Left...Out

Trey Smith

Memo to Republicans: you don’t have a monopoly on hating President Obama.

I dislike America’s two-party system for a lot of reasons. Mostly because the duopoly is undemocratic: no two political parties can represent the diversity of opinions held by a nation’s voters. We’d need dozens of parties to approximate adequate representative government. Another reason, one that deserves attention, is that it reduces political dialogue to binary imbecility.

Democrat or Republican. Liberal or conservative. If you’re not one, you must be the other. If you don’t vote, people — apparently rational, functional people who manage to drive their cars without ramming them into walls — tell you with a straight face that your non-vote is a de facto vote for the candidate you would have voted against (had you voted). Because you’re not allowed to hate both. Because, in under our idiotic one-or-the-other political system, even if you hate both parties, you’re supposed to hate one party more than the other.

Which is why, for the last four years, Obama-hating has belonged to the racist right.

In the real world, of course, lots of lefties can’t stand the president. In the mainstream corporate media narrative epitomized by MSNBC on the “left” and Fox News on the “right,” however, left=liberal=Democrat and right=conservative=Republican. They say it so often and we hear it so much that many of us think it’s true.

In the real world, away from the barking dogs of cable television news, lots of Americans would vote for a party other than the Ds or the Rs. A 2012 poll found that 46% of Americans would support a third party if it were viable.
~ from Lefties Against Obama: Think the President Is Socialist? We Wish! by Ted Rall ~

Even a casual reader of this blog knows that I am one of those lefties who loathes the Obama administration, so I'm not going to bark up that tree in this post (though I should mention that Rall provides a good laundry list of why -- use the link to read his handy list). My beef is with the 46% of Americans that Rall references above.

This is the great caveat we so often find when people are asked about supporting an alternative to the two-headed corporate party: viability. Most of this 46% are disinterested in doing ANY of the work to help a non-corporate political party BECOME viable. They just want it to fall into their laps and then, m-a-y-b-e, they will throw their support in that direction.

It is because so many Americans are unwilling to put in the necessary time and effort that viability currently is an impossibility. The only way a true grassroots party on the left is going to rise is through the commitment of tens of thousands of dedicated individuals. It would take a yeoman's effort with very little institutional backing and, in relative terms, very little money. It would mean going door-to-door for months on end, tabling at events and putting constant pressure on local and national media.

Therein lies the problem. By and large, when it comes to politics and civic involvement, Americans are a lazy lot. Sure, Americans come together during crises and emergencies, but that's because they tend to be short-lived. Ask them to commit to regular weekly involvement and most of them will look at you like your hair is on fire!

Think I'm being harsh? If so, I have an assignment for you. If you are involved in a group or organization -- if you aren't, then you are proving my point -- compare the number of members with the number of people who actually do almost all of the work. With most groups, the memberships rolls are littered with names, but the people who do the vast majority of the work can be counted on one or two hands! The rest of the folks might attend a meeting here or there, contribute small amounts of money or, the largest group, simply are paper members -- they put their names on the dotted line, but never lift a finger to further any of the organization's objectives.

When I was one of the state leaders of Oregon's Green Party, we had over 10,000 registered members and less than 1% were ever involved in our numerous activities or political campaigns in ANY meaningful way. Each county party survived because of a mere handful of dedicated activists (me being one) who shouldered 80, 90 or 100% of the work...80, 90 to 100% of the time!

It was very disillusioning to hear people say, "If you get something set up, I'll be there" and not realize the tremendous amount of time and effort it took to set things up! Even worse, when the few of us managed to set things up with no help, three-fourths of the people who swore they would be there...didn't even bother to show up. When I would run into them later, the common refrain was "Sorry, I was busy. Besides, I'm sure others made up for my absence."

This is WHY I say that viability is a current impossibility [for the left] in today's America. Too many people want others to do all the heavy lifting.

