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

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

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.

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

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?