McKain and his “smart” crowd have crowded out a failed sitting president. In trying to turn a new leaf, they seek to co-opt the Obama litany of change. On the other hand, with the governor of Alaska in their attack pack, they are stuck with something really “old”, an out-of-date right-wing factional extremist on “social” issues. I don’t think the Independent vote can stomach that crap—the Independent vote will decide this election. 

If the Democrats have any brains left, or real courage, they will take Palin to the cleaners for her identification with a reactive and narrow faction representing the worst features of America’s past. They have a great opportunity to blunt and make nonsense of McKain’s in-authentic appeal to “change”. It’s something he clearly cannot claim with Palin on his team. With Palin he’s turning the clock back.  But do the Dems have the intelligence, savoir faire, and courage—and just plain common sense honesty to make that argument and make it stick?  I doubt it. They will as usual temporize, temporize, temporize on this and on foreign policy as well. And they will lose the election.

John Rensenbrink

On Friday morning last week, the New York Times did big stories on Obama’s speech of the night before to the Democratic National Convention, the 75,000 people in the stadium, and a TV audience even bigger than the one that viewed the opening of the Olympics in Beijing on August 8.

The lead story dealt a lot with the hoopla of the event and when it turned to what he said, it was described, and dismissed, by the reporter as a series of broad generalities.

But that’s not true. Not far into the speech, Obama specifically outlined the major things he will do as president. Apparently, the media, whether left or right or in between, have gotten so used to slotting Obama as a rhetorician, and nothing more, that even when he specifically states that he is being specific, and serious about the specifics, he is not heard and what he says is not taken seriously. That is a big mistake, in addition to being patronizing, and lazy.

Obama was being serious that night and we should take what he says with serious attention. Only then can we also see what he does NOT say.  What he does not say speaks volumes about him and his party. It is very disturbing.

I will explain.

Departing from the noble generalities that have often dominated his major speeches, Obama launched into a recitation of specific things he will do if elected. These include such substantive and very much needed policies as the following:

--cut taxes for 95% of all working families;

--launch a 10-year program to end U.S. dependence on Middle-East oil;

--budget $150 billion for the rapid development of renewable energy;

--make health care affordable for everyone, and providing those who in any case cannot afford it “the same coverage as members of Congress” (Obama’s words);

--provide a world-class education (his words) for all children in America;

--provide higher salaries for teachers; and, looking directly into the camera for emphasis

--“we’ll make sure you can afford a college education”.

Having said these and other similar things, some of them equally costly, he paused to observe that, of course, this will cost money. Where will this come from? he asked. At this point, he still seemed on track with an honest and straightforward and truly caring message.

He answered that he will close corporate loop holes and subject the federal budget to a line by line scrutiny that will trim any bureaucratic fat that’s there.

He spent less than a minute saying this, after having spent more than ten minutes of a 45-minute speech detailing his substantive cost-related program.  Less than a minute!  He quickly went on to utter moral homilies about individual responsibility.

I shook my head. I felt like shouting at the TV screen. “Are you kidding!” You were serious but now you are simply self-deluded or you are knowingly deluding your immense audience.

He had just said that his program will cost big bucks.  But he won’t get nearly enough from closing corporate loopholes or trimming bureaucratic excess. 

Where, then, oh where, could Obama turn to find the bucks he needs for fulfillment of his promises? Or, in other words, what is it that Obama is NOT saying?

Can you, dear reader, answer the question?  It’s really a no-brainer. 

The money can only come from funds diverted from the huge and overwhelming military budget. That’s where the money is. That’s where by far most of the tax dollars of all Americans are going. Closing income tax loopholes and trimming bureaucratic excess is nice and helpful but it is peanuts by comparison to what will be needed to accomplish Obama’s domestic program.

Does Obama know this?  Of course, he must know this!  If not, he is truly in deep denial about the reality of political priorities in the U.S. government. The national government is top-heavy with expenditures for 750 military bases in foreign countries and with a Pentagon that sops up money for military hardware as if it were a gigantic sponge. It is a government of, by, and for two major parties that is top-heavy with a yearning by Washington and Wall Street elites to play super-big wheel in the world.  So, yes, of course Obama knows this. He was not born yesterday.

The wretched truth is that he does not want to deal with this reality— the somber reality of the military industrial complex about which President Eisenhower already warned us 50 years ago.

Was Obama pulling a sleight of hand in his stirring speech?  One would be hard pressed not to think so. For what else can one think: he makes promises to do things that are desperately needed – which is why he makes them. But when it comes to really facing up to what’s needed if the money for it is to be forthcoming, he retreats into silence. It’s the silence of a man who faces a huge and inconvenient truth and blinks.

He and his party with him must face up to the reality of a choice. It is the choice between America as the world’s policeman (with all that that entails for endless expenditures for endless wars) or an America

 (a) that rejects dreams of world domination—whether pursued by force of arms and intimidation (the Bush/Cheney approach) or pursued by “tough diplomacy” with force ever ready at hand (the Obama/Biden approach);
 that relies on collaborative policies with other nations in search of solutions that many nations can and will support;
 c) that relies on an approach in which the U.S. is one among many other nations who together build strong international institutions for security and world social justice; and
 d) that thus trims its military budget to a point where funds for desperately needed programs at home become available.