From Red to Green

Trey Smith

With less than transparency, the AFL-CIO just issued a statement endorsing “expanding the nation’s pipeline system.” Although it did not explicitly endorse the Keystone XL pipeline, the labor federation nevertheless managed to extend its blessing to the project while hiding behind vague generalities. However, the logic of its position is unambiguous: the federation is in favor of extending pipelines in general and without qualification; the Keystone XL is a pipeline. Therefore logic compels us to infer that the federation supports the extension of the Keystone XL pipeline.

The duplicity of the gesture is entirely intentional. The building trades unions have embraced the pipeline and have lobbied the AFL-CIO to do the same. However, the AFL-CIO would prefer not to alienate its environmental allies, who strongly oppose the pipeline. For this reason the federation refrains from mentioning the Keystone XL by name. But its vague generality is just enough cover to provide President Obama with an excuse to support the pipeline, which his administration’s State Department has already secretly embraced. Obama can now point to disunity among his liberal supporters as a justification for ignoring them. He can do exactly what the corporations want while pretending to be unable to satisfy the conflicting and inconsistent demands of the liberal left. The AFL-CIO hides behind language, and Obama hides behind the AFL-CIO.
~ from AFL-CIO’s Own Oil Disaster by Ann Robertson and Bill Leumer ~

In a nutshell, the above snippet exemplifies why I changed my political affiliation from red to green. Though I continue to agree with many socialist concepts and policies, I more fully endorse the green vision for the world.

From my perspective, one of the big bugaboos with viewing the world from a strictly economic perspective has been born out again and again by organized labor. When jobs are dangled before their eyes, any other concerns are swept aside. So what if the Keystone Pipeline might mean grave environmental danger? That danger might create more union jobs too!

This narrow focus on jobs and economics has served as a continual barrier between the labor and environmental movements. Greens tend to be suspicious of labor types because there have been many instances when labor lines up with the greens only to abandon them because a few economic tidbits are thrown their way. The politicians who offer these tidbits often don't deliver the goods, but they understand that the offer itself is enough to cause labor to switch sides!

And it is not that greens don't understand economic ramifications either. The difference is that labor -- like the corporate world itself -- focuses almost exclusively on short-term benefits -- the number of jobs available today. They ignore the long-term implications like the overall costs of certain projects to society and the planet as a whole. 

Yes, supporting a new project like the Keystone Pipeline will mean more jobs for the members of the AFL-CIO, but at what costs to everyone else? That's a question they refuse to entertain!

Red, Green and the Colors In Between

Trey Smith

“The left.” Since the French revolution, we don’t seem to be able to come up with a better term for that ill sorted group of malcontents, which numbers among its members dictators and democrats, torturers and tortured, Stalin, Gandhi, Mao, Martin Luther King, Pol Pot, and Emma Goldman. If “the left” is more than a Granfalloon — Kurt Vonnegut name for”a proud and meaningless association of human beings” — it has to share a common project. What could that be? Perhaps: “From each according to his [or her] ability, to each according to his [or her] need,”

You can’t be on the left and be for the 1% and against the 99%. You can be on the left without being an environmentalist. And vice versa. The left has always been concerned with history — the relations of people to each other. Nature has been in the background. The left has been an urban phenomenon. If historically the left has a position regarding nature, it is that nature is to be exploited for the benefit of the masses. Isaac Deutscher as an aside in his majestic three volume biography of Trotsky sums up the project of the left as “increasing man’s power over nature and abolishing man’s power over man.” If the goal of the left is to lift the burden of necessity on humanity and enlarge the realm of freedom, those two goals are linked and inseparable. And there lies the problem posed by the escalating climate crisis. Nature, history’s beast of burden, threatens to collapse under the load we have placed upon her, complicating and perhaps fatally compromising the great task of those who struggle for a better world awaiting.
~ from Apocalypse and the Left by Osha Neumann ~

Neumann makes a great point. By and large, only the Greens have understood and embraced the fight against climate change. I say this as someone who was involved in both the Socialist Party and the Green Party.

When I was involved with the reds, the environment was a backseat issue. Sure, we recognized that environmental issues impacted the salient economic ones, but our focus was almost predominantly on the latter, not the former. We reasoned that, if the important economic relationships could be transformed, this would have positive impact on the physical world.

