An actual path for the formation of a viable, US Green Party

[warpus]

This is probably true, but we have lots of places in teh US where we only have one de facto party. Creating political competition in those markets may lead to competition in others.

I would def. love to see a shakeup of your political system. You've got 2 parties in power, and they "know" that their parties aren't going anywhere.. Look at our Liberals, here in Canada. We weren't satisfied with what they've been doing, so they were almost voted out of existence in the last election and now have to spend time re-building.

 

[kochman]

The GOP's denial of anthropogenic global warming, among other things, could hasten its demise.

Reality check: Not everyone agrees that GW is man-made.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/116590/increased-number-think-global-warming-exaggerated.aspx

Question: Given that info, why would it possibly hasten the demise of the GOP?

Caveat: I am not for or against the AGW, I don't know, nor do I really care, if we are causing it. I try to conserve, and that's the most I can do.

 

[Murky]

Reality trumps popular opinion every time.

 

[warpus]

Reality check: Not everyone agrees that GW is man-made.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/116590/increased-number-think-global-warming-exaggerated.aspx

This poll is worthless.

Let's see the same question being asked of scientists who work in the field. Public opinion doesn't mean anything in a scientific context. You've got to ask the scientists (i.e. experts)

 

[kochman]

Reality trumps popular opinion every time.

Ummmm, not in elections that are decided by the opinions/votes of the populace.

 

[kochman]

This poll is worthless.

Let's see the same question being asked of scientists who work in the field.

The point wasn't to say anyone was correct.
Please. Every time I talk about this, you are taking an adversarial tone with me... I am not contesting AGW!

The point was, it is kind of foolish to say that the GOP will go down because they support something a LARGE portion of the country ALSO supports.

 

[Murky]

Opinions tend to change when the brown stuff hits the fan.

 

[kochman]

Opinions tend to change when the brown stuff hits the fan.

So do party platforms... Like them or not, the Repubs aren't going to back something that NO ONE supports... they can and do change their stance on issues, just like the Dems, this stuff isn't written in stone.

 

[warpus]

The point wasn't to say anyone was correct.
Please. Every time I talk about this, you are taking an adversarial tone with me... I am not contesting AGW!

The point was, it is kind of foolish to say that the GOP will go down because they support something a LARGE portion of the country ALSO supports.

I don't really give a crap about the GOP, nor am I being adversarial.

All I'm saying is that Climate Change is not controversial, as far as the science is concerned and that the kids are learning the generally accepted (by the experts) position on the matter.

You were basically saying "teach them the other side", but there really isn't one.

 

[kochman]

I don't really give a crap about the GOP, nor am I being adversarial.

All I'm saying is that Climate Change is not controversial, as far as the science is concerned and that the kids are learning the generally accepted (by the experts) position on the matter.

You were basically saying "teach them the other side", but there really isn't one.

If there wasn't one, there wouldn't be an argument going on about it right now, or this thread, etc.

You are a Global Warming Denier Denier...

It doesn't matter if you care about the GOP, but in the context I was using that poll in, they mattered... I get that you weren't on about them, but your comment was taken in the context of that conversation/debate.

 

[warpus]

If there wasn't one, there wouldn't be an argument going on about it right now, or this thread, etc.

You are a Global Warming Denier Denier...

Dude, there is no controversy amongst the *scientists* who study this crap. That a bunch of rednecks think that it is I don't really care about.

And either way, I'm done with derailing this thread, sorry downtown.

 

[GoodGame]

There already is an actual national green party of the USA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Party_of_the_United_States
http://www.gp.org/index.php

And they actually have helped get statewide representation.

he Green Party in the United States has won elected office at the local level; most winners of public office in the United States who are considered Greens have won nonpartisan elections.[1] The highest-ranking Greens ever elected in the nation were: John Eder, a member of the Maine House of Representatives until his defeat in November 2006; Audie Bock, elected to the California State Assembly in 1999 but switched her registration to Independent seven months later[2] running as an independent in the 2000 election;[3] and Richard Carroll, elected to the Arkansas House of Representatives in 2008 but switched parties to become a Democrat five months after his election.[4] In 2005, the Green Party had 305,000 registered members in states allowing party registration, and tens of thousands of members and contributors in the rest of the country.[5]

They've been effective at getting people elected at times, however politicians will change their stripes to be more viable (turning independent or democrat as mentioned in the above quote of the wikipedia article).