Obama flies away from encountering that choice.  His party does the same.  His silence, his party’s silence, is the denial that there is that choice. It is the most crucial choice that must be faced and must be made if our communities, the nation, other nations, and the human race itself is to be saved. So in his most important, and most serious, speech to date, Obama deceives his fellow citizens with promises he and his party cannot fulfill – and are not prepared to fulfill.

The one small and bright spot in the horizon of national and world politics is the existence the Green Party, both here and abroad. The Green Party has made that choice. It is a choice for a war-less world – and all that that entails for the survival and thriving of all peoples.

There is this notion that progressive-minded people, who can’t see voting for Obama, have a choice between two outstanding candidates, Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader.  I agree that they are both outstanding candidates.  But I firmly disagree that a vote for one or the other is of equal value.

Allow yourself to think beyond the present power structure. Envision a different situation in which the present power structure has been dismantled. Surely, no power structure is permanent. The present one is dominated by megacorporate predatory giants and their Democrat and Republican minions. It will not last. It is not permanent. Please savor that thought.

With that firmly in your mind, ask yourself what is needed to reach beyond the present power structure.  Ask yourself whether what McKinney brings and what Nader brings are the same or different.  No, I am not talking about “the issues”, that favorite of liberals and progressives. On “the issues” the two are pretty similar.

Where they are not similar at all is on the question of power to change the power structure.  Here we must confess that Nader’s campaign begins and falls with him, begins and falls with just this current campaign, good for this day and train only. On the day after the election in November, that’s all done. Nor is there any reason to believe that there will be any impact of any kind on the existing power structure.

Now take another look at McKinney’s campaign.  She is running not as an Independent like Nader.  She is running as the candidate of a proven political party. The Green Party has been in existence since 1984 and is well established in almost all parts of the country. It has a courageous past and a promising future. It is dedicated to contesting for power.That means—given the Green Party’s values and principles—that it is dedicated to altering fundamentally the existing power structure—ending the stranglehold on public policy by the megacorporate giants and their Republican and Democratic minions. 

Cynthia is running full tilt as a Green. For the Green Party. She has stated that her goal is to get at least 5% in November.  This will qualify the Green Party candidate for President in 2012 for millions of dollars in public funding.  It will make the national Green party a substantial force and lay the basis for greater victories in the future.  Now, that’s really thinking! Even if she does not get the 5%, her campaign will strengthen the Green Party and give it greater internal fiber and exposure to the public. This will help all future Green campaigns for all offices, including for president. 

Hooray for Cynthia!  She really gets it.  She knows that the powers-that-be are a power structure – and a bad one to boot. And that it must be dismantled if the issues people hold dear are to get a chance at being resolved.  She puts first things first. Cynthia will not win the White House in November, but she is helping to lay the groundwork for “painting the White House Green” in the future.  Thus a vote for her is a vote for our future. It carries far more value than a vote for Nader, however fine a candidate he is.

Paul Hawken has begun to explore this idea from the other end. In “Blessed Unrest” he proposes that the millions of organizations around the world that are dedicated to various of the 10 Green principles are functioning as antibodies do, spontaneously self-organizing and reacting the planetary infection that the global economy and Domination System represent. What’s needed is for each of these antibodies to become more aware of and connected with the others. Then they would function as a healthy immune system does to restore health to the body, only in this instance to the biosphere.

Immune systems are high-functioning, closely linked and tightly coordinated communities comprised of many different kinds of cells, proteins, etc in possession of complementary skills and roles. These communities of cells are disperced throughout the body so that every part of the body and the body as a whole is protected. There is no central authority, no top down from which orders come, no elite in receipt of most of the benefits of the system. There is only the totality of a community of communities working together toward the same ends. Immune systems are deeply, organically democratic.

Natural communities, ecosystems and bioregions and the biosphere, share these fundamentally, organically democratic characteristics. Life knows when it has a good thing.

Democracies as we know the, democracy as we know it hasn’t gotten nearly as far as these biochemical, natural systems have. But then it’s only had at best a couple thousand years to find its way in the world.

So what I want to propose here, and what I propose in my book, is that when we’re considering the ways in which we can radically overhaul democracy to “green” it we could do worse than reorganize ourselves so that we live, produce and consume the way living systems do those things, organically and democratically, in order to live within Earth’s means.

It seems to me that “green” in this regard means not only living, producing and consuming in ways that work with life but living, producing and consuming in ways that are life like. This would be to apply Janine Benyus’ et als “biomimicry” to every aspect of our personal and and public lives.

In my next several blogs I’d like to share some of my thinking and research along these lines and to hear responses that validate, support or criticize this line of thought. It was actually Lloyd Wells, Green Horizon supporter and democracy visionary, who got me started thinking about communities as the basic unit of democratic practice as well as economic activity. So far, his thinking has proven to be right—along life’s lines.

