II) and here (Part III).

My favorite part of the story was when the regional manager offered to install a changing table for me -- in the Ladies Restroom!

See what I mean about gender equity? Feminism was nice, but really, we are sort of beyond that now, aren't we?

Musing About City Planning Leads to A Local Government Primer for Local Greens

2007-01-18T11:48:00.000-08:00

Working to create sustainable, human scale, transportation modes depends on local folks -- and especially local Greens -- stepping up to be involved in the planning process. Here's how!

Roads for People

Streets, and especially sidewalks, are mostly planned, installed and maintained by local governments. City governements, or sometimes county government has the largest effect on whether people feel that they *must* ride a car somewhere or not.

There are usually appointed city and county Transportation Commissions, made up of ordinary local folk charged with giving advice to government staffs and elected officials on how to deal with mobility.

It makes a lot of difference if the people on these commissions understand, as most Greens do, that building more and bigger roads just leads to more and faster car riding.

Cities for People

Any city built up since about 1950 was built for the comfort of cars. Any city built before World War II was probably built for people, at a human scale, with identifiable neighborhoods. Greens know that we call the suburbia of last 50 years sprawl, and that it gets the blame for many of the ills we as a culture experience today.

Greens know that when it comes to increased urban densities it is not the number of people in a concentrated area that is a problem (within broad reasonable limits) but the amount and nature of the of travel required for work and life's necessities. Or, to oversimplify: Its not the number of people that live in a neighborhood, its the number of cars.

Planning Commissions, often without the aid of a Transportation Commission, make recommendations and even legally binding decisions on what gets built and how it looks. Often excoriated for "nimbyism," or as short-sighted, focusing on sales tax revenue from a downtown destroying big-box, there is nothing inherently evil about the typical planning commission.

Commissions and Committees -- For People

There are other commission areas with important roles, where Greens have good knowledge about a better way to do things:

Parks and Recreation Commissions often have broad responsibility for green space, not just baseball diamonds and picnic tables.

Library Commissions may set policies that benefit all users, and bring actually effective programing serving sometimes unserved segments of the communities.

Design Commissions can protect the look and feel of a community -- again, not just in the stereotyped "nimby" suburbanite manner, but in a form that allows and even encourages public art, but bans billboard advertising.

Utility Commissions, where there is a municipal utility, can influence policy with respect to renewables such as wind and distributed solar.

Environmental Commissions, where they exist (such as in Pasadena) can help put biological thinking into play across a city's operations.

Commissions often have official standing, and a commission review may be required for many projects or proposals. But there are often many single-purpose committees -- sometimes called steering committees or stakeholder committees -- that get set up to do chores like a coordinated review of transportation policy, or parking codes.

These are usually made up of stakeholders from various constituencies, including yours. One great way to get invited onto these committees is to participate at City Council meetings and commission meetings as a member of the public, or on behalf of a neighborhood group or an issue group.

If you are able to communicate your viewpoint clearly and coherently, and do not seem dangerously unbalanced, or otherwise unable to work with other community members to arrive at consensus, you will often be invited to participate in these quasi-official steering committees.

And they do have real input and ability to affect what is on the ground.

Finally, its a cliche, but elected and appointed folk really do listen to the people who speak at public meetings. Great bouts of spirited oration are not needed; indeed, you may find you are unreasonably limited to 3-5 minutes. But if you (1) participate at all and (2) pare your comments down to the succinct essentials, I guarantee you will heard, and may well be headed. I have watched a comment from a member of the public take hold with an elected official and change the course of the debate and the outcome.

Over -heated rhetoric, personal attacks, satire, sarcasm -- these rarely affect the decision makers, and often undercut good points you may be making. And they will not improve your odds of getting invited to participate in the Non-Auto Mobility Improvement Steering Committee when that issue comes up later.

Act Locally. No Really.

All it really takes is enough thoughtful, right-thinking people to serve in these many many many capacities to begin the move toward more sustainable, just and equitable, local government policies. This is how the grassroots in grassroots democracy works.

Why would one want to serve on the local library commission instead of angrily protesting an injustice perpetrated by some far-flung empire?

Well, first, it may not be an "instead" issue; do both.

But second, which has more direct, immediate and life altering impact: Starting a program to underwrite a Reading Intensive Summer Camp for struggling readers in your neighborhood or funding a minority language outreach for your own community, or carrying a sign protesting global warming?

While the national and international issues are important, the next generation of policies are being made, right now, on the local boards and commissions of your city and county.

_________________________________

Coming Soon: Thoughts on How to Get Appointed / Invited to Participate

Less Voting, More Democracy: Grassroots Consensus Seeking and the Green Party

2006-12-31T12:17:00.000-08:00

Grassroots Democracy means more people formally voting for stuff more often -- or so I have been told by a number of Greens pushing for more "democracy" in Green Party functions.

Any hint of representational democracy -- where a selected representative reports to and votes the desires of a larger group -- is rejected as somehow anti-democratic.

