What do you think about the Green Party?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : like sands : One Thread

Are they a bunch of whacko liberals, or a breath of fresh air in a political climate dominated by two barely distinguishable major parties?

Has your opinion of them changed since the latest election?

Does what's written in a party's platform really matter?

-- Anonymous, December 06, 2000

Answers

The Greens...*sigh*... okay, yes-- environmentalism is a good thing, but they're (1) wacko self-righteous puritans and (2) draining votes away that might counter the conservatives...

Actually, I've lost all respect for Nader... Those Green votes should've gone to Gore.

Party platforms *do* matter-- the let you see what the party claims to stand for... which can be scary!

-- Anonymous, December 06, 2000


A party's platform *absolutely* matters. Why do you write it otherwise? Clearly, Gore wasn't willing to talk about all his party's positions, but the platform is a good place to find out what the official democratic party line is, so at least you had some hope if you voted for him.... And I suspect the republican's platform was a lot more right wing than W. let on.

While I don't really know what I think about the Greens, I do happen to respect your views, Jen, and I have thought about your position on them before. One think I am definitely sick of is the liberal knee jerk "michael moore told me and he must be right" attitude about Nader. Don't get me wrong, Michael Moore is funny. But he's the Rush Limbaugh of the left, in that you probably don't want to take him seriously all the time.

-- Anonymous, December 07, 2000


Third parties and candidates who don't have any chance of winning are free to take more daring, and interesting, positions on the issues. When they can generate enough interest, that can raise the level of discourse.

I think the main effect of Green Party success is to force the Democrats further to the left. And that helps the Republicans.

-- Anonymous, December 07, 2000


I read something really interesting in an article a while back--I think it was in Salon. Basically the jist of it is that liberals have a fantasy that if only they could make others understand their views, everyone would immediately see the wisdom of them. I think this is largely true, and I think it's one of the reasons why so many lefties have supported Nader and the Greens.

I think that the rise of the Green party is going to lead to greater marginalization of liberalism rather than greater acceptance. The Green party platform may gain mass support someday, but it's not going to happen in the next ten or twenty years, and it doesn't make any sense for the Democrats to court liberals when Nader only got 2% of the popular vote and George W. Bush got almost 50%. They can't please the Greens without losing the center.

Also, Jen, you are so right about Michael Moore being the Rush Limbaugh of the left! He's funny, but the simplistic way he tends to cast issues makes me cringe.

-- Anonymous, December 07, 2000


Oh, and by the way, Matt Gonzalez trounced Juanita Owens in the debate last night, so I'm going to vote Green next week.

-- Anonymous, December 07, 2000


Jen,

I’ll start this off by saying that I voted for Ralph Nader; however, I am not a member of the Green Party. In my opinion he was the only candidate in the last election that I had any respect for. I voted for him with full knowledge that my vote (along with others) could cost Gore the election. I simply voted my conscience. This is a copout but I’d also like to point out that the apparent margin of victory in Florida was so slim that a whole slew of third party candidates (socialist party, natural law……) could be blamed for Bush’s “victory.”

Let’s face it the presidency is relatively powerless. The politics that impact our daily lives are local/state. Name one important piece of progressive legislation that passed during Clinton’s presidency. This man was wildly popular and charismatic and yet he was really unable to accomplish very much. We could only expect worse from the charm-less Gore. The Democrats need to stop pandering to the center and provide progressives with a real choice/home. If and when the Democrats provide such a choice/home the Green Party will probably cease to exist. I guess I miss the old days (mostly before I was born) of Carter, McGovern, Udall, Robert Kennedy and Humphrey.

Regarding the Green Party platform, I suggest that you read the Democratic party platform. Do you agree with everything it says? Or more importantly how do you feel about the things that it doesn’t say? Platforms are important but the Green Party platform, unlike the Democratic platform, is not watered down to appeal to the most voters.

I appreciate your opinion on animal research. I understand that it can be important. I also understand that the use of animals in research is on the decline as new methods are developed. I also believe that animals are being treated much better now than they were years ago. At least part of this is attributable to political actions (some good/some bad) by people that are concerned about animal rights.

However, my concern is that alternative methods of research are not fully considered. I work as an environmental engineer. Part of my job is to help industries minimize the production of hazardous waste. There is a lot of resistance to using different chemicals and processes. But once instituted these processes/chemicals can produce equal or better products at a comparable price. I think these same principles may hold true for reducing and/or eliminating animal research.

I truly enjoy your diary,

Greg

-- Anonymous, December 07, 2000


Greg, I have read the Democratic Party platform, and I certainly don't agree with everything in it. I think that agreeing with everything in your party's platform is a bit unrealistic. However, the Democratic Party platform, is, I think, fairly sensibly written and doesn't advocate any positions which I feel would lead to the senseless premature deaths of millions.

You, along with many others, feel that alternatives to animal research are not fully considered. However, under current U.S. law (the animal welfare act), anyone using rodents, cats, dogs, rabbits, farm animals or primates for research is required to submit extensive paperwork demonstrating why no alternative is suitable. So, by law, there is no animal research on mammals being conducted in the U.S. today which could be replaced by cell culture work or computer models. The approval process for using animals in research is no mere formality, either--many applications to use animals for research are rejected.

Now, I don't expect laypeople to know these things, but I do expect the people writing the Green party platform to be knowledgeable enough to understand what the current laws are and what the impact of the laws they are proposing would be. From their position, I can only surmise that the authors either think that human lives and animal lives are of equal value, which I don't agree with, or else they aren't aware of the current regulations and the public health impact such a law would have, which is pretty reprehensible in my mind.

This is only one issue I happened to pick out from the platform, but there are others which I find equally ill-considered and unrealistic, too.