Ellen LaConte
07/13/08

Representative government has had its detractors at least since Rousseau, who pointed out that under such a system the people are only sovereign on the day they vote. Let’s face it – representative government is a concession to scale.  It is used when the system has grown too big for meetings at which collective decisions can be easily made.

Unfortunately, even Greens, who are committed to small-scale politics, have become used to organizations, cities, and political systems that have grown too large for their own good. Everyone shrinks from attributing their unwieldiness to their scale. When things start going wrong we tinker with organizational structures or attempt other temporary adjustments.

Representative government was one of those structural tinkerings. It wasn’t so bad in the 1780s when the population of the United States was 3 million and when the political elite knew each other – or were related (hmm, not much has changed on that score!) As Gore Vidal depicts in his novel about Aaron Burr, everyone knew that George Washington was overweight and that Chief Justice John Marshall was the cousin of Thomas Jefferson. When Jefferson put Burr on trial for treason in Richmond, Virginia, that meant Marshall would be the presiding judge. During the trial, Burr and Marshall shared a pint at the local tavern, where most of the lawyers in the case were also tippling. (Footnote: Marshall ruled against his cousin’s interests.)

As the population of the United States grew, the electoral college became more and more of a rubber stamp, more and more of us were allowed to vote, and political parties became institutionalized. Parties, of course, played an important role in providing reference points for voters who hadn’t a clue who their local candidates were because the system had grown too large.

However, this cluelessness extended to knowledge about the workings of government. The larger the system, the less information voters had about what was being done on their behalf between elections. For a while, newspapers and radio station competed with each other on digging up sensational dirt on politicians’ shenanigans.

With corporate media monopoly nearly complete, and with the US population soaring past 300 million, it is hardly surprising that electoral campaigns have become exercises in public relations and can never be intelligent debates over the direction of public policy – even if every voter had a degree in political science. And once the winners take office, as Rousseau foresaw, they seldom if ever set about fulfilling their electoral promises because they know that elections in a system this size never confer a policy mandate. Besides, they have work to do, behind closed doors: using their power to follow their real agenda, and laying the groundwork for getting re-elected.

Why on earth, in such a system, would we be dismayed at Barack Obama’s fancy rhetorical footwork as he seeks to appeal to as many voters as possible? If he said what he really thought and remained consistent to his ideals – whatever they may be – the system would chew him up and spit him out in little pieces. His ideals and his team may perhaps be slightly less toxic than the program and personnel of the scary incumbents, but they both have to follow the same rules.

There’s nothing inherently wrong with noting Obama’s shape shifting, but let’s do it in the spirit of showing the need to dismantle the system into workable political communities. These would be small enough for their members to feel competent to define their locality’s problems and to figure out what steps the members themselves need to take to solve them.

Terry Fowler

There has never been and will never be a Libertarian
society because human beings do not live primarily as
atomized individuals interacting through contractual
relations. Human society is and will always be
collective in one form or another.

As a principled Libertarian, Ron Paul sounds good in
his critiques of the current Leviathan. But as a
typical Libertarian his solutions are flawed.

We do need devolution of power from Big Government and
more in the way of self-reliance. But it must be a
communitarian self-reliance. We do need freedom from
the oppression of the centralized power elites. But the
viable alternative is not a Libertarian-individualist
form of freedom, but rather a re-localizing form of
communitarian autonomy.

Greens share some of the critiques Ron Paul
articulates, but our solutions are quite different from
his. Ours correspond to the lifeways that have been
most viable and healthy for people over the long
millennia of our species-being.

SW

------------------------------------------

From Ron Paul’s Congressional web site 7/7/08

Something Big is Going On

By Ron Paul

http://www.house.gov/paul

The following statement is written by Congressman Paul
about the pending financial disaster. He will introduce
this statement as a special order and insert it into
the Congressional Record next week.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I have, for the past 35 years, expressed my grave
concern for the future of America. The course we have
taken over the past century has threatened our
liberties, security and prosperity. In spite of these
long-held concerns, I have days - growing more frequent
all the time - when I’m convinced the time is now upon
us that some Big Events are about to occur. These fast-
approaching events will not go unnoticed. They will
affect all of us. They will not be limited to just some
areas of our country. The world economy and political
system will share in the chaos about to be unleashed.

Though the world has long suffered from the
senselessness of wars that should have been avoided, my
greatest fear is that the course on which we find
ourselves will bring even greater conflict and economic
suffering to the innocent people of the world - unless
we quickly change our ways. America, with her
traditions of free markets and property rights, led the
way toward great wealth and progress throughout the
world as well as at home. Since we have lost our
confidence in the principles of liberty, self reliance,
hard work and frugality, and instead took on empire
building, financed through inflation and debt, all this
has changed. This is indeed frightening and an historic
event.