Interestingly, this idea of more voters and more voting is, to my way of thinking, actually antithetical to the consensus building paradigm. More important, it does not in any way assure anything like Grassroots Democracy, while directly increasing the complexity and cost of taking a group decision.

If we look at two different formulations of this particular key value we can see that Green Grassroots Democracy can be achieved by methods other than more voting -- indeed, might best be achieved by governmental (or party) consesnus building, even over complex mathematical formula to achieve something like proportional representation after yet another vote.

GPUS Grassroots Democracy

The following version comes from the Green Party US website (emphasis added):
"GRASSROOTS DEMOCRACY Every human being deserves a say in the decisions that affect their lives and not be subject to the will of another. Therefore, we will work to increase public participation at every level of government and to ensure that our public representatives are fully accountable to the people who elect them. We will also work to create new types of political organizations which expand the process of participatory democracy by directly including citizens in the decision-making process."

The California "question" version of the 10 KV from the Green Party of California website expresses essentially the same sentiment:

Grassroots Democracy: How can we develop systems that allow and encourage us to control the decisions that affect our lives? How can we ensure that representatives will be fully accountable to the people who elected them? How can we develop planning mechanisms that would allow citizens to develop and implement their own preferences for policies and spending priorities? How can we encourage and assist the "mediating institutions"--family, neighborhood organization, church group, voluntary association, ethnic club--to recover some of the functions now performed by the government? How can we relearn the best insights from American traditions of civic vitality, voluntary action and community responsibility?

More Voting Does NOT Mean More Democracy

Neither version of this Key Value says anything about more direct voting. Indeed, both versions are silent as to process, seeking only the same outcome: The empowerment of individuals to have -- and feel that they have -- a direct effect on the decisions that affect their lives.

That is, Grassroots Democracy is focused on facilitating meaningful input by the average person, not just input by elected officials or other leaders. But there is nothing in the concept about more direct voting.

Simple public meetings and other informal input can go a long way to achieving this goal.

Early public input, at the start of a decision making process -- at the "brainstorming" level -- are important. Additional, later meetings at the start of decision making processes as the viable options are identified, and again as options are weighed and winnowed down, go a long way to providing this input for example.

Transparency of decision making details, and leaders committed to truly listening and making decisions based on what is heard finish the process. An effective, widespread outreach and stakeholder input process may not result in decisions that everyone likes 100%, but it can approximate a consensus process with a group the size of a small city.

Or even a county-wide group of registered Greens.

More than a few municipal governments, and particularly one of the governments I am most familiar with, the City of Pasadena, has gone a long way to implement this version of Grassroots Democracy. It is very effective, and even when people here disagree with decisions, most feel listened to and acknowledged.

It is not uncommon, even, for the opinion of dissenters to be noted by the majority, and an effort to accommodate such concerns made both before and after a decision is taken.

It is both puzzling to me and perhaps understandable that this mediation-based Municipal model has not seen more use by Green Party groups. It is understandable, perhaps, given the generalized lack of experience in actual governance of most Greens. Puzzling because it fits the description of Grassroots Democracy quite well -- and is subject to varying degrees of depth of outreach depending on the size of the group and the importance of the decision.

Rather than attempt to create more opportunities for direct voting -- such as additional plenaries, or congresses or regional meetings-- the GP should work to (1) train GP activists in the mediative, consensus seeking model and (2) implement small scale, truly representational democracy. We Greens should take a lesson from current models of progressive government that are working now, making them even more flexible for use in GP settings.

War-Hawk Dems and Disatisfaction with Both Major Parties Opens Door Wide for So Cal Greens

2006-10-30T19:58:00.000-08:00

The Bush administration's poll numbers are still abysmal, a majority of Americans now oppose the Republican lead war, and every day it seems that another Congressional incumbent is in trouble with constituents.

And that includes Democrats.

Indeed, voter unhappiness with Democrat incumbents may be the great unnoticed story of this election cycle.

According to a Washington Post / ABC News poll released last week, independent voters are more likely to vote Democrat than Republican in the coming election. No surprise there. But then the Washington-Post story finishes with this sleeper: Independents “appear motivated more by dissatisfaction with Republicans than by enthusiasm for the opposition party.”

The Post’s poll analysis notes that “about half of those independents who said they plan to vote Democratic in their district said they are doing so primarily to vote against the Republican candidate rather than to affirmatively support the Democratic candidate. Just 22 percent of independents voting for Democrats are doing so ' very enthusiastically.' "

This should come as no surprise to election-watchers in southern California.

Locally, long-time Democrat incumbents Jane Harmon, Howard Berman, and Adam Schiff have been strongly criticized as "Bush Democrats" or "War Democrats" and worse, based on their supportive voting records and luke-warm criticisms of the current administration.

Harmon and Schiff each faced a serious Democrat challenger in the primary, based largely upon a lack of opposition to the Iraq war and the President's warrantless wiretapping -- issues which current poll numbers suggest may still resonate with voters and transcend traditional party lines.