The Greens come at it from the opposite direction. They contend that dealing with the environmental mess modern society has produced concurrently will change economic relationships. If only the modern industrial world would embrace sustainable practices, policies and regulations, then the economic sphere will have to change alongside.

The primary reason I switched from wearing red to wearing green is that, in time, I found the latter point of view more persuasive. And so, I became what many call a watermelon: green on the outside and red on the inside.

These days I am no longer formally aligned with either the reds or the Greens, but I still believe both perspectives have much to offer. In my view, both are far superior to what the mainstream political parties dispense.

Why Don't We Get It?

For slightly more than 15 years, I was involved deeply with alternative political parties: the Socialist Party, 1993-98, and the Green Party, 1998-2009. Throughout this period, no matter how tirelessly I and my mates worked to bring to America a vision of environmental and economic justice, we gained little to no traction.

When we nominated candidates for federal, state, county or local office, these fine folks had almost no chance of winning their races, let only even impacting those races. Most of the time, we were lucky if any candidate polled higher than five percent.

There are a multitude of reasons WHY political parties that aren't the two-headed monster -- particularly those left-of-center -- can't seem to crack into the political discussion. It would take many posts to scratch the surface. One explanation, however, is really galling: When it comes to the issue of environmental degradation, far too many Americans simply don't get it!!

While generic polls conducted in this nation consistently indicate that the majority of voters rank the environment as a crucial issue, they certainly don't vote that way. Year after year voters elect candidates who enact legislation that further degrades our fragile ecosystems. When faced with a decision of short-term profit versus environmental destruction/long-term costs, our elected leaders continually vote for the former. Short-term profit trumps everything else!

While American voters can't seem to muster the will actively to support candidates who support the environmental as well as the health and safety of their own citizens, voters in other parts of the world don't share this same reticence. Australia, New Zealand and several European nations have elected many Greens and even some Reds to serve as their representatives in national, regional and local government.

For example, in Germany, the party of the current Merkel government appears "set to lose power in a major regional stronghold on Sunday after early results suggested the anti-nuclear Greens were surging to their first ever state premiership." The Greens and Social Democrats also wrested control away from the conservatives in two other states.

In the aftermath of the nuclear catastrophe in Japan, many countries and their voters are taking a more critical look at the whole issue of nuclear power. Many people have come to the conclusion that nuclear energy simply isn't worth the risks involved. In the US, unfortunately, this issue barely causes a ripple on the periphery of mainstream political discourse primarily because there are no left-leaning political parties with enough muscle to push this issue to the forefront.

And, if you think that maybe America might develop a stronger political will in this overall area, a recent study doesn't bode well for the prospect. While over 80% of our neighbors to the north (Canada, for those of you at home keeping score) acknowledge that climate change is real and predominantly human-caused, only 50-60% of Americans agree. If we can't get more Americans to face this simple truth, what chances do we have of convincing them that nuclear power isn't the panacea that nuclear energy apologists say it is?

Hum, Hum, Humming Along

I'm sitting in front of my TV earlier this week and one commercial catches my eye. The voice over tells us of heroic citizens risking their own necks to help others during "natural disasters", specifically Hurricane Katrina. Faded headlines of calamity fill the screen and then we view damaging winds and rising flood waters.

And who are these private citizens? Owners of Hummers!

The underlying message is crystal clear -- "Own a Hummer and you can drive through most any of the ever-increasing climatic events".

There's just one itsy bitsy problem with this faux altruistic theme: Hummers (and all other gas guzzling monstrosities) are helping to create climate change!

It's our John Wayne attitude of rugged individualism and our "Come hell or high water" mentality regarding our pollutant-spewing transportation culture that is leading us down the road toward planetary ruin. In reality, Hummers are NOT part of the solution; they're part of the problem!

It's a problem that won't get much play with any of the front running Republicratic presidential candidates. And this sad fact, more than any other, is why we each need to work hard this coming year to support a strong Green presidential ticket. We need to get this topic front and center on the national political radar screen.