-- Anonymous, December 07, 2000


Jen,

You are right; agreeing with everything in a Party’s platform is unrealistic. We live in a representative democracy. The people/party that we vote for should substantially reflect the positions/values that we find most important. But I still maintain that what is most important about the Democratic Party’s platform is what is not said. If the Party’s position is to maintain the status quo, to stay in power, to stem the Republican tide, to not rock the boat they have been somewhat successful. But in my humble opinion the Democratic Party’s recent legislative success record has been abysmal. Why is this? Because there is little or no energy in the party. There is no passion and no cause (except for Jesse Jackson Jr. who is a power to be reckoned with). People were just not energized by Al Gore and his passionate promise to allow less environmental destruction, less degradation of our rights, less of an increase in unneeded military spending, less corporate influence on politics, less executions and less compassionate conservatism than Bush.

Inconsistencies are part of life. I’m a vegetarian that is wearing a leather belt right now. I love animals and I took two stray cats in my neighborhood to the vet to be fixed but I didn’t bring them into my home. I worry about the killing or mistreatment of animals for scientific purposes. I also understand the need for animal research. However, just because there is a law in the US that prevents animal research that can be performed using cell culture work or computer models does not mean that it doesn’t happen. It does. And just because this law exists doesn’t mean that researchers and scientists shouldn’t be searching for alternative means of conducting their science. They should. I did my time in graduate school. I remember how easy it is to get lost in the minutiae of science. Oftentimes it is the outside observer, the layperson that provides the inspiration for progress. I don’t think that anyone could deny that animal research is more humane (and probably more effective) now in part because of PETA (and other groups of their ilk). Just as I cannot deny that these groups have used horribly inappropriate tactics, and caused fear amongst researchers.

Yes PETA and the Green Party are sometimes naïve, are unrealistic and offer simplistic solutions. However, they also provide an outlet for passion and hopefully inspire progress that mainstream groups (e.g. Democratic Party) currently don’t. The Republican Party has been very successful in including its radical base in the party. Even though poll after poll show no support for banning abortion and providing school vouchers this is consistently part of their platform. There isn’t an analogous outlet in the Democratic Party. Until Democrats stop shying away in fear from their liberal base and offer true platforms and policies based on careful thought, humanitarianism, ethics and non-violence, I and millions like me, will continue to seek out third party candidates that better represent our beliefs.

Sorry if I offended you with my last post or this one for that matter.

Greg

-- Anonymous, December 07, 2000


Greg--don't worry, I don't find people who disagree with me to be inherently offensive. We just happen to differ on this issue.

I disagree with your contention that the Democrats have been ineffective in recent years. I think the Clinton era saw a number of laws passed which have had a tremendous impact on the country. These include:
-passing an economic plan which has reduced the deficit for the first time in 50 years
-the Brady Bill
-the Family and Medical Leave act
-Expansion of federal student loan programs and Head Start

Perhaps the most important achievement of the Clinton administration is the establishment of guidelines allowing for federal funding for medical research involving human stem cells. Stem cells may well be the single most promising field of biomedical research ongoing today, and may someday provide treatments or cures for neurodegenerative diseases, paralysis, heart disease, diabetes and other common killers. Unfortunately, this accomplishment is unlikely to come to fruition anytime soon, as GWB has stated that he is opposed to stem cell research and would oppose a ban on federal funding for such research.

However, just because there is a law in the US that prevents animal research that can be performed using cell culture work or computer models does not mean that it doesnít happen. It does. And just because this law exists doesnít mean that researchers and scientists shouldnít be searching for alternative means of conducting their science. They should.

But scientists do search for alternative means--they HAVE to. In order to do animal research, you have to demonstrate clearly to an independent committee of scientists whose job it is to maintain animal welfare that there is absolutely no alternative to using animals to answer the question you have posed. In addition, you have to demonstrate that your animals will be subjected to the absolute minimal amount of pain and suffering necessary, and that their housing and feeding conditions adhere to federal standards. If your protocol is approved, your laboratory will then be subject to random inspections by the USDA and other agencies several times a year.

There may be a few people who are doing animal research unnecessarily, but it would be really difficult to circumvent all these laws, and if you were found out (and you would inevitably be found out if you ever wanted to publish your work), you would risk losing your privileges to use animals, which would be seriously damaging to your career.

I don't think that anyone could deny that animal research is more humane (and probably more effective) now in part because of PETA (and other groups of their ilk).

Certainly, attitudes toward animal research have changed, but I'm not sure how much credit should be given to PETA or other extremist organizations. As I stated before, the single most important piece of animal rights legislation in this country is the Animal Welfare Act. It was passed in 1966. PETA was founded in 1980. As far as I know, PETA has not had any significant legislative success in advancing their animal rights agenda, and in my opinion they have alienated many animal lovers with their combative tactics. You may have read in my diary that last year, several animal rights advocates from the group In Defense of Animals broke into a lab here at UCSF, threatened researchers, and freed several mice infected with scrapie (a transmissible disease similar to mad cow disease). As you can imagine, this act was hardly a public relations coup for the organization or for the cause.

In contrast, more moderate groups such as the Alternatives Research and Development Foundation, which offers grants to researchers for non- animal based experimentation, have made tangible progress, such as a recent successful lawsuit against the USDA to include rodents under the Animal Welfare Act.

Until Democrats stop shying away in fear from their liberal base and offer true platforms and policies based on careful thought, humanitarianism, ethics and non-violence, I and millions like me, will continue to seek out third party candidates that better represent our beliefs.

Well, I don't think that leftist liberals actually do constitute the Democratic Party base. There just aren't that many of them. Most Democratic voters and party members are centrists or left-centrists. That's why I don't think the Greens have the power to draw the Democrats to the left--they only have the power to drive them to the right.

The Greens do have some good ideas. But they also have some really bad ones (what cracksmoker came up with that $100K/year maximum wage idea?).

-- Anonymous, December 07, 2000


Jen,

One last small post before I go home. I find myself in the awkward position of arguing for something that I don’t feel that strongly about (animal research). When I used to live in Seattle I would occasionally stop by the Hippie/Anarchist/Leftist bookstore and browse through books while secretly checking out the babes. In spite of my bad intentions I did learn a few things. It is true that the Animal Welfare Act was first signed into law in 1966. But I believe that the particular parts of the law that you tout in your posts were amendments that occurred after 1985 (post PETA).