The novelty of so many serious Democratic challengers has garnered only modest press, and most of that was in the Winograd/Harmon race. Still, quite a few votes went to the last-minute challengers, and there has been little comment on that fact from the general media. (Schiff’s challenger for example, Democrat activist Bob McClosky, drew nearly 20% of the vote in June after a short campaign.)

In the end, the incumbent advantage was too much for these quick primary campaigns to surmount.

Surprisingly, however, the pro-Bush Democrats remain unrepentant, having done nothing of consequence to address their constituents’ concerns, nor asserted leadership on any of the important issues of the day.

Ordinarily this would still mean easy re-election for Democrats in their “safe” Democrat districts, despite the abandonment of their constituents’ values. But this year dissatisfied voters still have viable options on November 7.

The Green Party is fielding very strong candidates in many races, including two of the three seats held by the incumbents noted. And now that the Democrat challengers have been eliminated in the primary by incumbent money, there will be an awful lot of voters unwilling to vote for the remaining right-wing Democrat incumbent -- and who may well turn to a well-known Green.

Both southern California Democrat challengers have since endorsed Green Party candidates over their own party members, Winograd endorsing Byron DeLear in the 28th Congressional District and McCloskey endorsing Bill Paparian in the 29th.

Local Democrat activist Danny Bakewell Sr. has endorsed Paparian, as has Glendale Republican power broker Bill Holderness. Holderness went so far as to host a fundraising event at his home for the Green.

This points up that it is not just Democrats who are fed up with the Bush administration; more than a few conservatives disdain the illegal conduct of the Bush regime and are embarrassed by the Republican Party's capture by extremist elements.

For a conservative who believes in local control, sees conservation of resources (financial and natural) as a conservative value, and disdains our role as world police, the Green candidate is an acceptable – maybe even preferable -- alternative to a Democrat.

In point of fact, there are more than a few former-Republicans in the Green Party; the Green “Ten-key Values” are a mix of conservative and progressive elements that often surprise people with their sensibility.

DeLear, running in Berman's 28th Congressional district began the campaign for Congress with a burst of energy that has been gathering further speed as the only viable alternative to the long-entrenched Democrat Howard Berman.

Paparian also got off to a fast start, and is the only viable alternative to a pro-war Democrat in Schiff's 29th Congressional district; a former Mayor of Pasadena, Paparian is well known to local voters in the district.

Indeed, the Schiff campaign has signaled that it is now worried that their candidate is not drawing the support he will need to win a fourth term. Recent fund raising mailings by Schiff claimed (falsely) that Paparian had outspent Schiff. (According to the independent Center for Responsive Politics website, Federal Election Commission campaign records show that Paparian has only spent about 3% of the nearly $700,000 spent by Schiff during this election cycle).

The incumbent also “warned” Democrats of a spoiler effect. But as it happens, neither Paparian nor the 28th District’s De Lear is in a position to act as a spoiler.

In each of the last races in those two districts, Republicans pulled so few votes that if the Democrat total did drop below the Republican number, it would be because the Green challengers had won the contest outright.

This is important to note again: Based on the numbers in the last race, there is no way for a spoiler to change the outcome of the race in either the 28th or 29th District, unless they win everything.

So there is no down side to voting for a candidate that actually stands for the values espoused by a voter – values which may be considerably different from both the Republican and Democrat “business as usual” candidates.

At worst, this presents a scenario where Greens could easily pull double-digits in these two races, which would make national news in and of itself.

But a win for Greens is NOT out of the question at all, especially g iven voters moods and the inability of a Green to spoil.

Most importantly, regular voters have begun to realize -- as a recent Paparian Campaign statement noted -- that choosing the lesser of two evils is still a choice for an “evil,” or at least more of the same luke-warm non-opposition to Bush administration policies.

This year, voters have a real choice for a real change. And they just might exercise it.

IRV, and the 2006 Mesplay Mystery

2006-06-07T06:00:00.000-07:00

History repeats itself in weird ways; the California Green primary for US Senate has a final tally with a winner who received less than 50% of the vote. Sound Familiar?

Green

Todd Chretien 9,964 45.5%
Tian Harter 8,245 37.6%
Kent P. Mesplay 3,724 16.9 %

Fascinating situation. Todd Chretien did not win with a majority, although he clearly has a plurality; he will win the nomination by virtue of having had the most votes, no matter how few that might be. What would the result have been under IRV?

Just 1,719 votes separate the winner and second place; more than twice that many votes went to Kent Mesplay.

Of course, we can never know how IRV would have played out, given that the state lacks a Ranked Choice voting option. But there are some interesting numbers.

The magic point of irreversible-change-of-the-outcome would occur if slightly less than 3/4 of the Mesplay voters had cast an IRV ballot for Tian Harter as a second choice. In that case, there would have been a 51% majority for Harter. (Just 2,722 votes or about 73.1% of the Mesplay vote .)

Now this analysis is simplistic. For example if the second-choice Mesplay votes split a single vote or percentage point the other way, then Chretian would have the 51% majority. Or if all the Mesplay votes went to Harter, then Harter wins with a nearly 55% majority. Or if all of the Mesplay voters put Chretian in the number two spot, the results would have been a 63% majority win versus a 45% plurality for Chretian. And don't get me started on the permutations with No Other Candidate as a choice. The possible other outcomes are, and must remain a mystery.