If not, future generations will look back in time to lament the shortsightedness of the current generation -- the one that destroyed their chance for survival. Do we really want THAT as our legacy?

Iceberg, Dead Ahead!

I'm something of a Titanic buff. I've read numerous books and watched several documentaries that tell of the tragedy that befell this mighty ship in the early days of the twentieth century. The chief cause of the Titanic's sinking is that, despite several reports of 'bergs directly in its path, Captain Smith ordered the ship to move ahead at full speed. Of course, when the lookouts spotted the huge iceberg straight in front of them, the ship was moving too fast to port around it completely and thus scraped one side. The "unsinkable" vessel was doomed on its maiden voyage.

Over 1,200 souls lost their lives that fateful April night.

I am certainly not the first person to see the parallels between the Titanic tragedy and the trajectory of current human society. We seem to be moving full steam toward some type of cataclysmic calamity. Recent reports by the world's scientific community warns humanity that global warming is both real and a lot worse than many originally thought. Yet, despite the fact that we're being forcefully told that there are humongous icebergs in our path, the Bush administration and many of our fellow citizens are pushing us at a madcap pace toward the abyss.

What can we do to try to avert this impending tragedy? The answer is both personal and collective.

On a personal level, we each need to change the ways we live. We need to drive less, refrain from using toxic substances, recycle/reuse habitually and give more thoughtful consideration to how we utilize the earth's finite resources to ensure that future generations HAVE a future.

On a collective level, we need to return to promoting the environmental message. It's interesting to me how the Green Party has morphed into a progressive voice that, too often, neglects promoting protection of our little orb. This party was founded on the concepts of ecological stewardship and sustainability, yet these days we seem to be organizing around every issue BUT the environment. Greens seem to be hard at work protesting the war in Iraq, calling for impeachment of the president, advocating for instant voter runoff and campaign finance reform, and helping to defeat draconian right wing ballot initiatives.

I'm not suggesting that any of the above issues is unimportant -- each one is! But we seem to be trying to separate ourselves so much from the image of tree-hugging hippie activists that we've left the issue of saving our planet in the dust. In the final analysis, if civilization renders our planet uninhabitable, then what will it matter if there are no wars or better voting systems?

Green 4 Green

In many ways, I'm really glad to see more and more people thinking g-r-e-e-n. Consumers are starting to pay better attention to what goes into a product, how far it must travel to reach us and the cost to our land, air and water to produce it. Such things bode well for the future of our planet.

Unfortunately, there's still one pervasive problem that intersects mightily with the so-called Green Revolution -- it takes a lot of green to be green. It's far easier to live an environmentally-friendly life if your bank account (not to mention other forms of financial wealth) has five or more numbers to the left of the decimal point. If you're one of the billions of people on this planet who struggle to get by month-to-month, you don't have the luxury to decide which product is the most green -- you go with what is the least expensive!

For my family, this is not some esoteric discussion -- We're proud members of the working poor! We would love to buy only organic and non-GMO foods, but the price of these items, too often, simply is beyond our means. While my wife & I REFUSE to shop at Walmart on philosophical grounds, I can readily understand why most of my neighbors do shop there. And we'd love to drive one of those shiny new hybrids, but...well, let's get real!

The best environmental choices -- replete with a variety of snazzy tax incentives -- were not developed for people like us. While I would bet that we're more environmentally-motivated than the average family, our current Green Revolution is driven by the same time-honored system that created throwaway plastic bottles, the Hummer and George W. Bush -- capitalism. And all that capitalists care about is maximizing short-term profits.

Enter the Green Party. What began as a political movement focused squarely on the environment has now blossomed into a political force that views the environment, economics and social justice as different sides of the same coin. We realize that, in order for our society to move toward a sustainable utilization of finite resources, we must alter the way society views all three of these interconnected variables. In other words, to reach our goals, all three must be altered simultaneously.

It's a gigantic task, but one that is needed now more than ever, both for the survival of our planet and the myriad beings that call it home.