The problem we face is not new in history.
Authoritarianism has been around a long time. For
centuries, inflation and debt have been used by tyrants
to hold power, promote aggression, and provide “bread
and circuses” for the people. The notion that a country
can afford “guns and butter” with no significant
penalty existed even before the 1960s when it became a
popular slogan. It was then, though, we were told the
Vietnam War and a massive expansion of the welfare
state were not problems. The seventies proved that
assumption wrong.

Today things are different from even ancient times or
the 1970s. There is something to the argument that we
are now a global economy. The world has more people and
is more integrated due to modern technology,
communications, and travel. If modern technology had
been used to promote the ideas of liberty, free
markets, sound money and trade, it would have ushered
in a new golden age - a globalism we could accept.
Instead, the wealth and freedom we now enjoy are
shrinking and rest upon a fragile philosophic
infrastructure. It is not unlike the levies and bridges
in our own country that our system of war and welfare
has caused us to ignore.

I’m fearful that my concerns have been legitimate and
may even be worse than I first thought. They are now at
our doorstep. Time is short for making a course
correction before this grand experiment in liberty goes
into deep hibernation.

There are reasons to believe this coming crisis is
different and bigger than the world has ever
experienced. Instead of using globalism in a positive
fashion, it’s been used to globalize all of the
mistakes of the politicians, bureaucrats and central
bankers.

Being an unchallenged sole superpower was never
accepted by us with a sense of humility and respect.
Our arrogance and aggressiveness have been used to
promote a world empire backed by the most powerful army
of history. This type of globalist intervention creates
problems for all citizens of the world and fails to
contribute to the well-being of the world’s
populations. Just think how our personal liberties have
been trashed here at home in the last decade.

The financial crisis, still in its early stages, is
apparent to everyone: gasoline prices over $4 a gallon;
skyrocketing education and medical-care costs; the
collapse of the housing bubble; the bursting of the
NASDAQ bubble; stockmarkets plunging; unemployment
rising;, massive underemployment; excessive government
debt; and unmanageable personal debt. Little doubt
exists as to whether we’ll get stagflation. The
question that will soon be asked is: When will the
stagflation become an inflationary depression?

There are various reasons that the world economy has
been globalized and the problems we face are worldwide.
We cannot understand what we’re facing without
understanding fiat money and the long-developing dollar
bubble. There were several stages. From the inception
of the Federal Reserve System in 1913 to 1933, the
Central Bank established itself as the official dollar
manager. By 1933, Americans could no longer own gold,
thus removing restraint on the Federal Reserve to
inflate for war and welfare. By 1945, further
restraints were removed by creating the Bretton-Woods
Monetary System making the dollar the reserve currency
of the world. This system lasted up until 1971. During
the period between 1945 and 1971, some restraints on
the Fed remained in place. Foreigners, but not
Americans, could convert dollars to gold at $35 an
ounce. Due to the excessive dollars being created, that
system came to an end in 1971. It’s the post Bretton-
Woods system that was responsible for globalizing
inflation and markets and for generating a gigantic
worldwide dollar bubble. That bubble is now bursting,
and we’re seeing what it’s like to suffer the
consequences of the many previous economic errors.
Ironically in these past 35 years, we have benefited
from this very flawed system. Because the world
accepted dollars as if they were gold, we only had to
counterfeit more dollars, spend them overseas
(indirectly encouraging our jobs to go overseas as
well) and enjoy unearned prosperity. Those who took our
dollars and gave us goods and services were only too
anxious to loan those dollars back to us. This allowed
us to export our inflation and delay the consequences
we now are starting to see.

But it was never destined to last, and now we have to
pay the piper. Our huge foreign debt must be paid or
liquidated. Our entitlements are coming due just as the
world has become more reluctant to hold dollars. The
consequence of that decision is price inflation in this
country - and that’s what we are witnessing today.
Already price inflation overseas is even higher than
here at home as a consequence of foreign central bank’s
willingness to monetize our debt.

Printing dollars over long periods of time may not
immediately push prices up - yet in time it always
does. Now we’re seeing catch-up for past inflating of
the monetary supply. As bad as it is today with $4 a
gallon gasoline, this is just the beginning. It’s a
gross distraction to hound away at “drill, drill,
drill” as a solution to the dollar crisis and high
gasoline prices. It’s okay to let the market increase
supplies and drill, but that issue is a gross
distraction from the sins of deficits and Federal
Reserve monetary shenanigans.

This bubble is different and bigger for another reason.
The central banks of the world secretly collude to
centrally plan the world economy. I’m convinced that
agreements among central banks to “monetize” U.S. debt
these past 15 years have existed, although secretly and
out of the reach of any oversight of anyone -
especially the U.S. Congress that doesn’t care, or just
flat doesn’t understand. As this “gift” to us comes to
an end, our problems worsen. The central banks and the
various governments are very powerful, but eventually
the markets overwhelm when the people who get stuck
holding the bag (of bad dollars) catch on and spend the
dollars into the economy with emotional zeal, thus
igniting inflationary fever. This time - since there
are so many dollars and so many countries involved -
the Fed has been able to “paper” over every approaching
crisis for the past 15 years, especially with Alan
Greenspan as Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board,
which has allowed the bubble to become history’s
greatest.