Still, it would be unsettling to have won an election knowing that 55% of the voters did not vote for you, and that one will never know the ultimate voter preference for a Green nominee for this office.

Note: Under no circumstance am I suggesting a "spoiler" factor; the only spoiler is the candidate who should run but doesn't, or the voter who won't vote. But I am suggesting that this kind of result should redouble Green efforts to support and implement simple Ranked Choice Voting.

By the way, the mystery and the urgency for IRV only deepens when one looks at the state election map. On a county by county basis, Harter carried more counties and real estate then Chretian. The strength of the "conservative" (as in energy conservation) Harter vote was rural counties; the social liberal Chretian played better in the denser populated urban counties.

So, whatever is a voter to do? Push for IRV, starting with local and non-partisan elections! These races seem likely to be helpful in making voters aware of IRV, and stand a chance of displaying it's virtues to voters beyond those already on board.

UPDATE: Comments in response to an earlier (partly garbled) version of this post on the State Party email-list point out that the GPCA is crafting a GP Election Code section which calls for IRV in our primaries as soon as appropriate voting machines are available in California.

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

2006-05-26T08:13:00.000-07:00

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.

Over Coffee / Anti-authoritarian Angst

2006-05-24T09:16:00.000-07:00

There has been a lot frustration in California over an apparent lack of organizational skills sufficient to form an effective Green electoral party. Setting aside that the Greens are a young party, the recent cancelled and re-set Plenary, County Council seats that remain unfilled, state committee slots that are likewise empty all add to the frustration that some feel at trying to build a functioning party.

I am certain that Greens will, as the party matures, have a more effective organization; still there is a very interesting personal blog-bit by Robert Reich, the former Clinton-era Labor Secretary, that may prove comforting to Greens.

Reich's sentiments seemed to me to apply to Greens, too, in some respects, and are something we should keep in mind as we move forward to the next level of political sophistication.

In his blog, Reich asks "What is A Democrat?" Part of his self-exploration includes the following:

I just got off the phone with yet another Democratic politician who complains to me [that] . . . the Dems have no message, no plan, no strategy, no guts. He's right . . . . But they miss the point. The basic problem is there's no Democratic Party. Of course there are the trappings of a party -- conventions, meetings, state operatives, mailing lists, and so on. But compared to the Republican Party, Dems are a bunch of wild weenies in the wilderness.

Gotta say, I like that phrase "wild weenies in the wilderness." But Reich continues:

So here's the question: Why is the Republican Party so well organized -- with messages, plans, strategies, and all the rest? Why are Dems so much the opposite. Answer: It's because Republicans tend to be authoritarian. Authoritarian personalities -- who get off on control, order, and discipline -- naturally gravitate to conservative Republicanism. Democrats tend to be anti-authoritarian. Anti-authoritarian personalities -- who don't like to take orders, who don't care about controlling anything, who are inherently undisciplined -- become liberals, progressives, and Democrats. This asymmetry has haunted American politics for years. The Republican Party is much more conservative than most Americans, but they keep getting voted in because they're more disciplined about politics.

If the so-called mainstream politicos can be described thus, what can we say about a party with decentralization and grass-roots action as one of its key values? Two things, I think:

1. Finding a comfortable place in the continuum from "no centralization at all" to "rigid central control of everything" is not going to be easy.

2. When we do find it -- and we will, because we start with the premise that we want to make it work, not that it is an accidental artifact somehow of being a "freethinker" -- we will have solidly established a new political paradigm.

Can it be done? Yes. But Grass-roots democracy in groups of any size cannot be one-person one-vote, on every issue of government. Efficiency demands representational democracy of some sort.

But there are still ways to get good grass roots input on many many more decisions than most governing bodies currently attempt. One step in the right direction is something fans here lovingly call The Pasadena Way, in the same tone of voice one hears the 10KV mentioned. (It's detractors, who do not understand it, see it as the Pasadena pain; being burdened with busy-body citizens who think everything that happens in local government is their business.)

More will be said later on the Pasadena Way and its relation to the 10KV and Green approaches to governance. . . for now, though, maybe Reich's feisty Democrat screed can help Greens see the value of our 0wn approach, and make good on the lessons the Democrat party provides. Oh yeah, what does Reich think the Dems need to do to make it work? Have a peek:

What's the answer? Progressives can't change their personalities. But they can utilize their anti-authoritarian tendencies to organize at the grass roots, at the community, at the level of individual blogs and emails, through people talking to people and empowering one another. Highly-disciplined Republican machines are bad at doing this grass-roots work.

Sound familiar? Yep. Reich's answer is to be more like the Greens.

Unfortunately, that won't help the Dems if they do it with the same mindset that got them here in the first place: Organising aside, the Democrat message is hollow. It's not that the ideas are missing, its that happy-talk with no on-the-ground progress becomes disenchanting.

Reich's final point is a bit surprising: He claims that if you aren't a Republican then you must be a Democrat.

