/feedback
-reader mail

* Much Ado About the Greens *

Francis,
A good friend of mine Neil Schlick turned me on to your website. I've given it a thorough run-down and I give it the entirely meaningless and little celebrated Townsend Stamp of Approval, congratulations.
I'll start by saying that I share many points of view with Neil on many issues with the exception of aligning myself with the Libertarians. The ideals merit some consideration but the logic of the actual party reminds one more a Lonny Tunes episode rather than a serious political body. I would have to say I am more of a Green Party member than anything and fully support Neil in his battle of wits with the Little Dapper Stevie. I think that if there is single event that would mark the beginning of the break up of the two-party-monopoly-companies-using-politicians-as-their-bitches system it would be government funding for the Green Party and a national respect for its principals.
Unfortunately, as I'm sure many before me have stated, my party is sadly misled. They let the ultimate prize of the presidency distract them from what would be a more obtainable goal. They should concentrate their efforts in a particularly liberal state, or a number of different states. With several stable governors and senators, more status would be obtained, and then a shot at the national funding that come with a well supported presidential candidate will follow. Interestingly enough, the Libertarians have a plan to move 20,000 people to a small state and elect officials of their party thus creating a sort of haven for their kind. All they lack at this point is a state (they've suggested either Vermont or Wyoming) and the numbers (they're having trouble finding willing people who aren't institutionalized). This is the part of the email were I usually write, "But I digress," unfortunately I don't have much of a point to digress from, so I continue.
This all relates to the major problems with the Green Party (and all other parties of a similar nature) is its invisibility during non-election years. If they commented on the issues, did counter-addresses when Bush decided give a go at pronouncing "peninsula," or found some other way into the spotlight on a regular basis then they wouldn't be so dismissible come the fifth of November. Of course the problems come when an opinionated body starts expressing itself in a popular forum and pissing off the corporations that pay for those forums. This in turns begs the question of whether or not a new party can break through without becoming like our two most popular parties are now.
The only solution I can propose, as stated earlier, would be to sneak in through the back door, then become too big to brush aside. So that, even though the news may try to spin it unfavorably, you at least have a hemp-free guy in a suit speaking for you on a regular basis. This jumping at the percentage needed to get government funding every four years like a child jumping at a cookie jar that is just out of reach is ridiculous. They need to work their way up in steps. If they are trying to build their way up, they're doing poorly. On the November 15th elections in 2002, just one person was elected to a position beyond the city/county level. The rest are spread out throughout the country and are mostly school board victories or environmental positions. Something should be done, and mine is not the area to start.
So I suppose, Francis, I did have a point after all; be it preachy and a bit vague. I'm just trying to get into your conciseness by going off on some random point. I'm eager to here your thoughts on this as is Green Party reform is an issue I put a considerable emotional stock in. Be as open and judgmental as you like and maybe I'll have an intended point next time I write you.
Your Friend of a Friend,
Ben Townsend

Ben,

As far as the Libertarian party goes, I think many have had a good laugh at their expense—whilst I agree with the socially liberal views that they endorse, such as the legalization of drugs, I find their vision of an unregulated capitalism to be dangerously far-fetched and pretty much harmful in basic principle. It is funny that you refer to the party as “one more Loony Tunes episode”; in fact, Noam Chomsky, a man who’s viewpoints I very much respect, refers to the party similarly as “an aberration… nobody really takes it seriously. I mean, everybody knows that a society that worked by American libertarian principles would self-destruct in three seconds.”

Now, the Green party, I have a few quarrels with them as well. Though I have a good deal of respect for many of the party’s goals, such as the protection of the environment and further encouragement for renewable energy resources, I find that the party can often be uncompromising and furiously dogmatic to the point of idiocy. For example, their fervent, unequivocal opposition to genetic engineering is based more on misguided paranoia than it is on scientific fact. This kind of dogmatic anti-progress mentality is precisely the part of the Green Party platform that I firmly disagree with. Protecting the environment is important, perhaps even crucial to the survival of the human species, but halting scientific progress that has the potential to save millions of starving people based on a dogmatic adherence to that which is “natural” seems to me like a blind and dangerous move.

It is interesting that you write to me about the Green Party now, as I’m currently reading a book which parodies the party, suggesting an alternate universe in which a similar party wins the Presidency in a parallel United States. The book, The Schrodinger’s Cat Trilogy, by Robert Anton Wilson, refers to the new leadership as the “Revolution of Lowered Expectations,” and describes its opposition to all scientific progress, also known as the “Revolution of Rising Expectations.” The two are juxtaposed to illustrate a very valid satirical point—namely, that abandoning scientific progress to “lowered” rather than “highered” expectations—based on the advancement of science—may lead humanity toward poverty, despair, and near-feudalism.

“The New Order began mildly… and the major changes of the administration consisted only of cutting the NASA budget to zilch; banning McDonald’s hamburger shops (which resulted in underground “Steakeasies,” where you gave the right password and got a Big Mac for $7)… forbidding the teaching of Logical Positivism in colleges; throwing everybody off welfare (the streets were soon full of crippled and schizophrenic beggars, some of whom also slept there or even starved there on occasion, creating that Third World look which PEP [People’s Ecology Party] regulars regarded as “spiritual”); cutting the use of electricity by 50 percent, gas by 70 percent, and atomic energy by 97 percent, thereby causing millions to freeze to death and millions more to join the army of unemployed beggars on the streets…”

Whilst you and I both realize that this is simply a satire on the extreme end of environmentalism, it is a valid criticism nonetheless. In my experience, the Green Party has been rather insistently blind in their dogmatism, to the point that I doubt I could ever personally identify with the party, though, like with the Libertarians, I agree with some but not all of their views.

I agree that the Green Party, like many third parties, is somewhat sadly mislead, though perhaps not as mislead as the Libertarians. They don’t quite seem to grasp the lesson of the Mormons, who failed to secure any more respect than their kind previously enjoyed when they completely took over Salt Lake City. Your point about breaking through the two-party barrier and into the mass media spotlight is a very valid one, and unfortunately, I see no easy remedy. Of course, purist that I am, I tend toward encouraging more popular support by expanding the party into a movement, but the feasibility of such a mass people’s movement is questionable at a time when the two-party monopoly has a stranglehold and even strongly opinionated Democrats such as Dennis Kucinich are commonly written off as “nutjobs.” Personally, I feel that by attempting to expand support in various local districts, thereby concentrating the efforts of the party’s devotees and campaign workers, the Green Party and other third parties may be able to attain a higher level of respect throughout the country by securing seats as Reps and perhaps eventually, even Senators. Just think, if there had been a few influential Green Party members in the House and Senate when Bush launched his campaign against Iraq, they may have discovered a newfound respect from many mainstream antiwar Democrats and Republicans when they spoke out against the war.

Despite all of this, the one crucial thing that the Green Party does not lack seems to be determination. By intelligently concentrating their efforts, perhaps in the way that you suggest, eventually they might break through the two-party monopoly and bring one more welcome voice to our waning democracy.

Cheers, Francis.