Soylent Green

A little while before I actually started this blog up again I received a boost from Malcolm Redfellow by way of an email exchange we had after he took too long to post. Being appreciative as I was at the time I let slide a technical error in his posting. Though now that I want to revisit the subject that prompted my first response I feel I must set the record straight. In his introduction he stated the exchange started after I made a stupid dig at his hypothetical loyalty to the SDLP in the seventies. While we have exchanged numerous messages and I've left too many comments on the matters pertaining to the politics of the "occupied six counties and all that" (to quote JCskinner) the post that started it all was about politics that are a little closer to home. Indeed the post and comment that started it all was this one. To be honest it was simply an off the cuff comment that I left in passing which I expected to be ignored like so many of the other things I say online and in real life. Such was not my luck and so it began.


So we come to the point of this post the 2008 Presidential elections. Wednesday's Irish politics blog had the following story posted. If this were found to be true it would the biggest thing to happen to the presidential race since...eight years ago. To be honest I did vote for Nader in 2000 and almost did so again in '04 because I would rather be consistently wrong than flaky. Though in the end I refrained from voting for that office at all because I don't want to be responsible for any of it.

Wednesday informs us that this ticket would be better than,

"Having to hold my nose and vote for the lesser evil, or for some Peace and Freedom Party no-hoper you've never heard of."

So the no-hoper that you know is better than the no-hoper that you don't then. What frustrates me about the Greens is that they continually go for the showbiz style candidates while not going for the obvious showbiz candidateback in 2000, Jello Biafra. No, honestly what ensured that I would never vote green again (aside from the Faustian pacts in Germany and Ireland) is the fact that they would rather be glorious losers than do the ground work to become a viable third party here in the US.

I travelled in some of the same circles as some of the more radical Greens during the election and I will admit that they had as much talent, drive, and vision as the most ardent Republicrats out there. They also had some nifty posters (which I wish I still had) with a donkey and elephant doing it and proclaiming, "what's the f*cking difference?". Classic. What they did not have was the vision and discipline to do something with the 2.74% percent of the popular vote that they took home and fell to infighting and cringing from the wrath of the Democrats who blamed them (quite rightly I might add) for losing the election in 2000.

I mean come on. Any good organizer could tell you that that kind of loss is the thing that organizations are built on. Greens had already (especially in California) gotten city councillors elected. It's not really that hard to turn a good councillor into a runner for the State House of Reps. Trust me, the people there are certainly not the best and brightest any political party has to offer, it's simply a vetting ground to see who can be groomed out for bigger and better things. It's also a place where real changes can be made that positively affect the lives of people in a state. That should have been the goal, but no, it was too much to ask for a little realism from the only progressive party active in America today.

That being the case I feel that unfortunately Malcolm may be right. She can, and will do it after all. She may even bring Obama with her if he agrees thereby ensuring that we continue to break new barriers while not changing a damn thing at all. Fuckers.