Well, Bob, not when 60% + of Americans want a viable third party, according to recent polls.

Reich even poo poos third party candidates explicitly, that "draw votes from Democrats." Sheesh. Does anybody have a link to an authoritative source to the effect that only 40% of Green / Nader voters would have voted Dem at all -- thus most explicitly NOT spoiling any election.

Boy, the Democrats are starting to sound more and more like the Republicans: You know, better vote for Democrats -- even ineffectual or right-wing Democrats -- because otherwise evil Republicans will win. Sigh.

Quick Mea Culpa

2006-05-24T09:13:00.000-07:00

I have been quite busy for a few weeks working on a campaign or two, and got involved in some online discussions on the Green cal-forum, and elsewhere, and had expended my Green rants off-blog. Since part of my purpose with this blog is to reach Greens and potential Greens not on Green lists (especially in my new role as County Council member) I am going to try to move my public rants back here.

War-Democrats In Congress May Fall With Unpopular Bush Policies

2006-03-17T10:01:00.000-08:00

The Bush administration’s poll numbers are sinking, a majority of Americans now oppose the Republican lead war, and every day it seems that another Congressional incumbent is in trouble with constituents.

Another Democrat incumbent that is.

In southern California long-time Democrat incumbents Jane Harmon, Howard Berman, and Adam Schiff are being criticized as “Bush Democrats” or "War Democrats" and worse, based on their supportive voting records and luke-warm criticisms of the administration.

Each is facing a Democrat challenger in the primary based largely upon a lack of opposition to the Iraq war and the President’s warrantless wiretapping – issues which current poll numbers suggest may resonate with voters and transcend traditional party lines.

Although each of the incumbents has a substantial war chest already and the challengers do not, the issues are sufficiently emotional that mere money may not be able to sway many disappointed voters to reward the wayward incumbents with another term.

The novelty of so many serious Democratic challengers has garnered more than a little press; some further digging into the incumbents’ voting and contribution records should generate enough information to keep the challengers on the front page.

All three elements taken together suggest that the incumbents are at serious risk of losing their seats – not to the Republican opposition, but to angry elements in their own party.

But even if the incumbents can beat down their Democrat challengers by dint of their vastly greater financial resources, viable challengers will still remain in November.

The Green Party is fielding very strong candidates in many races, including two of the three seats held by the incumbents noted. And when the Democrat challengers are eliminated in the primary by incumbent money, there will be an awful lot of voters unwilling to vote for the remaining right-wing Democrat incumbent -- and who may well turn to a well known Green candidate.

There are at least a few conservatives, too, who disdain the illegal conduct of the Bush administration and are embarrassed by the Republican Party’s capture by extremist elements, who may well find the Green candidate an acceptable alternative. (There are more than a few former-Republicans in the Green party.)

Byron DeLear (G) is running in Berman’s 28th Congressional district; he has begun the campaign for November with a burst of energy that, if sustained, could see a significant challenge to the otherwise long-entrenched Democrat. Recent news coverage bemoaned the fact that Berman, considered the most hawkish of the three, had the weakest Democratic challenger – leaving DeLear the sole option for disgruntled Dems and repulsed Republicans.

Bill Paparian (G) is running in Schiff’s 29th Congressional district; a former Mayor of Pasadena, Paparian is well known to locals, as well as the large Armenian communities in and around Pasadena and Glendale. Because of his track record, Paparian is likely to have significant financial help from the community, and in the general election will be the only other known candidate – and the only serious peace candidate – in the race.

There are a total of nine Democrats being challenged from within their own party in districts all or partially within Los Angeles County. None of the rest of the challengers has emerged as particularly strong.

Greens are running in only two of those races in November, leaving voters with no real choices if the incumbents win in the primary in the remaining districts.

Saving the World In Two Flavors

2006-03-09T08:58:00.000-08:00

W ho knew that saving the world from humanity could be such an internally divisive process?

As result of many conversations I have had with folks of late, I have come to the conclusion that there is a fundamental misunderstanding about the elements of the Green Movement and Green Electoral politics, a misunderstanding engaged in by both groups and which undermines the mission of each.

Communication Gaps, Not Differences, to Blame

So far, no one I have chatted with has identified the communication gap between these two groups as a cause of internal difficulty.

Often folks have identified the existence of differing approaches, but even in the most introspective and even handed of Green party discussions I have yet been party to it is the difference that is blamed for any difficulty.

Let me be clear here: I lay the blame on a lack of good understanding of the approach by each faction, a failure to remember that multiple approaches often succeed where a single "received" doctrine will not, and a sense that the approach of the "others" somehow undercuts ones own approach.

And to that mindset, I say "Phooey!"

Governance v. Movement Building

Governing (and thus the electoral process) is fundamentally different than supporting and living a movement. If it is the existence of differences alone that is the issue, than the world and the Green Party are done for and we might as well pack it in right now.

Governance means that one is the government for ALL the people, members of your party or movement or not. It is neither reasonable nor fair to engage in governing from an all or nothing "movement" perspective.