Clinton’s successes?

Economic Plan. Well I suppose that Clinton was partly responsible but I think that the true credit belongs with the American people, a crazy stock market, and the cyclical nature of economics. Can you point to specific Clinton policies that created the economic boom of the past 8 years? And let’s not forget the vast majority of Americans that really didn’t see that much increase in their “personal wealth” and saw a real decrease in their quality of life and benefits, in particular, health care.

Brady Bill. A mere bandaid, millions of nuts just like me still have free and ready access weapons for hunting and “self defense.”

Family and Medical Leave – Wooohoooo, we can take unpaid leave when our baby is born! Too bad we can’t afford health care or daycare. :{ Expansion of federal student loan programs and Head Start – Nice but more would be better; Congress threw Clinton a bone after being burned so many times.

Stem Cell Research. Nice but as you noted GWB will likely do all that he can to ban federally funded research. This is a partial payment to all the right-to-lifers that overwhelmingly and actively supported his campaign. Where is the payback for the liberals that supported Clinton?

As a legacy for one of the most popular presidents in history serving during a period of great economic growth I would have to rate this as a D-. Most people would probably call themselves moderate. Moderation is boring and very unsexy. Moderation is like opium, it makes you sleepy and happy and unaware of harm and danger. Instead we should all be striving to make things better. We should expect more from ourselves, our politicians, and our neighbors. When the Democrats stop the polling and the pandering and start offering substance instead of spin control and talking papers I will come back to the Party. Policy should be set by passion and belief not by what the polls tell you will keep you in power. Otherwise what is the point of power? I leave you with one last parting shot……Welfare Reform.

Sweet dreams and I hope that you stay warm,

Greg

PS, Sorry about the wrong e-mail addresses posted before. I forgot to include my middle initial.

-- Anonymous, December 07, 2000



Okay... I'll toss in my two cents worth...

In favor of the Green Party: something has to be done to change the current mess of professional politicians who have come to specialize in milking funds from special interest groups (Do I mean corporations? Yes. Do I mean unions? Yes. Do I mean all those other lobbying groups like lawyers and dairy farmers and doctors and teachers and real estate agents and bankers, etc., etc.? Yes.) Also, my wife and my daughter both voted Green. (No, they didn't deprive Gore of his annointment as successor to Clinton; we live in Rhode Island which gave Big Al the largest percent of the vote of any state. Jack the Ripper would carry Rhode Island if he ran on the Democratic ticket.)

But I think the Green Party has too high a percentage of loonies and prigs and puritans and extreme politically correct left wing fascists. Also, I don't especially like Nader.

So I voted for Browne (Libertarian Party), thus continuing a tradition of not voting for the winner. (I've voted for the winning presidential candidate just once out of ten elections since I was old enough to vote.)

We do need to shake up the two major parties (The Petroleum Party and the Demagogue Party)... Gore's despicable attempts to cheat and steal the election are absolutely nauseating (plus the incredible filth and hatred spewing out of his henchman like Paul Begalia), enough to make me glad that (so far) he has not succeeded. Unfortunately that means GWB as president. And if the outcome had been just a few hundred votes the other way, do I think Bush and crew would have behaved with dignity and restraint? Hell, no... probably not quite as disgusting as Gore, but the GOP would have been whining and wheeling and dealing and bringing in lawyers....

Yeah, maybe the Greens are a bunch of whacko liberals but the Reform Party has failed... and the Libertarians remain a "4th party" so... If only the Republicans had nominated Senator McCain with Colin Powell as his running mate (or switch it around, Powell and McCain, works for me either way)

But obviously my opinion is not mainstream based on only having agreed with a majority of my fellow voters one time out of ten tries.

-- Anonymous, December 07, 2000


Greg, I'm going to address (most of) your points one by one:

It is true that the Animal Welfare Act was first signed into law in 1966. But I believe that the particular parts of the law that you tout in your posts were amendments that occurred after 1985 (post PETA). Right, but my point was that PETA had nothing to do with that legislation. I don't see any concrete evidence that PETA has swayed public opinion in their favor or had a role in changing any laws. And, I can say that I, personally, actually have a less sympathetic view towards animal rights activism as a result of the tactics of PETA and other such militant groups. I just don't see any clear evidence supporting your contention that PETA deserves any credit for changing the treatment of lab animals. Economic Plan. Well I suppose that Clinton was partly responsible but I think that the true credit belongs with the American people, a crazy stock market, and the cyclical nature of economics.

I wasn't talking about the Economic Plan in general (and I agree with you that Clinton deserves little, if any, credit for the economic boom), I was talking about his committment to deficit reduction. I don't see how you can credit anyone but Clinton for that, and the economic impact has been massive.

Brady Bill. A mere bandaid, millions of nuts just like me still have free and ready access weapons for hunting and ìself defense.

Well, see, we have this thing called a constitution...I mean, I would love it if everyone suddenly decided that they didn't need their guns anymore, but this is America, and people are very attached to their firearms, and nobody thinks that their kids will be the ones to accidentally shoot each other.

I think that gradually passing legislation and phasing out the legality of the more egregiously destructive weapons, and instituting a licensing process, as the Democrats (including Al Gore) have advocated is the way to go rather than having to pry assault weapons out of "the cold dead hands" of NRA members. People tend to get upset when you try to rewrite the constitution in a way that a majority of Americans do not support.

Family and Medical Leave Wooohoooo, we can take unpaid leave when our baby is born! Too bad we can't afford health care or daycare. :{

Expansion of federal student loan programs and Head Start Nice but more would be better; Congress threw Clinton a bone after being burned so many times.

