Hello DU! I am often puzzled by the hatred of Hillary Clinton (and the DLC) and the hatred of Ralph Nader (and the Green party). Here, now, is a post that juxtaposes these two sore subjects in one nice little package. This is an interview of former Green, now NYS Democratic candidate for Senate, Mr. Steve Greendfield. Steve is interviewed by (Dean for Westchester organizer) Don Debar.
Steve Greenfield is running an anti war campaign against Hillary Clinton.
...
Subject: Interview With NY Senate Candidate Steve Greenfield
Yummy Yummy Blog. 1/18/2006 - Interview With NY
Senate Candidate Steve Greenfield From
http://justblogme.com/progblog/5067/ I got to do an email interview with Steve Greenfield. Steve is
competing with pro-war senator Hillary Clinton in the Democrat primaries for
the Senate seat this year. For more information on Steve Greenfield you
can visit
http://www.greenfieldforsenate.org/ YYB: Have you made many allies in the Democratic Party yet?
Steve: That depends on what you call the Democratic Party. Active
organization people associated with town, county, and state Democratic
Committees, as well as elected officials, have been receptive to meeting
me and hearing my message, but are predictably slow to volunteer or
endorse. On the other hand, if you consider the Democratic Party to be its
5.5 million members, then I can say yes, I have made many allies in the
Democratic Party, obviously most especially the ones keenly involved in
anti-war activities.
YYB: Do some Democrats see you as just an outsider trying to ruin
things in their party?
Steve: No. Some see me as an outsider, but they're not ascribing any
negative motive.
YYB: What are your plans in the next few months to get your campaign
moving along?
Steve: Personal appearances at small gatherings of peace activists
and local Democratic Party clubs, media interviews, fundraising, and
assembling petitioning volunteers.
YYB: You were a member of the Green Party before changing to
Democrat. Do you hope to infuse some Green values into the Democratic Party?
Steve: That's a much larger project than can be taken on by this
campaign. It's necessary work, but unfortunately, the progressive Democrats
who have already formed ostensibly behind this purpose, the PDA, are
dedicated to a tactic that has been shown historically to never succeed.
Nothing is going to change in the Democratic Party until progressives
enrolled in the Democratic Party realize that a long-term commitment to
ideology means more than blind, short-term loyalty to pursuit of
legislative majorities. Sadly, at this time, there are very few Democrat
activists, even in the PDA, who are learning this essential truth.
Therefore I have to keep the focus of my campaign on the more limited and
realistic goal of stopping the war.
YYB: Ideally, what do you think people who are buying into the PDA,
believing Democrats will move more to the left, should rather be doing
to spend their time and energy more wisely?
Steve: The problem is not with the desire to move the party to the
left and organizing groups of people with the same desire into working
units. Obviously those are good things. The problem is in what these
groups do once they're together. There are only two kinds of PDA-supported
candidacies. One is a progressive Dem running unopposed in his/her own
party and therefore in a general election, say like a Jose Serrano in
New York, and so PDA activities turn out to be nothing more than a Get
Out The Vote exercise (which the campaign would be doing anyway, with or
without PDA) to ensure victory over the Republican. The other is a
primary like the one I'm in, where a progressive is trying to run against a
DLC Dem. In these cases, the position of the PDA is to withdraw
opposition to the right-wing Dem after the primary and press the progressive
voters to abandon their principles and vote for the person they had
previously been opposing (lesser evil, etc.). This is their policy
regardless
of how wide a margin of victory is expected over the Republican. Since
PDA applies no pressure to the incumbent in that they state up front
that they will be directing all their votes to the winner regardless of
whether or not the winner has changed any of his/her positions to
reflect the desires of progressive constituents, the right-wing incumbent has
no motive to listen to them and move to the left -- there is nothing to
lose by ignoring them, and candidates only pay attention to squeaky
wheels that could hurt their reelection chances. Since PDA candidates
running in primaries against DLC incumbents will, by definition, always be
much less well-known, much less qualified, and marginally funded, there
is simply no way for a PDA candidate to actually win a primary against
a DLC incumbent. So what ends up happening is the DLC incumbent wins
the primary by a wide margin and then actually improves their own
strength, ability and interest in moving yet further to the right by showing
that progressive Dems will always fall into line. The PDA in effect
becomes nothing more than a channel through which progressive votes are
gathered to flow through the progressive challenger and directly to the
conservative incumbent. The only way for the PDA to have any impact is
to make the DLC candidates worry that the progressives might not
materialize in the general election if concessions are not made, but the PDA
mission and leadership reject this theory, and most PDA members bristle
at the very suggestion.
The Greenfield For Senate campaign is specifically engineered to be
the "antidote to lesser-evilism" and the inevitable, continuous
rightward drift "lesser-evilism" engenders. It's an intervention, if you will,
for an addicted loved one (the progressive Democratic Party voter).
This is what distinguishes my campaign from all other progressive primary
challenge within the Democratic Party this year, anywhere in the
nation. It is the only one that promises to shake the DLC presumption of
invincibility from within. The huge margin Hillary holds over any potential
Republican opponent in NY makes this the perfect race to apply my
theories. And if my campaign sparks sufficient grassroots interest, it could
become the model for an effective nationwide movement in time for 2008.