It is reasonable to take such purist positions to advance a movement, if one wants to do so.

(I tend to think that the best approach is to be as pure as one can, but bring others in to movement through a friendly bowl of Stone Soup combined with the Aikido effect . . . the later is the idea that one should step into and embrace an attack, use the energy of the attack to dissipate any harm, and demonstrate ones moral superiority by standing serenely upon the attacker's chest. Stone Soup is a children's story I recommend. But my approach to movement building obviously makes me more comfortable with governance.)

The problem is that both the incremental approach to changing the world and Aikido politics are required of someone that is in a governing position or who aspires to be in one.

Governance Requires Right Compromise

Not only do Greens require votes from green-minded voters in all the other parties in order to govern, even a party with 50% + registration has to take into account the opposition -- or risk so angering a significant group and some fence sitters that the backlash will be terrible to behold.

The problem seems to me to arise when those interested in governing engage in the necessary governing mode and are accused of selling out, of compromising principals for power, or worse. But the reality is, other than in a totalitarian dictatorship, compromise and incrementalism are the only way one can govern effectively.

On the other hand, the problem also seems to me to arise when Movement folk are dismissed as doctrinaire, academic, unrealistic, or simply obstructionist. Although in a political setting the Movement approach can be all of these things, the Movement level work is necessary and beneficial to the electoral approach.

The confusion arises with the word Party: for me, and for most Americans, I dare say, "party" means "electoral political party." Long before I registered Green I considered myself a dedicated small-g green. I got there in part by work that Movement oriented activists did before me, pushing the purist form of what it is to be green.

Compromise Can Lead to Sell-Out Power Grabs

If you find you are a Movement person, then I would suggest that you not engage in formal electoral politics, except as a volunteer for a campaign you find you can agree with fully. You will be happier, not because the system is corrupt or selling out or at odds with your beliefs, but because the nature of governing non-Greens means constant compromise and small, incremental changes.

If you are an Electoral person, it is important to be clear on the difference between compromise due to governance requirements and the need to bring diverse constituents along gently -- and the degree of compromise that is sellout designed to grab personal power over good public policy. It creeps up on the best and most altruistic.

In the end, like most organic processes, both the Movement approach and the electoral approach are part of a cohesive whole, and can and should work synergistically to advance the Green and green causes.

And maybe actually save the world in the process.

Corporate Bashing II

2006-02-27T10:10:00.000-08:00

Corporate bashing for sport just isn't Green. (See my previous post, A New Approach to Corporate Bashing ) But it is pretty irrefutable that the corporate structure is at the root of much -- but not all -- that is wrong and unwholesome about doing business in America.

I take it -- and I hope you will too -- as an unwritten part of the 10 Key Values that complaint without being part of the solution, or at least proposing and enabling solutions, isn't enough.

Grassroots democracy means that the grassroots not only gripe about what doesn't work, but help create a structure or institution or rule that does. What can we, a few simple Green grass-rootlets, do about a corporate world run amok?

First, A Reminder: The Two Big Rules of Corporate Behavior, Oversimplified

1. Limited Liability

Corporate shareholders, officers and employees have limited liability for the debts and bad acts of their corporations.

2. Profit for the Shareholders is The Only Legitimate Business

As protection for minority shareholders, one of the corporate rules that has evolved is that corporate managers and majority shareholders must, in essence, pursue only profitable activities. That is, a corporation simply may not do something because it would be nice to do it, or to benefit the majority over the minority.

This way, a majority shareholder couldn't control a company to, say, buy raw materials from another company also owned by the majority shareholder, and pay stupidly high prices for raw materials; or buy a house for the majority shareholder's uncle Larry -- all with the minority shareholder's money.

Now wait! you say, corporations give money to charity all the time! Yes they do: Giving to charity or doing a very public good turn is justified as good public relations, and as a one of many ways to increase corporate "good will" and thus sales and cash profits. Without that justification, good corporate deeds are essentially illegal.

The problem is, now some minority shareholders would rather sacrifice some company profit in order to make money without destroying the ecosystem.

Or if some shareholders think it would be good to earn enough to make a modest living themselves, while providing a good non-exploitative living for their employees too, a minority of greedy shareholders could sue to block such a plan. Bottom line: Unless a profit case can be made for that practice, it can't be imposed by the company.

The Practical Effect of Still Further Oversimplification

The over simplification of these two concepts in practice within corporate America leads to a pretty bleak place: Corporations exist to make profit only and every activity must exist to secure more profit. Although some "good" acts are done, they must have a positive impact on profits, making corporations seem cynical and crass.

Make a product that kills 200 people a year? Sure, if company losses due to those deaths out-value (in cash costs, not mere humanity) the profit to be made from the product.

But isn't that murder, to knowingly kill 200 people? Not necessarily. Remember Rule 2: Individual shareholders and managers are not responsible for corporate bad acts, for the most part. (This has started to change, actually, but please bear with the oversimplification. )

So: Making a product that kills 200 people is profitable, and killing people will not have personal consequences for the actors, and only minor financial consequences for the company -- so a dangerous product gets made.