Yeah, more would be better, but who's gonna pay for it? People are only willing to pay a certain amount of taxes for federal programs, no matter how worthy or well-executed they may be--and many federal programs are not particularly well-executed, making people even more reluctant to pay for them. I would love to have free daycare, free higher education, and free healthcare for all Americans, but I wouldn't love to pay for it.

Stem Cell Research. Nice but as you noted GWB will likely do all that he can to ban federally funded research.

Well, I don't see how you can blame Clinton for GWB's election more than you can blame Nader. Nader claims that the Democrats and the Republicans are the same as far as he's concerned, so I guess he doesn't care about Stem Cell research or the people it might help. Anyway, I think it's pretty clear that the Dems are a lot friendlier to the concept of biomedical research than the Greens, who oppose animal research, GM food (which has a huge potential for abating malnutrition, starvation and disease, particularly in developing countries), and support shifting cancer research strategies away from what science has dictated and towards "holistic" strategies.

Moderation is like opium, it makes you sleepy and happy and unaware of harm and danger.

Well, I don't see how being extreme just for the purpose of being extreme makes any sense. You should believe what you believe, not what you think you ought to believe.

Policy should be set by passion and belief not by what the polls tell you will keep you in power. Otherwise what is the point of power?

One might just as easily ask the opposite question: what is the point of passion if you have no power? The Dems may not share your convictions, but that doesn't mean that they have no convictions of their own.

However, in my case, this argument doesn't really apply. I'm somewhat lucky in that not voting for Nader was an easy choice for me. I didn't have to choose between passion and power, because I, like most Americans, just didn't agree with many of the elements in his and the Green Party's platform.

To me, a platform with 70 great ideas and 30 disastrously bad ones is clearly not preferable to one with 100 pretty good ideas and no bad ones.

-- Anonymous, December 07, 2000


Green Party -- I prefer evolution in politics not revolution -- their platform seems rather traumatic in change, and untested as well. But that's my impression.

Brady Bill -- dang, it took sympathy for a Republican President's Press Secretary getting shot in the head -- or we wouldn't even have that much.

Oh, I decided to read that PETA FAQ on their site. (BTW, I do think PETA can be credited for fewer fur wearing humans, if nothing else -- and that is a good thing, I think).

The one compelling or somewhat disturbing argument I find for their case against animal research, I reformulated in my own scenario, in that the justification for research is actually "that we can, and they can't stop us."

I don't read much science fiction -- but I can certainly envision the plot of several stories being a superior visiting alien culture deciding to use humans for their own benefit as lab rats -- and our view would be not that they are justified, but "that they can, and we can't stop them." Certainly not a high moral justification.

-- Anonymous, December 08, 2000


I think it's interesting that Nader takes responsibility for political outcomes only selectively. Michael Moore has given him credit for the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and any number of other liberal legislative actions -- although, presumably, those bills required support in Congress, rather than just the support of Nader himself, in order to become law.

But while Nader is comfortable taking credit for those successes, he is unwilling to admit any responsibility for causing harm to liberal causes (via the election of George Bush) in this election. Instead, he claims the election was a victory for liberals -- even though his candidacy, by drawing only 2% of the vote, seems only to have demonstrated that the Green Party can be safely ignored by candidates in all but the most closely contested elections.

Evan Gillespie

-- Anonymous, December 08, 2000


After a speech during his second unsuccessful presidential campaign against Dwight D. Eisenhower, Adlai Stevenson was approached by an ardent supporter who announced, "Mr. Stevenson, all the thinking people in America are behind you!"

To which Stevenson replied, "Thank you. Unfortunately, the presidency in this country is determined by the majority." (Stevenson also said, "Freedom is not an ideal, it is not even a protection, if it means nothing more than freedom to stagnate, to live without dreams, to have no greater aim than a second car and another television set.")

I voted for Nader with a clear conscience. I live in a state (NY) that was clearly going to go to Gore and so it was not a difficult decision, but I might have voted for Nader even in one of the close northwestern states. Even after this past month, and even though I do desperately hope (it looks like against hope) that Gore wins the presidency, I don't think Nader cost Gore the election; I think Gore cost Gore the election.

Never at any point in the whole long excruciating campaign did I feel that Gore was articulating any position, any idealogy, any platform that I could believe in and vote for, or speak to any of the issues I'm concerned about. The election was Gore's to lose, and he lost it resoundingly well. With a complete lack of leadership and principle, he appealed to no one and received half the country's votes only because of the complete absence of alternative.

Is this Nader's fault? Should people get in line behind an anemic and debilitatingly compromised Democratic party because it is the only pragmatic choice? To me that whole animal testing thing is a tiny issue, and one that, if Nader were inaugurated president next month, would not even come up. It's hardly the Green Party's defining issue, never brought up in Nader's speeches or the Green Party literature because it is a minor plank. Nader's major planks address the corporate corruption of the American political system, the serious inequities between the rich and poor in this country, including the miserable lack of medical treatment. Frankly, more people die or suffer horrible health problems from their lack of access to education, nutrition and basic medical care (including simple clear-cut things like pharmaceutic treatment for schizophrenia and other serious mental illnesses and drug rehabilitation) in this country than from any obscure threat of possible cessation of scientific research brought about by a Green Party ascendancy............................................................

-- Anonymous, December 08, 2000


Grace wrote:

Frankly, more people die or suffer horrible health problems from their lack of access to education, nutrition and basic medical care (including simple clear-cut things like pharmaceutic treatment for schizophrenia and other serious mental illnesses and drug rehabilitation) in this country than from any obscure threat of possible cessation of scientific research brought about by a Green Party ascendancy

This is just not true--not by a long shot!

We have a multitude of federal and private programs which provide health care, housing and food assistance to poor Americans. This is not to say that people don't fall through the cracks, but it is nowhere near the number which could potentially be helped by stem cell research. Two diseases for which it holds promise, heart disease and diabetes, are the number one and number seven causes of death for all Americans, and together kill about a million people in the U.S. each year. In addition, this research holds promise for neurodegenerative diseases, which probably cause more suffering than any other disease.