The Churchless Hits the Target

Over at Church of the Churchless, Brian has penned a great post, Eliminate the Middleman Between You and God. He discusses a concept you'll often often find here: The separation of beings inherent in religious belief.

My biggest problem with the God-human mediator business is this: the whole notion is founded on duality—separation. Jesus is considered to be the mediator between two estranged partiess, God and humankind. Similarly, in Sikhism (and offshoots such as Sant Mat) the guru reunites separated ones with God.

However, a central thrust of modern science is that unity lies at the heart of reality. Physics speaks of the space-time continuum and quantum connectedness. It seeks the Theory of Everything, not Theories.

So it’s difficult for me to believe that the spiritual realm, if it exists, is more disconnected than the foundation of material existence. But this is what religions would have us believe.

This idea of separation got me to thinking about a debate we're having in the Green Party of Washington State (GPoWS). Written into our bylaws is the idea that we will try to reach decisions via the consensus process. Mind you, we don't really employ the consensus process since, if there are blocks, we revert to super majority voting after two attempts to reach consensus.

A few of us would like to employ a true consensus process in our committee structure. Surprisingly, at least to me, most of my fellow members on the State Council are vehemently against this idea.

I'm surprised by their reaction simply because the Green movement worldwide stresses the concepts of community and cooperation, the very heart of the consensus process. I've tried to make this point, but I don't seem to be making any headway.

For me, majority voting highlights the separate provinces of each person. Emphasis is placed on what each person thinks is best, not necessarily what's best for the group. While people can certainly lobby each other and form voting blocks, when the secret ballot is employed, each person ultimately decides for themselves what they think is best for the group.

Utilizing the consensus process, the whole point is to arrive at a solution that encompasses the various perspectives within the group and thus, the group as a whole, renders decisions. Unlike majority voting -- which creates separation by having winners and losers -- consensus strives to create decisions that everyone participating can feel good about.

It's a Bioregional Thing

I thought that, once the election season had come and gone, I would have more time to devote to blogging. It seems that I forgot about what would be utilizing most of my time AFTER Election Day -- serving as Coordinator for a bioregional conference and retreat. Maybe I can finally get back to blogging regularly after December 3.

Here's what we have posted on the Green Party of Washington State website:

The Power of Green: Peace & the Post-Oil Economy

In conjunction with our fellow Greens in
British Columbia, Idaho, Northern California & Oregon,
GPoWS will host the
1st Annual Cascadia Greens Conference & Retreat.
This event will establish the foundation for greater
communication and networking among the Green Parties in our bioregion.

When: December 1 - 3
Where: Cornet Bay Retreat Center at Deception Pass State Park on Whidbey Island

A committee made up of representatives of the participating Green Parties is hard at work developing the framework for a weekend of workshops, presentations, and social time aimed at engendering green solidarity across boundaries of all types.

Some of the programs we've lined up thus far include:

• "Nonviolent Direct Action in a Nuclear World: Responsibility and Consequences" presented by Sister Jackie Hudson of the Ground Zero Center for Nonviolent Action;
• Canadian-Style Health Care presented by Fergus Gibson of the Green Party of British Columbia;
• A yet untitled workshop presented by the Puget Sound Network for Compassionate Communication;
• A yet untitled presentation on Energy Issues presented by GPoWS member and energy consultant Steve Garrison
• Internalized Racism, a workshop presented by E. Mandisa Subira of the Conscious Thought Network
• What Greens Can Learn from the Black Panther Party, a presentation by members of the Aaron Dixon 4 US Senate Campaign Team
  

In addition to featuring issue-based programs, we are also going to have several Green Party Nuts 'N Bolts sessions which will provide members with important tools to take back to their communities to increase their effectiveness of their local parties and/or chapters. Here are the Nuts 'N Bolts sessions we have lined up thus far:

• Media - Publicizing What We Do (Make Gills, GPoWS & Joanne Cvar, PGP)
• Fundraising in a Corporate-Based World (Trey Smith, GPoWS Treasurer & PGP Fundraising Coordinator)
• Strategic Planning (Suzanne Nott, Facilitator of the South Puget Sound Green Party)
• Creating a Bioregional Internet Cafe (Erik Douglas of Cascadia)
  
• Bioregional Governance (Janet Jordan, GPoWS Secretary)

The Ten Key Values

As I've mentioned before, I haven't had a lot of time to blog as of late because of my involvement with the Green Party. One or two of my regular readers recently asked what the Green Party is all about. The easiest way to answer that question is to list the 10 Key Values shared by Greens the world over. (If Taoists had a political party, I think we'd list similar values.)