Now it is not quite that simple in practice; there are many rules that restrict specific situations where, say 200 product units out of 200 killed people. And we have some health and safety regulations that must be met. But consider cigarettes: A legal product, used correctly, cigarettes kill more than a few folks, yet somehow no one goes to jail.

One More Oversimplification: An Accounting Principle

Money, goods, services have book value; a better world does not.

If destroying a forest to get the timber does not have direct economic costs to the company, then it does not need to be accounted for on the company books.

Now see oversimplifications 1 and 2, above: Non-responsibility and the profit requirement essentially demand that as many costs as can be shifted should be shifted off the books and on to the public.

Farming trees costs money and reduces shareholder profit; all the inputs get paid for in cash, on the books. Logging in old growth forests costs less; no ongoing tree-farming costs, and the government conveniently allows timber cutting leases at rates that usually assure that loggers make a profit -- again without accounting for the environmental, secondary effects of the choices. As a profit-required company, where spending shareholder equity on a personal moral choice can get you sued, which should you do? Go with the most profitable, of course.

Similarly, health care costs due to tobacco related diseases do not fall to the producers of tobacco, so they are not accounted for by the company. (This was, in part, the strategy of suing tobacco producers for user deaths -- convert the deaths into understandable language.)

On a less highly-charged front, the cost of disposing of wasteful or environmentally unsound products or packaging are likewise passed on to the society at large. The company doesn't have to find landfill space, or account for the environmental damage of using so many resources in one-use packaging.

What's A Green To Do? Change the Rules!

These three modern elements seem to me to account for a significant portion of all the corporate bad acts in the world. (The final factor is simple greed, but without these enabling rules greed would have less easy and ugly negative consequences.)

There are a number of proposals floating around to change the rules on just these points; and since most corporate rules are set by states, not the feds, it is entirely feasible to jigger a state's corporations code to create a new creature: The Ethical Corporation.

Delaware did it long ago: For decades it has been known as a state with rules friendly to corporate majorities, and thousands upon thousands of "Delaware Corporations" exist that have never been to Delaware other than as a mail drop at a service bureau or law firm.

One last caveat, though. The new ethical-corporation would have to be voluntary at first.

Ecorp: The "Fair Trade" of Corporate Structure

The howls over a sudden shift to a mandatory ethical corporate structure would be so shrill, so panicked -- so desperate -- that the idea would likely die aborning. And one can set aside any cynical ideas over the emptiness of corporate souls. All persons resist fundamental change to some degree, and if the change suggests that one has been morally bankrupt in a lifetime of business activity, the natural resistance to change will be even greater.

And so we might create an additional, purely voluntary, class of corporation, the e-corp or Ethical Corporation. There could even be two forms of e-corp, those allowed to be Ethical Corporations, all or some of the time, and those required to follow a transparent e-corp structure.

As people realized that they could buy products from certified ethical corporate actors, or invest in such companies, the market could easily begin to correct the unfortunate trend line of two centuries of corporate behavior.

Do I have the detailed proposal? No. Perhaps you have some ideas and can email or comment. Being part of a workable solution, even a first step solution like the Permissive Ethical Corporation, is far more helpful than breast beating and teeth gnashing over "corporate evil."

Music to Be Green By

2006-02-25T21:42:00.000-08:00

Before moving on to solve the world's problems with corporations, this musical break.

I found a pretty cool website some time ago called One Good Move that has clips of independent musicians (and a couple of biggies) that have recorded anti-war, anti-Bush and other inspirational songs. Every single genre is there, from a little vaudeville-esque ditty called "They Lied" (which compares Bush to Captain Kirk battling Klingons) to a pretty thrash piece called "Body Bags." There is serious folk, excellent parody, rap, ska, celtic rock, and more.

I put my favorites together on a cd, which I call War No More. I keep giving it to friends, who seem to like it. Here are the links for your own CD. You can play them one at a time here, or right click and choose "save target" to assemble them on your own PC and burn a CD.

The first song in the list, "Resist War," is a balm for anyone troubled by where we have gone on our military adventures in Iraq.

Note: Many of the links at One Good Move are broken. Nevertheless, most of the several hundred songs are still out there. Unfortunately, even when I have found a link, it can move around, so try googling the title if a link is broken. Many take a long time to load, even at DSL speeds.

Resist War, by Chris Brown and Kate Fenner (artist's website here) See also www.resistwar.com for more information.
What Have You Done, Heather Lev
Jacobs Ladder (Not in My Name), Chumbawumba
One by One, Laura Martin -- A really great, inspirational song, but all the links I can find are broken. Anyone?)
Back it Up, James Blondell (A pre-war protest, perhaps applicable soon again-- and a good song.)
Dancing with Armageddon, Brendan McCloud
They Lied, Jay Mantika (Very Funny; Is this Your Mom?)
Body Bags, Blowback
We Don't Want Your War, Jynkz.
The Bell, Steven Smith & Pete Seeger
Kick Out the Republicans, (preview only) Donny Daly (2004 Wishful thinking, but a fascinating song. Could they do an update for '08?? Worth the 99 cents for the whole song frankly, here.)
Another War, The Compassionate Conservatives (Funny Parody).
Imagine, Sung by "W" (really), RX. (Other definitely NOT G-rated or work friendly songs here too. "Dick is A Killer" is pretty wild, but definitely use headphones.