****

I think the moral is that even if the two-party system reaches some sort of tacit agreement to mutually ignore an issue (e.g. the environment because environmental regulation don't help make people financially wealthy) that if the popular climate is there, the people will seek a voice for themselves (e.g. tea party, green party, Ross Perot's shindig, Occupy). I'd say that being that the economy and wealth is the current principle focus of the people (witness that you see Occupy's main motto of "we are the 99%" referring to wealth distribution), and possibly fossil fuels too ($4 gasoline might be coming back soon is one headline) that the green party isn't likely to gain much traction except against the most onerous violations of environment down to the level of people's consumption of air, water, and food.

I think the tea party might make an even stronger come-back if raising the national debt doesn't actually improve the economy and national situation. I don't think that the green party will ride on some wave of "alternative energy" fervor if fossil fuels spike. I also don't think that the GHG debate will intensify in the very near future to boost the green party either.

 

[kochman]

Dude, there is no controversy amongst the *scientists* who study this crap. That a bunch of rednecks think that it is I don't really care about.

What's the analogy they use here all the time...
No true Scot or whatever?

That's what you're doing.

 

[GoodGame]

I do think a union between Occupy and the teaparty could be quite dangerous for Dems and Repubs health in future election. IF someone were to actually facilitate such a union---a generational gap challenge, and possibly a socioreligious challenge, I believe

 

[kochman]

I do think a union between Occupy and the teaparty could be quite dangerous for Dems and Repubs health in future election. IF someone were to actually facilitate such a union---a generational gap challenge, and possibly a socioreligious challenge, I believe

To completely exaggerate, that would be like getting the Nazis and Bolsheviks to come to terms...

 

[Cutlass]

I don't think the US needs a more left wing party, but rather just a more moderate party. If someone were to start a moderate party, I think it would have difficulty in gaining support, as traditional grass roots channels tend to be further to the left (or right) of the political mainstream.

This sounds like a good plan, though. I'd vote for a downtown party.

Hmm, yeah, I guess the benefit of a prominent left wing party is that it would push the Democrats to the centre, where national elections are won.

I don't really understand your point. The Democrats have been "moving to the center" and "moving to the center" and "moving to the center" for decades now as the center recedes to the right to the point where where an objectively moderate party would have to be to the left of the Democrats. A subjectively moderate party, one to the right of the Dems and left of the Reps, would be too extremely conservative to be anything like the Greens. All the voters already have that choice. The choice voters in the US does not have is liberals or left.

 

[GoodGame]

To completely exaggerate, that would be like getting the Nazis and Bolsheviks to come to terms...

I appreciate your exaggeration...lol.

 

[Miles Teg]

The main issue of course is the fact that people who get involved in third party politics are exactly the people who aren't interested in gradual progress, campaign management, or any of the mechanical aspects of getting people elected.

If you want to swing American politics in one direction or the other, I can't think of a more successful model than the tea party. Yeah, they got mocked by liberals a lot, but they have, for the moment, moved the goalposts for what it means to be conservative. They haven't seen that much of a return in terms of national policy yet, but they've had a huge effect in state government. Not to mention the field they've laid for the next time there's a Republican in the White House.

The formula is actually repeatable for liberals. You just wait until the next Republican president takes office, and then tap into the frustrations of liberals during Democratic primaries in small, liberal leaning districts. Then you let voter enthusiasm and the traditional midterm slump carry you to victory.

 

[Murky]

Thinking the Green Party should be to the left of the Democrats is probably the wrong way to look at it. There are a lot more moderate or conservative environmentalist than there are socialist environmentalist in the U.S. Maybe the Green Party should focus mainly on being the "Green" party instead of being left or right of the other party(s). That isn't to say they should be a single issue party, but to declare it to be a far-left party is only going to marginalize any chance it has of winning elections.

 

[duckstab]

To completely exaggerate, that would be like getting the Nazis and Bolsheviks to come to terms...

Your choice of actors is hyperbole, but the idea of factions on normally opposite ends of the political spectrum finding common cause on specific issues isn't unheard of. It happens all the time in parliamentary systems where the government often has to cobble together a supportive coalition in order to stay in power. That particular scenario can't happen in the US because we have a separation of powers -- but say the Tea Party and Progressive caucuses became equally frustrated with rules imposed by the centrist elements of both parties. I could see them forming a temporary alliance to force through a particular outcome on a procedural issue, even though they'd never see eye to eye on a policy issue. I bet somebody who follows C-Span more closely than myself could even cite a specific recent example.