Respect for Diversity
We honor the biological diversity of the Earth and the cultural, racial, sexual and spiritual diversity of its people. We respect the dignity of all individuals, and their right to access and fully participate in all aspects of our society.

Feminism and Gender Equity
We are committed to gender equity in all aspects of our society. We wish to replace top-down domination with cooperation, compassion, communication and understanding.

Social Justice
We oppose systemic global injustice and poverty. All oppression including that based on race, class, gender, age, citizenship or sexual orientation must end.

Grassroots Democracy
The influence of big business and big government combined is undermining genuine democracy. To help overcome this, we promote public participation at all levels of government. We believe that electoral systems need reform to enable full and more equitable access by all people.

Non-Violence
Violence is shortsighted, morally wrong and ultimately self-defeating. We must develop effective alternatives to society's current patterns of violence. We will work globally to demilitarize, and eliminate weapons of mass destruction.

Ecological Wisdom
We support a sustainable society that utilizes resources in such a way that future generations will benefit from the practices of our generation. We seek to protect ecological diversity and balance.

Decentralization
Decision-making in our social, political, and economic institutions should reside at the individual and local levels, consistent with ecological sustainability, civil rights, and social justice.

Community-Based Economics
We seek a new economics based on global ecological sustainability, livable wages, sufficient social safety nets, and democratically accountable businesses. Balanced local economies create more equitable and stable communities.

Personal & Global Responsibility
We seek to join with people and organizations around the world to foster peace, economic justice, and the health of our planet. We take personal responsibility in upholding our values.

Future Focus
As did the Iroquois, we strive to create a society where the interests of the Seventh Generation are considered equal to the interests of the present.

To learn more, here are a few links:

• Green Party of Washington State
• Pacific Green Party of Oregon
• Green Party of British Columbia
• Green Party of the United States
  

What Makes a Difference?

It's been over 1 1/2 weeks since I last posted anything here on RT. It's not that I haven't had anything on my mind during this period, it's just that I haven't had a block of time on any given day to collect my thoughts and write something halfway cogent. Instead of writing on this blog, I've been coordinating fundraising for two state Green Parties plus doing database entry and general records management.

I know that a lot of people would say to me -- Why bother? The Green Party is small compared to the Republicans and Democrats. The Green Party holds very little, if any, power in the US (though this is certainly NOT true in many European countries). Why commit all this effort and time to an entity that not enough people even know about?

This is where I think I differ from many of contemporaries. For me, trying to make a positive difference makes a difference. If everyone tried to better society and our small place on this planet, we'd be in a lot better shape because the act of TRYING changes each of us and changes each of us for the better.

And that, my friends, makes a difference!

Everything is Political

I've been involved with alternative party politics for many years now -- I'm currently the State Treasurer of the Green Party of Washington State and used to serve in this same capacity for Oregon's Green Party. It always amazes me how far too many people believe they can divorce themselves from the realm of politics.

For them, "politics" is something that is external from themselves. It's the bastion of government and government officials. And, even more amazing, they genuinely believe politics has little, if any, influence on their daily lives.

Politics is nothing more than the set of power relationships that govern social interaction. There is political intrigue in every marriage or partnership. Children campaign their parents for reduced sanctions or increased privileges. Almost every job a person holds throughout their life involves political negotiations with their co-workers, bosses and competitors.

Even for the Taoist, politics intersects in our relationships with the Tao and nature. Every step we take to try to achieve balance involves relinquishing power or taking power. And that, my friends, is the very definition of politics.