A New Approach to Corporate Bashing

2006-02-15T18:32:00.000-08:00

Yes indeed; sometimes we lose track of the really Green ideas. Sometimes I run into what I call an "of course" issue that strikes me as off course. Somewhere a Green idea became just another rant from the left.

Of Course, Off Course

What's an of "of course" issue? That's an issue where one assumes that any Green agrees with a certain approach to a problem. Pollution free sustainable energy as government policy? Of course! Improve the lives of rich and poor alike by offering universal health care? Of course! Be easy in our own consumption of resources? Of course! You get the idea.

One "of course" issue that has struck me more and more as wandering into wrongheaded territory is the nearly reflexive corporation bashing by many Greens and most progressives. This product is made by a large corporation? The product is tainted! Corporations must be bashed! Evil greedy corporations! Get rid of them all! Of course!

Whooops. Not so fast. Somehow this "of course" moment got shortcut-ed from the nuanced issue it should be into a generalized bash, inevitably beginning with the rant that "of course, all corporate entities are evil . . . ."

Green ≠Anti-Corporate

Corporations are not per se bad. They're just a collection of people doing business under a group name. People have been doing that for a very long time, and nothing about doing business mandates poor community citizenship or moral corruption.

But the legal structure surrounding corporations both requires and permits them to do what are essentially evil things without personal responsibility for the individuals doing the bad acts, and remove any need to look beyond beyond short-term profit, and foolishly selfish motives.

Market Forces Short Term Solution

Protest and education are aimed at creating market forces that will shoo corporate businesses into greener and more responsible practices in search of profit.

Various boycotts and the Fair Trade movement rely on this aspect of corporate behavior.

And yet there is an obvious disconnect and an element of futility in such an approach -- a truly sustainable business model cannot arise from a profit-only based corporate structure.

So, while it is probably effective to create market forces to drive companies to greener profit pastures for the short term, what is needed for long-term, systemic change is an overhaul of the corporate enabling rules.

Note well that it is not necessary to do away with the corporate structure altogether. Just change it to require accounting of hidden costs currently passed on to the community, to allow and even encourage socially responsible conduct, and create a mechanism for individual actor responsibility for bad acts.

That's a Green solution.

COMING UP:
The Ethical Corporation: A Sustainable Profit Model

Left, Right, and Green

2006-02-15T15:58:00.000-08:00

Greens and non-Greens alike tend to call the party "left" or liberal. I wonder why?

Progressive I'll accept, but the real, true, clean Green is neither left nor right, neither Red State nor Blue -- do I have to say it? -- just Green.

Greens are progressive in looking for a change, regressive in looking to re-localize commerce, re-root democracy and invigorate communities; conservative in striving to consume less, save resources and the planet, but liberal in our breadth of interests and acceptance of differences; Greens are officially moderate in their tone of voice. (What other group has a "vibes watcher" as a formal office at meetings?).

Green is not the new pink, and neo-socialists looking for a home are in the wrong place; likewise Green is not enviro-fascism saving the pretty planet while ignoring the plight of the ordinary people who live here.

Green is something else; it is a blend of ALL of these things, and none of them. It's something new. Something Green.

Sometimes we lose track of that.

What have we here?

2006-02-08T11:14:00.000-08:00

It's been a while since I registered as a Green, and longer still since I realized the Green Party platform best represented my vision of the best future for America and the world.

And while I do not agree with every Green Party member, nor would I vote for any candidate just because they run on a Green Party ballot line, to the degree that I want to put my support behind a set of political goals and values, the Green party best expresses it.

In that respect, the Ten Key Values are the core of what I understand the Green Party to be all about.

This blog is intended as a place for me to explore Green Party values and politics (along with issues of interest to this One SoCal Green in non-partisan political races) and engage in dialogue with folks interested in the topics at hand.

I do not promise to update at any regular interval, so if you are interested, be sure to subscribe (when the feed is up) so you don't have to click over and be disappointed if it has been silent here for a time.

This blog is a separate work from Easy Green, my little screed on green (small g) things that average folks of all parties, and not-particularly tree-huggerish bent, can do to improve their lives and ours. And it is not directly related to my participation in the Starbucks Challenge, which is segregated in its own blog, SBX, Fairtrade & Me. And finally, this space is separate from my personal Observations blog, which is mostly a personal diary of stuff in the backyard.
You won't want to read all four blogs; they are for different facets of my life and different audiences. But if you are interested in the thoughts of just One SoCal Green, you are welcome here.

I am, as the title indicates, in southern California, and specifically the City of Pasadena. In that respect, the oft-repeated saying that "all-politics is local" applies, and some issues will be just flat Pasadena-related, some regional, some national, some global. But all from this one local perspective. Stay tuned.