Further, pharmaceutical treatment for schizophrenia, other mental illnesses and drug addiction are far from "clear-cut." For one thing, many of the therapies we have now only help a small subset of patients, and many have severe side effects--especially anti-psychotic drugs taken by schizophrenics. For this reason, studies have shown that even among schizophrenics with access to medication, nearly three quarters of them take the drugs infrequently or not at all. Drug treatment also shows a similarly low rate of success.

Lack of support for scientific research may seem an obscure threat to you, but without it, we would not have treatments for cancer, AIDS, tuberculosis and vaccines for diseases like polio, which used to cripple and kill thousands of American kids every year. And obviously, there is still a lot of progress to be made.

-- Anonymous, December 08, 2000


Wow Grace, in my opinion that was very well put. I tend to get distracted by the details of an argument and loose site of the question asked. Witness my diatribes above! I had planned, in my head, another point-by-point rebuttal of Jen’s point-by-point rebuttal of my point……… But I won’t bore you all with any more of my rantings. But I’m really, really, really tempted to “discuss” GM food issue but I’ll be good…for now!

-- Anonymous, December 08, 2000

The Green party doesn't support animal testing becuz of their environmental stance on the impending doom of a population boom. Less medicine more dying. No. That's not true. I made it up cuz I'm all politicked out. And plus, cuz I was feeling lonely and needy.

-- Anonymous, December 08, 2000

well, i have not read any of the manifestos, plus I'm not even an american citizen. But superficially it seems that the 'green ' party has taken votes that would most probably have gone for the democrats. Whats ended up is the rightwingers have come into power leaving a bunch of liberals saying " well, at least to my conscience i did the right thing by going for Nader". well, let me tell you, of all three, Nader gets my respect hands down. He's been known to univ students in India and Mexico since the late 70s as a respected fiery consumer advocate. I was in these univs in the late 80s. However, politics is a bit more involved than mollifying one's conscience. The latter option is frankly childish ( unless one does not have any strong reservations about W coming as teh king ).

-- Anonymous, December 08, 2000

Oh, and another thing. I certainly agree with Jen in that scientific research needs support. actually it requires much more support than it currently gets. In the medical scenario, when they brought out the two drugs that worked wonders for TB in teh 60s ( rifampicin and isocyanazide or sth like that ), the medical funding top bosses thought that TB is now licked and that cancer/heart disease were more pressing. they mistake they made ( despite TB researchers' warnings ) was that funding for TB research dried up. and now we have drug resistent TB, spreading like a wildfire in Russia and other parts, rendered all teh more insidious due to its devastating synergism with AIDS. Grace and others, yes, people are also suffering from lack of primary care ( and this is all the more true in the developing world ). But that does not justify decreasing funds for scientific research. Germs evolve, conditions change, and so there has to be a constant search.

A constant refrain has been to decrease funding for defense and divert that to environmental.education. health. Oh no, but thats not how the world works, does it !?

-- Anonymous, December 08, 2000


Hi its me once again. I skimmed thro the Greens' platform, and was quite delighted with most of what I read.. certainly very idealistic, and yet, some of them are desperately needed in these times -- the ones concerning environmental and world trade issues. Allright, as I said many of the items are idealistic, and hence would require massive extents of awareness generation to be taken up by the bulk of the population. Which I'm pessimistic about. So, while I feel that even if hypothetically they did come into power, it may happen that they may not achieve most of their aims. Still, some of their policies ( like the waste reduction ones ) are certainly achievable.

I also think that Jen may be reading more into the animal testing issues than is the case...and that this indeed is a minor part of the Greens platform. Ethical issues always are, as they are very subjective in nature..

well here i go, writing about them without having met too many Greens myself.

Peace !

-- Anonymous, December 08, 2000


In one of Jen's earlier emails "GM food (which has a huge potential for abating malnutrition, starvation and disease, particularly in developing countries)"

Now that is naive. I could not disagree more. But this would be a whole different topic, touching upon intellectual property rights, world bank;s agricultural /environmental policies that serve the interest of multinationals ( and lethal to the environment and the way of life in the third world )....

-- Anonymous, December 08, 2000


On the topic of the Greens and animal experimentation:

First, I should clarify that this issue is only mentioned in the Green Party of California platform, not in the national Green platform. It is mentioned only in brief, but if this policy were actually instituted, the effect would be dramatic, so saying that it is only "a minor part" of the platform makes no sense to me. Either they support it, and they advocate an extremely drastic change in the way science is conducted, or else they are putting stuff in their platform they don't really believe, which would also be bad.

As for the issue of GM food and my apparent naivete, I have to disagree. Monsanto has already made licenses for Golden Rice available free of charge to anyone who wants them. Golden Rice is a genetically modified strain of rice which contains a high content of vitamin A. Vitamin A deficiency is widespread in developing nations. Every year, 1 million children worldwide die of Vitamin A deficiency and 300,000 more go blind.

Because the government provides funding for a lot of GM food research, and because companies operating in the U.S. are subject to U.S. laws, it would be trivial for the government to ensure that future GM food technology is also used for humanitarian purposes. And, dire predictions about environmental damage have not been supported by the large and ever-growing body of scientific research on the subject.

Anyway, this should really go in a separate topic. I'll go start one, and see if anyone wants to discuss it.

-- Anonymous, December 08, 2000


Jen, do you have any quoted material from Nader that significantly troubles you? (not from the Green party platform, but Nader himself)

-- Anonymous, December 08, 2000

Cory asked: "do you have any quoted material from Nader that significantly troubles you?"

Oh, yeah. I pulled all these off of votenader.org in about 10 minutes:

"Irradiated food is deficient in vitamins, has caused health problems in animals, and contains carcinogens."