YYB: Do you believe that you could have just as good of an impact
showing Clinton to be not as progressive as she would like people to
believe if you ran as a Green?
Steve: No. My change of party enrollment had a lot to do with the
answer to that question being no. The press doesn't answer phone calls
from Greens, which means as strong as the Green message is, it doesn't get
out to the public. It's a shame but that's how it is. The "progressive"
press, like The Nation, is more guilty than the mainstream media, which
at least reports on stunts. The progressive media establishment spent
all of 2003 and 2004 successfully villifying the Green Party in the
progressive community out of their false fear of Greens taking votes away
from Democrats, and the byproducts of that are a) the formerly
hard-charging Green Party has pretty much been reduced by these progressive
media efforts to fringe party status, meaning there is even less reason now
than before for the mainstream media to cover them, and b) the
progressive media, having contributed so much to weakening the public profile
of the Green Party, isn't exactly receptive to the idea of reversing
course and empowering them during a campaign season they are becoming
convinced could end the Republican majorities in both houses of
Congress if the Greens would just stay out of the way of the Democrats. I am
greatly saddened by the way well-meaning progressive intellectuals have
shot themselves and their belief systems in the foot this way, but I
have to acknowledge that it's real. Greens have, for now, become
invisible.
YYB: Do you feel as though you might have burned some bridges with
some Greens because you decided to jump ship and become a Democrat? I'm
sure more than a few are appalled by it and that it might cause
problems if you were to come back?
Steve: It's too soon to tell. Many of them understand that I did not
so much jump ship as pursue a more aggressive anti-war strategy.
YYB: Do you see the Green party as almost becoming a mirror image
of the Democratic party already, in how they are losing their backbone
as well and making too many compromises and not putting up much of a
fight for things that are important? It also seems like there is a serious
problem with many Greens, similar to Democrat supporters in how they
are just going to vote for Democrats even though they don't represent
them at all and see it as wasting their vote if they vote for someone
other than the Democrat.
Steve: The Green Party of the United States is divided around this
question and fracturing because of it. I do not believe the national
party will continue past the 2008 election cycle, although it is even
possible the end may come sooner. The Cobb "safe states" presidential
campaign was a disaster that caused irreparable harm to the national party.
However, in many individual state Green Parties, Greens are resolved to
not mirror the PDA path and are rejecting "lesser-evilism" in favor of
full party independence and ideological purity. The New York State
Green Party is one of those, and before leaving I worked hard to make sure
they adopted such policies. In fact, I was the main sponsor of the
policies. Even if the GPUS federation splits up, it is possible that the
larger state Green parties that are committed to independence
(California, New York, Pennsylvania, Florida) may be able to start a more viable
replacement.
YYB: It seems like the most work you have to do is make sure you get
on the ballot and without even much press, you'll get a substantial
amount of the anti-war crowd's votes. Hopefully that will have Clinton
worrying and maybe changing her stance on being pro-war/pro-military. Are
you worried that some Democrats will resort to unethical methods to
make sure you don't get on the ballot? It seems like with candidates who
are against the Republican/Republican lite politicians, that their best
method is to drain their smaller candidates funds by having them waste
it on constant court challenges to get them out of the political arena.
Steve: I am not expecting my petitions to be challenged. In most
situations they would be, but not this one. Hillary and her people know
that they would lose any hope of placating the anti-war contingent into
coming behind her again in the general election if her campaign or the
Democratic Party tried to throw such an incredibly quixotic, long-shot,
low-funded candidacy off the ballot. She's the ultimate panderer. Her
entire modus operandi is to alienate people just enough to incorporate
other consituencies without actually losing the votes of those she has
alienated. For her campaign or the Democrats to move to block an anti-war
candidacy that is absolutely no threat to her victory would be
perceived as a) incredibly mean, b) incredibly childish, and c) so profoundly
pro-war as to guarantee she'll get no votes at all from anti-war people
in November and set herself up to possibly be spoiled by a Green or
other anti-war general election candidate. She may be DLC, but she's not
stupid. She would never take such an aggressive step against such a
harmless lamb.
YYB: Are you amazed at how strong the anti-war crowd is even though
they continue to vote for pro-war Democrats and put all of the blame on
Bush for the most part?
Steve: I'm having a bit of trouble figuring this one out. The
anti-war crowd is strong by only one definition: numbers. By their actions
they have so far been very weak, as in the second half of your question.
They're afraid. They've spent their whole lives becoming justifiably
afraid of Republicans. As long as the bombs Democrats voted to drop are
dropping in Iraq and nowhere near America, peace-oriented Democrats have
continued to be Democrats first and anti-war activists second, in other
words, they are still much more anti-Republican than anti-war. My
mission in this campaign is to start to change that attitude, at least until
the war is ended. Otherwise, the war won't end. It doesn't matter how
much you think you'd like to stop the war if you send a pro-war delegate
to Congress. If you vote for war candidates, you're voting for war, and
war is what you'll get, regardless of what column it's in. I find it
tragic beyond all description that in 2004, 122 million Americans,
ecactly 99% of those participating, voted for pro-war candidates, and
that fewer than 1 million, a paltry 0.8% voted for anti-war candidates.