The mistakes made with excessive credit at artificially
low rates are huge, and the market is demanding a
correction. This involves excessive debt, misdirected
investments, over-investments, and all the other
problems caused by the government when spending the
money they should never have had. Foreign militarism,
welfare handouts and $80 trillion entitlement promises
are all coming to an end. We don’t have the money or
the wealth-creating capacity to catch up and care for
all the needs that now exist because we rejected the
market economy, sound money, self-reliance and the
principles of liberty.

Since the correction of all this misallocation of
resources is necessary and must come, one can look for
some good that may come as this “Big Event” unfolds.

There are two choices that people can make. The one
choice that is unavailable to us is to limp along with
the status quo and prop up the system with more debt,
inflation and lies. That won’t happen. One of the two
choices, and the one chosen so often by government in
the past is that of rejecting the principles of liberty
and resorting to even bigger and more authoritarian
government. Some argue that giving dictatorial powers
to the President, just as we have allowed him to run
the American empire, is what we should do. That’s the
great danger, and in this post-911 atmosphere, too many
Americans are seeking safety over freedom. We have
already lost too many of our personal liberties
already. Real fear of economic collapse could prompt
central planners to act to such a degree that the New
Deal of the 30’s might look like Jefferson’s
Declaration of Independence.

The more the government is allowed to do in taking over
and running the economy, the deeper the depression gets
and the longer it lasts. That was the story of the 30s
and the early 40s, and the same mistakes are likely to
be made again if we do not wake up.

But the good news is that it need not be so bad if we
do the right thing. I saw “Something Big” happening in
the past 18 months on the campaign trail. I was
encouraged that we are capable of waking up and doing
the right thing. I have literally met thousands of high
school and college kids who are quite willing to accept
the challenge and responsibility of a free society and
reject the cradle-to-grave welfare that is promised
them by so many do-good politicians.

If more hear the message of liberty, more will join in
this effort. The failure of our foreign policy, welfare
system, and monetary policies and virtually all
government solutions are so readily apparent, it
doesn’t take that much convincing. But the positive
message of how freedom works and why it’s possible is
what is urgently needed.

One of the best parts of accepting self-reliance in a
free society is that true personal satisfaction with
one’s own life can be achieved. This doesn’t happen
when the government assumes the role of guardian,
parent or provider, because it eliminates a sense of
pride. But the real problem is the government can’t
provide the safety and economic security that it
claims. The so-called good that government claims it
can deliver is always achieved at the expense of
someone else’s freedom. It’s a failed system and the
young people know it.

Restoring a free society doesn’t eliminate the need to
get our house in order and to pay for the extravagant
spending. But the pain would not be long-lasting if we
did the right things, and best of all the empire would
have to end for financial reasons. Our wars would stop,
the attack on civil liberties would cease, and
prosperity would return. The choices are clear: it
shouldn’t be difficult, but the big event now unfolding
gives us a great opportunity to reverse the tide and
resume the truly great American Revolution started in
1776. Opportunity knocks in spite of the urgency and
the dangers we face.

Let’s make “Something Big is Happening” be the
discovery that freedom works and is popular and the big
economic and political event we’re witnessing is a
blessing in disguise.

Ron Paul

http://www.house.gov/paul

Copyright Dr. Ron Paul

Brunswick has a tradition of years-standing that pedestrians crossing Maine street need only to enter the crosswalk, or need only to be seen waiting to enter it, and immediately all the traffic stops. People walk across, sometimes slowly as if savoring the moment, sometimes at their regular gait, and maybe sometimes they walk a little faster as if out of courtesy to the drivers.  Clearly, it’s a matter of people being more important than cars.

But mark this. On occasion, one will see a person, having started across, and having seen that all the cars have respectfully stopped, will nevertheless break into a run. Sometimes the body language is apologetic, sometimes even desperate.

Seems to me that the person’s mind has been colonized by the prevailing modern assumption that cars are more important than people. He or she is also the victim of a widespread dis-ease that has begun to afflict the American people. There are a number of names for this, but the one that strikes me as most apt is “the revolution of lowered expectations.”

Brunswick’s tradition on Maine Street, and the local laws and enforcement that back it up, stands like a beacon pointing back, and hopefully forward, to a culture and a practice in which people are more important than machines—where the people have the presence and power-of-self to believe in, and pursue, a revolution of high expectations.

John Rensenbrink

Or

What is Happening to Us?

I. Scenario:  Jack goes quail hunting before school, pulls into school parking lot with shotgun in rack.

1948 Vice Principal comes over, looks at Jack’s shotgun, goes to his car and gets his shotgun to show Jack.

2008 School goes into lock down, FBI called, Jack hauled off to jail and never sees his truck or gun again.

II. Scenario: Mark gets a headache and takes some aspirin to school.

1948 Mark shares aspirin with Principal out on the smoking dock.

2008 Police are called, Mark expelled from school for drug violations. Car searched for drugs and weapons.

III. Scenario: Johnny falls while running during recess and scrapes his knee. He is found crying by Mary, his teacher. Mary hugs him to comfort him.