This ignores the fact that irradiated food has a longer shelf life and this makes produce more accessible and less expensive. While there is some vitamin loss associated with the process, it is less than with other preservation methods such as canning and drying. As for health risks to animals, I don't know where he's getting his information, but it directly contradicts the conclusions of the American Medical Association and the American Dietetic Association. Yet again, Nader has allied himself with those who prefer hype to science.

"Eleven years after the end of the Cold War, the US maintains a huge, worldwide military presence and a gigantic nuclear arsenal. We can shift tens of billions of dollars per year from the military to social needs, while remaining by far the strongest country in the world."

While it would be a wonderful thing if we didn't need a military, we do. I think the whole "we're not at war, so why do we need a large military budget?" thing is totally unrealistic. Our military involvements are becoming more and more difficult to foresee, so we always have to be prepared. The issue of whether we are "the strongest country in the world" is also, to me, irrelevant. The deciding factor should be whether we are able to do what we need to do with the military, not whether we're better than anyone else.

"About 90 percent of the public wants labeling of genetically engineered foods. I advocate mandatory labeling of all foods containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs)"

As I pointed out in a discussion on another forum, according to polls on the coalition to ban dihydrogen monoxide webpage, 90% of Americans also support a ban on DHMO. DHMO is the chemical name for water.

It is for this reason that scientific policy in this country is not dictated by public opinion. Mandatory labeling of GM foods would contribute to the inaccurate perception that GM foods are unsafe.

"We want [the Dempcrats] to say they lost because a progressive movement took away votes."

This gets at Nader's contention that the two major parties are the same. They're not. Nader refused to stop campaigning in states where the election was closely contested. Either Nader really doesn't care about reproductive freedom, stem cell research and the environment, or he's egotistical enough that advancing his own agenda outweighs those things in his mind.

-- Anonymous, December 09, 2000


Oh yeah, I voted for Gore (is it over yet?)

-- Anonymous, December 09, 2000

I would argue complete information about food (what is, or what's in it) is something the public should know.

But what constitutes "complete" information? Should food producers be required to label each product with the soil conditions under which each plant food is grown? The exposure of the plants to air pollution? The frequency with which the conveyor belt they went down was cleaned, and with what products?

There is a near-infinite amount of information we might want to be printed on the foods we buy. But there has to be an objective standard for the law. The standard adopted by the government is that information shown scientifically to be relevant to the health of consumers (such as ingredients, nutrition information, etc.) must be shown on food labels. GM foods do not constitute a health threat, and thus would not meet such a standard.

Of course, any manufacturer is free to label their foods as GM or not if they so choose, and these labels, by law, must be accurate. This is similar to what is done with kosher and organic foods.

(Btw, I did start a GM food topic).

-- Anonymous, December 09, 2000


"air pollution", "soil conditions" or even "frequency of conveyor belt cleaning" unless, of course, residual products of such still reside at market.

Residual products of all these things are capable of still residing at market, and inevitably do in some cases.

There are plenty of other residues "in" things that don't have to be labeled. Pesticides are the most obvious example.

-- Anonymous, December 09, 2000


Don't mean to interrupt the food fight (which seems to be shifting to another thread), but I'd like to come back to the larger question and say something about the "ECO-NOMICS" (sic - and tacky) section of the GP platform. Starting with the hoary myth of "indigenous people" as models of ecological stewardship (tell that to the woolly mammoth), I found the Greens' economic critiques and bromides to be a frustrating mix of extreme naivete and disingenuousness.

The platform relentlessly promotes what it calls community-based economics. But it doesn't address even in passing the economic and social (not to mention environmental) costs of the reduction in exchange between communities that would be the result, if not the aim, of all those local control mechanisms it extols. Those controls (ranging from the Tobin tax to the skewing of pension fund investments to local government vetoes over "large economic projects") are basically a prescription for slower rates of innovation and economic growth - which I suppose, if pressed, many Greens might concede and defend as an acceptable trade-off for reducing concentrations of economic power and limiting "the pernicious drive to accumulate."

I doubt whether increasing the economic responsibilities of state and municipal bureaucracies will really reduce concentrations of economic power. But more to the point, I don't see how the Greens can reconcile curtailed growth with improved "access to a livable income." For whatever short-term boost the Green panoply of redistributive taxes, transfers, and public expenditures could give to the "living wage standard" (and however broadly you defined such a standard, i.e., factoring in ecological benefits), it would all be inexorably undone in a generation or two by just moderately reduced growth. Again, maybe those costs would be acceptable to the GP. But the party platform appears to be in denial about their existence.

Of course, you don't generally look to political party platforms for nuanced discussions of the opportunity costs of core policy positions. But in the case of the Greens, the absence of intellectual reality checks is particularly disturbing, because it gives free rein to the most dangerous aspect of the Green brand of "independent" politics: it's extreme self-righteousness.

We all heard the basic Nader stump speech over and over: the whole "establishment" is corrupt: it's main political parties and institutions, it's economic foundations and movers, all hopelessly corrupt. Only WE, the Greens, are pure. We come not merely to reform the system, but to cleanse it. Our's is not merely a candidacy, but a crusade.

Me, I have a deep, abiding distrust of crusaders for purity. Whatever the kind of purity sought - religious, ideological, class, racial, what have you - it's pursuit has wrecked hideous havoc throughout human history. OK, Ralph Nader is not Arnold Amaury. But in his gleeful, mocking indifference to the issues dividing Democrats and Republicans, I can't help but hear the distant echo of the monk's instructions at Beziers: "Kill them all. God will know his own."

-- Anonymous, December 10, 2000


Arrgh! ITS pursuit...

-- Anonymous, December 10, 2000

I think David got to the heart of the matter (so well, I might add, that I'll even forgive an accidental apostrophe). We are all so caught up in the intricacies of the election and the hype of the campaign, we've lost sight of the most important question that must be answered before anyone should vote for Nader: Would he make a good president? For me, the answer is an unequivocal "no." Throughout the campaign, he showed a marked inability to compromise, to be pragmatic, to even acknowledge the realities of the position. This, I think, is an indication that he would be, at best, an ineffective president. At worst, his inflexibility could be extremely dangerous, particularly in regard to foreign policy decisions. In addition, his tendency to play fast and loose with the facts -- and his quest for federal matching funds -- made him as scary as any other corrupt politician.