The politics that involves governance is merely personal politics elevated to a larger scale. Because it affects masses of people, it dictates who controls of what kinds of decisions and this affects how we each view ourselves and how we routinely live.

Right now, the United States (most other nations too) govern in a very non-Taoist way. We are headed down a non-sustainable path and the notion of balance is nowhere to be found. I am both a political activist and Taoist because I want to see society move in a different direction -- one that honors our seventh generation as much as we value our own.

0

Split Personality

In a manner of speaking, we all suffer from schizophrenia. Our personalities fragment into different people going different directions, often simultaneously! One moment we're a lover, the next the employee or employer. Amidst all this we are also the brother/sister, mother/father, child, and all other assorted roles and persons.

For much of the past year, I've been the blogger, The Rambling Taoist. Almost every day, I would spend at least 2-3 hours in this role, both reading blogs and writing here. It was the predominant part of my personality.

This has changed somewhat. This past weekend I was named the State Treasurer of the Green Party of Washington State. I'm also in negotiations with Oregon's Pacific Green Party to serve as their Interim Fundraising Coordinator (a position I've held twice before). Consequently, I've had less time to function in my role as a blogger.

For the next few weeks, I may not post as "religiously" as before. I need to spend time boning up on Washington's various laws and regulations pertaining to political parties. If I am selected to fundraise for Oregon's party, that will occupy a good portion of my time too.

Besides, I tend to write in spurts. There are weeks and months that I don't need to think much about what to write on any given day; the ideas spurt up on their own! At other times, the ideas seem to be on holiday. I'm learning to let the ideas themselves control when I write and when I don't.

As a Taoist, this is called going with the flow. Don't force the process through a manner of will. Practice wu wei and things will take care of themselves.

0

Starting From Scratch

I've been in my new home in Aberdeen for a week now. Besides all the time needed to unpack boxes and get our family situated, I've spent a good deal of time looking for area progressive groups to plug in to. Thus far, I haven't found much.

The ACLU of Washington site indicates that there's a chapter in this county, but neither of the two emails I've sent have netted a response. The Washington Green Party contact for Aberdeen has a disconnected phone number and a bouncing email address (though I have made contact with the state office in Seattle). I have found no indications that there are any environmental, peace, and/or social justice organizations here.

In fact, the only two groups that might be considered a tad progressive are the Grays Harbor Habitat for Humanity and the Grays Harbor Audubon Society.

So, I guess my wife & I are going to have to create some of these local organizations from scratch. That's not necessarily a bad thing, it just means committing to a lot more work. It's almost always easier to join a going concern than it is to create and organize one.

Every community needs a radical left presence. We're here, so we will be THAT presence in Grays Harbor County.

Making Headway

A lot of the time progressives wonder if we can genuinely make a difference in our communities. In this day and age of Bush and compassionate conservativism, this anxiety shows up most often in the electoral arena. We often wonder if its really possible to get bona fide progressive candidate elected to office.

If you've ever wondered this, the recent school board elections should provide you with a strong measure of hope. The five candidates endorsed by the Stand for Children Action Fund -- 3 in Portland and 2 in Salem -- each won their race. Please note that I'm not saying that 5 out of x number of the Fund's endorsements won -- EVERY candidate endorsed won!

In the southern Oregon town of Ashland, all 3 school board candidates endorsed by the Jackson County Pacific Green Party won too. Not only did they win -- two against incumbents -- but they all won with more than 60% of the vote! In Corvallis, another Green Party-endorsed candidate, Matt Donohue, beat the incumbent as well.

This clearly proves that we CAN win! But there are some secrets to this winning formula. First, candidates need to declare early. Second, candidates need to hammer on progressive themes. Third, candidates need to gather the endorsements of progressive groups AND those groups must provide the "foot soldiers" to get the word out far and wide.

The Salem City elections are less than 1 year away. The above results should galvanize our resolve to wrest control of our fine city away from Janet Taylor and the development interests that have choked off public participation. We can succeed in this endeavor IF we start to lay the groundwork now.

In other words, we need to roll up our collective sleeves and get to work.