I don't know how I would explain that to Iraqi civilians if I were
trying to show that many Americans are against the war. It's also very
sadly telling that with so much at stake, and with so much distinguishing
the potential candidates, that only 25% of the Democrat voters who
eventually turned out in the general election took part in the primaries,
their own candidate selection process. American Democracy is in free
fall, and the American Citizens are, for the time being, doing too little
to save it. I'm trying my best to set an example of individual citizen
responsibility for the national interest. I hope that doesn't sound too
corny, but that's the way they taught it to us in the Boy Scouts, and
as they say, once an Eagle, always an Eagle, and that's my personal
belief system. It's time for us to stop blaming Republicans, Democrats,
corporations, lobbyists, or any of the easy-target institutions and
take a long hard look at ourselves.
YYB: What would Hillary Clinton have to do to get you to stop running
and to support her?
Steve: She'd have to make a clear statement that US involvement in
Iraq seems to have no mission, and therefore no purpose for expending
American lives, and that she has changed her view to demanding a prompt
withdrawal of all US forces, meaning as quickly as protecting the safety
of the troops themselves in departing would allow.
YYB: Do you see the anti-war crowd, at least the portion made up of
Democrats/Republicans as basically pointless to some degree? They
remind me a little of how some progressive groups of people will organize
for a particular issue not being addressed at all by either party, hoping
that Democrats will take it up or try to appeal to them to get their
vote, but the Democrats don't bother because they know they won't be
voting for the Republican and of course they do vote for the Democrat
anyways even though their issue is not being considered at all.
Steve: The anti-war movement is weak as much due to its
organizational practices as to its predictable refusal to draw any lines in the
sand, and the first inevitably leads to the second. For example, in most
anti-war groups, decisions are made by consensus, which loosely
translates as unanimity rather than majority rule. I have been unable to book
visits to several anti-war groups because of their failure to achieve
unanimity in approving the request for the invitation, the blocking vote
sometimes over an unfounded fear of losing tax-exempt status, or perhaps
even by a Hillary supporter (yes, there are Hillary supporters in the
peace movement, and no, I don't have any idea why) who prefers that she
not be challenged, but nonetheless, a blocking vote means the decision
is not approved. You can be sure Hillary never encounters this problem
when scheduling campaign appearances. The difficulties and sluggishness
of consensus decision-making are compounded by anti-war activists'
tendency to also be generally progressive rather than peace-focused.
If a peace group wanted to adopt a policy of not supporting a pro-war
candidate under any circumstances so as to improve their power, a single
"no" vote by someone equally motivated by health care or reproductive
rights issues would block the policy. Pacifists tend to believe in
cooperative rather than competitive decision-making processes, and I suppose
this is spiritually advantageous, but it contributes to the host of
reasons why the movement stays weak and gets little done. I may have just
revealed a great dark secret about progressives, that we are in a sense
too nice to succeed, but that's how it is. No matter how much
progressives fail, we have preserved the ability to feel good about ourselves as
human beings, which seems to take precedence over actual victory for
most decent human beings, so we never sense the urgency of changing
tactics. With this kind of honest and supportive but inherently paradoxical
organizational philosophy being the rule in positive, progressive
movements, the pro-war power structure holds a permanent competitive
advantage. The elements preventing anti-war movements from becoming powerful
run very, very deep.
YYB: Does it bother you that Hillary Clinton is now starting to water
down her stance on abortion rights? I get the impression that by the
time she's a presidential candidate she will be even more moderate on it
in the hopes of not alienating pro-lifers.
Steve: It's hard to say that she's watering it down, only that she's
starting to talk about it more in public. She's been in favor of
parental consent and other harmful intrusions on choice all along. And she
doesn't understand that making statements like "it would be nice to
eliminate the need for abortions" does nothing to stop the alienation of the
pro-lifers, and that she thinks so shows she has no idea how the
pro-life mind operates. For example, the pro-life voter is every bit as
opposed to sex education, contraception, and WIC funding as they are to
abortion, so you can't appeal to them by discussing "reducing the need" for
abortions -- in fact, you're just going to make them angrier.
YYB: After this senate race is over, do you plan on staying and
working within the Democratic Party or is this mostly a short-term thing to
challenge Hillary Clinton and get more attention drawn to the pro-war
politicians within the Democratic Party?
Steve: The answer to that depends on what the enrolled Democratic
Party members show me on Primary Day and immediately thereafter. As I said
before, the tiny fraction (1% or so) of the Democrats who are now
working on moving the party back to the left are committed to a doomed
tactic. The other 99% either don't care or are firmly in the DLC-Blue Dog
camp. So to even get started on this project, the small forces on the
left would have to be convinced to entirely change course, and in the
first couple of weeks after Primary Day I'll be able to observe whether
anyone has learned this and become willing to incorporate it into their
planning.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