Evan

-- Anonymous, December 11, 2000


Greetings ! this thread is getting real heavy in several directions ! To quote Jen "While it would be a wonderful thing if we didn't need a military, we do. I think the whole "we're not at war, so why do we need a large military budget?" thing is totally unrealistic. Our military involvements are becoming more and more difficult to foresee, so we always have to be prepared. The issue of whether we are "the strongest country in the world" is also, to me, irrelevant. The deciding factor should be whether we are able to do what we need to do with the military, not whether we're better than anyone else. "

she hits the nail on the head. however, the military HAS to be better than EVERYONE else, else whats the point ?? How can the US maintain its numero uno position in today's unipolar world ? How can US companies ( oil, mining, biotech ) get the best breaks ? It is common knowledge all over the world ( except the US where international issues are shown very little ), that 17th century colonialism has merely shifted to economic imperialism of sorts. Most of the military engagements of teh US in the last 4 decades has been to oversee US interests ( not human rights, but economic.strategic ).

But yes, its a dog eat dog world, and there shall always be power struggles, its an innate human trait, as Gautama Buddha said two thousand years ago.

-- Anonymous, December 11, 2000


Without weighing in against the larger presumption that everything the US does on the world stage is motivated by "imperialism" (economic or otherwise), may I just point out that the US military budget now absorbs a smaller share of national resources (GDP) and a smaller share of government resources (tax dollars) than at any time since before World War II - over a half-century ago? In real terms the military has been cut pretty substantially in the past decade. There was a Peace Dividend, and we spent it. Not exactly the behavior of Globocop run amok.

-- Anonymous, December 11, 2000

David,

Statistics are funny things. You can use them to make practically any point.

1940 Defense Outlays as a Percentage of GDP – 1.7% +++++

1998 Defense Outlays as a Percentage of GDP – 3.2% +++++

2000 Defense Outlays as a Percentage of GDP – 3.0% (estimate) +++++

So Defense Outlays have practically doubled as a percentage of GDP from pre-WWII to the present! Shocking! I don’t think that this includes the interest on the portion of the national debt attributable to defense outlays. But you are right, the good news is that recently outlays have decreased dramatically as a percentage of GDP.

1940 Defense Outlays as a Percentage of Total Outlays – 17.5% +++++

1998 Defense Outlays as a Percentage of Total Outlays – 16.2% +++++

2000 Defense Outlays as a Percentage of Total Outlays – 15.5% (estimate) +++++

A slight decrease to practically unchanged.

1940 Defense Outlay in Billions of Constant FY 1992 Dollars - 22.9 +++++

1998 Defense Outlay in Billions of Constant FY 1992 Dollars – 1450.4 +++++

2000 Defense Outlay in Billions of Constant FY 1992 Dollars – 1490.5 +++++

A 65-fold increase, which is a more distressing statistic.

We could probably argue for a while about which comparison is the most valid but I tend to think defense spending is too high. I also think that it is extremely important to question the need and the motivation for our various overseas scuffles, interventions, wars, and police actions. To not do so in my opinion is unconscionable.

Source – GAO Website……

http://sun00781.dn.net/man/docs/fy00/historical/hist06z1.xls

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2000


Greg (if you're still there),

Statistics are funny things, but not _that_ funny. Your entire argument is based on cherry-picking a base year (1940) that was, as it happens, outside my original frame of reference ("at any time _since_ before World War II" means "starting with World War II"). So to avoid frivolous manipulations of the numbers and focus on the broad trends, here are the ten-year averages for defense/GDP and defense/federal outlays for the past six decades (and the projected averages from the FY 2001 U.S. Government Budget for the next part-decade):

1940 - 49: 17.4% (def/GDP), 71.0% (def/outlays)
1950 - 59: 10.5% (def/GDP), 59.5% (def/outlays)
1960 - 69: 8.7% (def/GDP), 46.4% (def/outlays)
1970 - 79: 5.5% (def/GDP), 27.5% (def/outlays)
1980 - 89: 5.8% (def/GDP), 26.3% (def/outlays)
1990 - 99: 3.9% (def/GDP), 18.8% (def/outlays)
2000 - 05: 2.8% (def/GDP), 15.8% (def/outlays)

And here are the same series including a rough estimate of debt service costs attributable to defense spending:

1940 - 49: 18.4% (def+/GDP), 75.0% (def+/outlays)
1950 - 59: 11.3% (def+/GDP), 64.2% (def+/outlays)
1960 - 69: 9.3% (def+/GDP), 49.9% (def+/outlays)
1970 - 79: 5.9% (def+/GDP), 29.5% (def+/outlays)
1980 - 89: 6.6% (def+/GDP), 29.7% (def+/outlays)
1990 - 99: 4.5% (def+/GDP), 22.0% (def+/outlays)
2000 - 05: 3.2% (def+/GDP), 17.6% (def+/outlays)

I don't think much more needs to be added, except that the downward trend in defense/outlays would be even more marked if _total_ (federal-state-local) government spending were in the denominator, accounting for the fact that the "Peace Dividend" (decline in the defense spending share) has been spent by local as well as federal governments.

Finally, in real dollars, average annual defense spending under Clinton ($272 billion in 1996 dollars) fell by almost a fifth (18%) compared to Reagan and Bush ($331 billion), while average annual nondefense spending ($935 billion versus $660 billion) rose by over two-fifths (42%). I dunno, that looks like a pretty significant shift to me...

Of course it is important to closely examine the need for defense spending - or indeed any government spending.* But the question of how much is "high" should be informed - not determined, of course, but informed - by meaningful references to historical trends.

* I work in government, folks, so I'm not one of those militant public sector-bashers. This is just a general endorsement of the idea of oversight by an informed citizenry.