1948 In a short time, Johnny feels better and goes on playing.

2008 Mary is accused of being a sexual predator and loses her job. She faces 3 years in State Prison. Johnny undergoes 5 years of therapy.

IV. Scenario: David takes apart leftover firecrackers from 4th of July, puts them in a model airplane paint bottle, and blows up a red ant bed.

1948 Ants die.

2008 BATF, Homeland Security, FBI called. David charged with domestic terrorism, FBI investigates parents, siblings removed from home, computers confiscated, David’s Dad is put on a terror watch list and never allowed to fly again.

John Rensenbrink
United States

A Congress of representatives from 88 national Green political parties and political formations came together in Sao Paulo, Brazil May 1- 4, 2008.  They adopted the Twenty One Points and created a global Green Secretariat.

The following report is my personal account of some of the events and accomplishments of this second worldwide gathering of Global Greens – and some questions that loom for this still fledgling organization. Having attended the first such gathering as a U.S. delegate in Canberra in 2001, I was keenly interested to see how and in what direction we would evolve structurally; and I was equally interested to see what the Global Greens organization and participating countries would or could do about climate change and about the spread of militarism in the world, at the forefront of which is the presence of at least 737 U.S. government military basis in 130 countries. That presence poses important questions for the United States Green Party and for its relation with Green Parties in those countries. In the section on Questions (below) I take this up for Greens in the United States and for Greens globally to think hard about.

I went to Sao Paulo as one of three alternate delegates from the United States Green Party. Another hat I was wearing was as co-editor of Green Horizon Magazine.

Accomplishments

--A spectacular event took place on Friday. Representatives of each of the 88 participating national Green parties and political groups were invited to come up to the platform. As their country was called, each country’s representative (and sometimes several!) climbed the few steps and took their place in the ever growing line that eventually stretched from one side of the auditorium to the other. It was a deeply moving ceremony. You catch your heart in your throat at the sheer fact there here, gathered here, are Greens from every continent and from most every land on earth, from so many different places and customs and languages, and yet all together united on powerful fundamentals about life and politics – united in a fierce determination to help save our species and achieve well-being for all.

--Ingrid Betancourt of Colombia was declared Honorary President of the Global Greens at a special ceremony during the Congress. There was a showing of her extraordinary address to the first Global Greens Gathering in Canberra, Australia in 2001. Ingrid is still in captivity, entering the 7th year that Colombia’s FARC is holding her in spite of efforts by the presidents of France and Venezuela and countless efforts by her husband and many Greens around the world to press for her release. Her husband, Juan Carlos Le Compte, was present and contributed powerfully to a well-attended press conference.

--Johan Hamels of Belgium moderated the key plenary on Sunday morning at which the assembly of world Greens took up the 80-plus amendments to what will be the 21 Points Declaration.(It will be available soon on the Global Greens website). The first draft had been distributed via the web before the conference – and the 80-plus amendments came from many workshops and meetings during the weekend. It was exciting and instructive to watch Johan conduct the meeting. Doing this is never easy. This one was moderately difficult (sometimes hitting typical roadblocks), but Johan made it look almost easy. When I expressed my great admiration to him later, he thanked me, but also said that he has been doing this often for the European Greens meetings and that by comparison, this one was a gentle event. It is true that the mood and behavior of the delegates was one of wanting to cooperate, wanting to come out with a strong and united declaration on the major issues facing the planet. This was accomplished. 

--An important structural innovation was adopted during the Sunday plenary, initiated and promoted by the Australian Greens under the leadership of Bob Brown. The plenary established a Global Greens Secretariat. The tasks of this new body include: scheduling and organizing further Global Greens Conferences; promoting the Greens’ common presence at global events; facilitating agreed statements on matters of global urgency; urging and supporting internal, inter-federation communications; helping to grow the Global Greens website; cooperating with the Global Greens Network (GGN); and developing close liaison with the Global Young Greens. 

--As always at conferences, there were innumerable one-on-one conversations – people getting to know each other, people developing stronger ties with people they had met before, people having a good time and/or intense discussions over dinner or lunch with one another. This was a big part of my feeling good about the conference and the future of the global Greens. I had conversations, some brief, some very extensive, with Greens from Brazil, Canada, Dominican Republic, Peru, Holland, France, Belgium, Germany, Ireland, UK, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Niger, Nigeria, Kenya, Uganda, South Africa, Congo, Tanzania, Mongolia, Taiwan, China, Japan, Australia.  One wishes there were time and occasion to have been able to talk with Greens from all lands!