-- Anonymous, December 15, 2000


David,

As for my "cherry-picking a base year (1940)" I simply used the time reference that you presented in your original argument. 1940 is certainly before the US officially entered the war. In fact it is the first whole pre-WWII year. If I had chosen an earlier year, 1933 for instance (when defense spending was probably pretty low due to the depression), the statistics that I presented would have appeared to be even more in my favor. None of my "cherry-picking" or "frivolous manipulations” disproved your point. In fact I think that I acknowledged that you were correct. I simply presented different statistics, using your original timeframe, that on the surface provide a different picture. And that was my underlying point, that statistics don’t really tell the whole picture. Unfortunately, as much as we like to treat everything as a black and white science, and relate it to meaningful historical trends; science, meaning and history are subjective and open to many interpretations. Can I ask why you choose to do your analysis based on percentage of GDP? Why is this the correct baseline? Because the nation is richer do we need more money to defend ourselves? Is it because we have more real economic assets to defend? This really just helps the arguments of people that think that most wars and foreign entanglements have their roots in economics.

It is my opinion that defense spending is high, that we could get by with much less. But if you place a higher personal value on defense spending then your opinion is equally as valid. Just because my values are different from yours does not make me uninformed.

Sorry if I offended you.

Regards, Greg

-- Anonymous, December 15, 2000


"Because the nation is richer do we need more money to defend ourselves?" Well, for one thing, over two-thirds of the defense budget comprises payments for (both uniformed and civilian) personal services. (This roughly mirrors the P.S. share of the overall national economy.) So if it were only a matter of keeping the standard of living of people employed in defense from falling behind the standard of living of everyone else, yes, as the nation gets richer we need more money to sustain a given level of defense. Not "because we have more real economic assets to defend," but because skilled people are our major assets.

"A given level of defense" could still absorb a decreasing share of GDP insofar as productivity growth in the defense sector exceeded that of the rest of the economy. But in fact the average annual growth rate of the implicit price deflator - in short, the inflation rate - for defense outlays (3.36%) has been slightly higher than that for total GDP (3.21%) over the past 20 years. (And for the previous 40 years - 1940-80 - the average defense outlays inflation rate [5.47%] was way higher than the average GDP inflation rate [4.33%].)

All of which is to say that when the current defense/GDP share is half of what is was in the 1970s and '80s, a third of what it was in the 1960s, and a quarter of what is was in the '50s - well, this really does express a very significant reordering of national priorities and reallocation of national resources. A sustained dismantling of the "military-industrial complex."

For me this indicates that the familiar left-wing bogeyman of military spending running amok is just as overblown as the old right-wing bogeyman of welfare spending running amok (or the current right-wing bogeyman of international aid run amok). This doesn't mean that we can't perhaps reduce our military even further - although we should keep in mind that there just isn't enough defense spending left to provide for resource reallocations of the magnitude that were achieved in the 1990s. But it does mean - and this gets back to my broader complaint about the aggrieved air of Green Party polemics - that a little more respect for what "corrupt" establishment politics has already achieved is in order.

-- Anonymous, December 17, 2000


What do I think of the Green Party? In October, I attended the Ralph Nader rally hear in Chicago. I was politically homeless at the time and not satisfied with what Gore or Bush had to offer. Celebrities like Michael Moore, Eddie Vedder and Phil Donahue all took their turn in endorsing Ralph's candidacy, and on many levels the event was a highly charged, electric affair. When the dust settled, I realized what the Green Party represents and that they ultimately should be calling themselves the Democratic Socialist Party (I don't meant that in a mean way). I was basically told that if I support this organization, they would in turn make government work for me. The magic wand of regulations is the best way to solve our social ills, according to the Greens. I beleive their slogan is somethig like "Gov't for, of and by the people, not monied interests." This sounds lovely, but allow me to substitute a few words that will show what this means in practice "Government for, of and by the politicians/ bureaucrats, as well as their cronied interests." They talk about "achieving a true democracy" or what have you, but this idea of democracy is nothing more than mandated egalitarianism. One true test of the Green Party's future will be their next non-Nader candidate presidentially. Nader is a fantastic candidate for their party and his maverick, underdog status and reputation were a great sell for him. If their next candidate is some stodgy, new-age, ivy- league social engineer, then the public at large probably won't give a shit about them. To the Green's credit though, their local successes, if continued, could build the Greens into a substantial political force to be reckoned with down the road and they will probably pull the Democrats farther to the left. It's doubtful that they could ever defeat the Democrats, because the Dems would eventually submit to follow public opinion. The same is true of the Libertarians (my new politcal home) and the Republican Party, although the Libertarian's have a bigger hurdle in dismantling the religions right's entrenched powers in the GOP. Libertarian policy is also a tough sell with the general public. Undoubtedly though, the Greens and the Libertarian's are ideological opposites (at least on an economic level)and they will probably remain as the USA's most enduring third parties, regardless of their lack of influence. This is because they are more true to the core economic tenets of socialism and capitalism respectively, while the Republicrats attempt to walk the fine-line in the center in order to stay in power.

-- Anonymous, February 15, 2001

At least they're trying to do something about this electricity rip- off in California. The Democrats and Republicans got together a few years ago and made PG&E sell off their power plants to out-of-state crooks who are now pretending to be OPEC and charging anything they please for electricity. Meanwhile PG&E transfers its assets to a holding company and then cries that it's bankrupt and needs the rates raised, which they were by 35% yesterday. The Governor's solution is to buy up the transmission lines -- fat lot of good that will do, it's the cost of the juice going through the lines that's the problem. Well, he got $600,000 in campaign contributions from PG&E, and it's not his rates that will be raised. He's a Democrat. GW's solution is to drill on the North Slope, sell the oil to Japan five years from now, and blame Clinton for being too busy with Monica to watch the store.

-- Anonymous, March 28, 2001

Moderation questions? read the FAQ