The United States delegation, headed by the two Co-Chairs of its International Committee, Julia Willebrand and Justine McCabe, conducted a workshop on Saturday on the relationship of the United States Green Party with other Green Parties in the world. It was sparsely attended. Participants in the workshop from other countries wanted to know more exactly and fully how we Greens in the United States view and feel about the politics in our own country. Knowing more of that on a regular basis would help them. Likewise, as we eagerly pointed out, it would help us in the U.S. to have ongoing knowledge about how Greens in other countries view the politics in their country.  The workshop did not get into the question of how the world’s Green parties should view the presence of U.S. government’s military basis in over 130 countries and how that impacts the relationship between the U.S. Green party and Green parties in those countries.  I refer to this in the Questions below.

--A big highlight for me and for the conference was the report during the Saturday afternoon plenary by two representatives of the Young Greens, Douglas Arege of Kenya and Jana Schoenfeld of Germany. What especially struck me was their call for ever greater commitment of the global Greens to democracy, internally as well as externally. Their emphasis on the values of transparency, horizontal relationship, and accountability was an important and pertinent message and struck widespread accord with the delegates and the other members of the audience. I also refer to this in the Questions below.

--Simultaneous translation was provided. The people who did the translating did a great and beautiful job! I think five languages were provided: Portuguese, Spanish, French, German, and English. This is costly, but extremely well worth it. I am sure that later gatherings will add other languages!  Chinese, Japanese, Arabic, Swahili!!

--There were forums on “Biodiversity and the Climate Crisis”, and “Sustainable Cities” on Thursday (sponsored by the Heinrich Boell Foundation of Germany) and a forum during the weekend on issues facing Greens in government. These were in-depth analyses for the most part, enlightening, and they provided background and foundation for the workshops and plenaries on Friday afternoon, Saturday, and Sunday. Presentations by my colleagues from the United States—Bruce Gagnon, Julia Willebrand, Ross Mirkarimi, and Mike Feinstein—were very well received. More on issues raised by Bruce Gagnon in the “Questions” below.

--The body passed a resolution strongly condemning China’s repression of the Tibetan demonstrators in Tibet and also expressed serious concern about its policy of assimilation for Tibet as well as other minorities like the Ugyhurs.

--There was much discussion and debates at workshops and in informal conversations about the proposal to establish a Secretariat. How much power would the Secretariat have and how would it be funded? These were two of the many issues imbedded in the question of whether to establish such an office. I am personally very glad that it was established. It is a stepping stone. It faces a huge task and many ups and downs. But it will, I hope, expand and grow.

--The attention inevitably given to the proposal to establish a Secretariat made it difficult for me and others to gain attention for the need to further explore and discuss the overall structure of the Global Greens, especially the role of the Global Green Network that was created as a side-by-side organization with the Global Green Coordination in Canberra. This matter requires more attention in the future and is intimately connected to the future development and evolution of the structures of the Global Greens. See below under “Questions” for more on this.

--No conference can succeed without the hard work of many people spending endless hours, tending the million details, the vast nitty gritty of operations, to make it happen.  The spirit behind the folks who put this Congress on was amazing and truly beautiful. Often this kind of work goes unheeded by us who eagerly participate.  Yet I think that each of us who attended was aware of the yeoman work, done with style and graciousness, by so many who gave and volunteered to make it all happen.  I know there was a widespread feeling of deep appreciation. I was particularly aware of the hard work of Lynne Serpe of the USA, of Louise Crossley of Australia and Ricardo Peres and Marco Mroz of Brazil. So I hail them as representing so well all who did so much to help make this Congress happen.

Questions

--Of particular concern to me was the absence of discussion about the Global Green Network (GGN). Only the Young Greens, in their report, made a point of bringing it in as an important part of the overall structure of the Global Greens.  The GGN was created alongside the Global Green Coordination in Canberra in 2001. By the terms of the document that was passed by acclamation in Canberra, the GGN is composed of up to three representatives from each of the national Green Parties and the GGC is composed of three representatives of each of four Federations (Africa, Asia-Pacific, Europe, and North and South America). A further refinement of the respective roles of both organizations was worked out in Berlin in May 2002. At the latter meeting, the document that was adopted, stated that “. . . at some future point the role of the GGN may evolve. Therefore, the GGN will be reassessed at the next Global Green Meeting.” This was not done at Sao Paulo. It remains to be done as soon as possible.  The question is, how and when will this happen?

--The Secretariat needs to be funded adequately. This was discussed and various proposals were made. One idea that should be considered is to open up supportive memberships in the Global Greens to individual “world citizens” everywhere. This would not carry voting power but it would connect thousands of Greens worldwide to the Global Greens, give them access to information and ideas, help recruit leadership in the organizations of Global Greens, and bring in a substantial sum of money each year.

--My colleague from the United States, Bruce Gagnon (Director of the internationally organized Global Network Against Weapons in Space), in his plenary address, made a powerful connection between the prohibitive and insane amounts of money and resources devoted to militarism and imperial policies – an insanity led by the U.S. government—on the one hand and the resulting inability of the countries of the world to deal effectively with climate change, ecological destruction, and worldwide poverty. He recommended that the 21-point declaration that would be approved on the last day of the Congress needed to include calls for the prevention of an arms race in outer space and conversion of the military industrial complex. He finished his address to rousing applause. The 21 Points Declaration, later in the week passed by the global Congress, featured language that gets at a lot of this. It calls for “nuclear disarmament all over the globe in full respect of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT”; and “a strict ban on chemical and biological weapons”. It demands that “arms production and trade must be severely curtailed”; and that “cluster bombs and depleted uranium ammunition must be banned, together with land mines and white phosphorus munitions”. It states that “Greens consider that any kind of military use of space, including the Missile Defense System, accelerates militarization all over the world and may cause a new cold war in Europe, Asia and other regions”; and that “Greens reject the militarization of space in the name of defense.” These are excellent statements. Yet they fall short of directly confronting the war machine itself that dominates national policies everywhere, especially those of the United States. Nor do these statements directly confront the connection between the enormous diversion of resources and the fact that this commitment of resources to military use precludes any serious attention to climate change, ecological destruction, and worldwide poverty. In addition, it would seem that a statement about militarization must at some point encounter the issue of world governance. These matters are of paramount concern and a global Green movement of Green political parties, it seems to me, would and should confront them head on. 

--In my one-on-one conversations with Greens from different countries about Bruce’s speech, there were strong affirmations, yet I also encountered objection and a degree of dismissal. I tried to get at why this was so. Part of it, maybe most of it, was a feeling that we American Greens are too “radical”. We seem to be seen by some to be condemning our government too much and too quickly. Or we seem, in the style of confirmed and ideologically disposed left-wing dissidents, to put down everything about America. That apparently or presumably is what comes through to some people when they hear us being deeply critical of U.S. policies. Perhaps what they hear is “down with America”, when actually we are specifically rejecting actions of the U.S. Government in the name of large numbers – usually a large majority – of our fellow citizens. We are condemning the government for anti-American policies, not America. This calls for a lot more discussion. There needs to be a determination by Greens on all sides in all parts of the world to listen to one another’s perceptions and arguments. Our American delegation at the workshop on Saturday that the American delegation sponsored, took a step in this direction but we did not get very far. We need to do more.  The Global Greens organization as a whole needs to do more. What’s at issue is complex, difficult and potentially thorny and divisive.

--The Young Greens raised issues about the internal structures and operations of Global Greens. Are they democratic, participatory, accountable, sufficiently transparent?  Doubtless there are efforts being made by the leadership to reach towards these goals. But more needs doing – and more frank recognition that it needs doing. If we think of our structures as evolving, that will help. Also, it may help a lot if we think of our Global Greens structures as a foretaste of the kind of world governance system we human beings on this planet can and should be evolving towards. That’s a visionary thought, to be sure. But why not?  We need visionary thinking. 

#################################################

--

Barack Obama delivered these words to the Tennessee Republican Party a few days ago.

I loved it! At last, I exulted, here is a person with spine who will not take bullying and bullies lying down. The spineless Democrats have at last, and very late, found a candidate who has a bit of steel.

Once there was Dukakis. The GOP attached him via the Willy Horton ads. He either didn’t know how to respond or thought so much about how to do it that he never did it with any power and credibility. Then there was Bill Clinton whose politics of charm was nothing much more than that, and no match for the bullies.  Same with Al Gore in 2000, always looking to find a way to be “nice”.  To say nothing of John Kerry in 2004.  The bullies had a super time with him, literally blew him out of the water. He showed no steel.

So Obama has shown some steel. McKain and company, beware! Obama very clearly has sent them a message.  They know that he knows things about them that they would prefer the country didn’t know. And I think they are beginning to realize that he knows how to use that information – and will use it if they are not careful in what they do.  Witness the scurrying going on now in the McCain camp to “purge” the top ranks of the McKain campaign leaders of people with big lobbying connections. This is not un-related to their growing realization that Obama means business.

So more power to Obama for his quality of steel. And one also has to say that Hilary Clinton also has that edge of steel.  So the Democrats at last have come up with two leaders with spine. For decades they have fallen all over themselves to be “nice guys”.  Probably because they don’t really have the vision or caring or stamina that might generate the will and strength to do what needs doing when it needs doing.

Obama will probably be the Democratic nominee.  We’ll see if the steel he exhibits on behalf of his wife, and on behalf of civilized political discourse, will also be applied to the policy issues he declares he cares deeply about in this campaign.  He wants to win.  At least he’s got that clear: wasn’t true of Gore or Kerry.  But it is true of him.

But in the wings, the Greens have a truly courageous and powerful person with spine and steel to spare. Cynthia McKinney will in all likelihood get the Green Party nomination for president in Chicago July 10-12. If Obama gets elected and if his “steel” isn’t up to the task-- or his party does not match his strength, or both (and that is likely), then Cynthia and the Green Party will show a way forward. Then, as well, the millions of people who will be disappointed yet again with the Democrats will turn to her and the Green Party.

John Rensenbrink
May 20, 2008

He actually calls for putting a cap on greenhouse gases.

Who knows how much farther down this un-Bush road he will have to travel before the vote in November!

John Rensenbrink