You can help rewrite the Green Party Platform for 2010

Thanks, Dave (0.00 / 0)

Thanks much, Dave, for posting this. After a cursory review of the platform in its entirety, I can see I have my work cut out for me.

There's much that's good in here, especially on the domestic front, where, in areas like ag, the platform is based on the kind of common sense that warrants it being read by folks outside the Party, and promotes policies that are in fact pragmatic and implementable.

It's weaker on domestic security and foreign relations, where idealism seems to trump political realities and common sense. (I also do not understand the Green Party--and the Left's--obsession with Israel and Palestine. I'm aware of how much aid we supply, and I'm appalled at Israel's  cat-and-mouse game with the various Palestinian factions--but there's an inordinate amount of space devoted to that issue--and nary a word about the dozens of other countries in which the US plays a questionable role. Why all this space on Israel--and nary a word about, oh, Egypt for one?)

Eli, can you supply some background on the failure of the 2008 convention to address the platform?

---

by: michael horan @ Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 01:46:17 AM UTC

background (0.00 / 0)

Thanks for promoting this, Eli and Michael. I'm looking forward to what you all have to say about the platform.

The background: at the 2008 GP convention in Chicago, the Latino caucus objected to some planks regarding immigration (especially the part about guest worker programs, as I recall), saying that they would create a sort of second-class status for some immigrants. The delegates then voted down the platform. I sensed a general feeling that the membership was given very little time to review the platform, which made people more inclined to vote it down.

As I recall, most of our MA delegation was open to the idea of approving the platform, then improving the offending sections. At any rate, the process this year should be more transparent - and greater transparency would most likely have saved the 2008 platform.

About the foreign policy section - agreed, now get to work! I know you are a prolific writer, and we could use a comprehensive foreign policy rewrite. Israel-Palestine is a valid issue to focus on, since our government's one-sided unconditional support for Israel has done a lot of harm to the US. But we should be careful that our platform isn't similarly one-sided.

---

by: daveschwab @ Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 18:08:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

more 2008 platform background (0.00 / 0)

In addition to concerns of the Latino caucus that Dave shares, I also recall concerns from the Lavender caucus and a number of individuals who stood up to speak (don't remember what the specifics were).  The MA delegation to the convention was rather evenly split on whether the proposed 2008 platform should be accepted or if the 2004 platform should continue to stand. Among the entire delegate population, it wasn't even close.  The platform was soundly defeated. (I voted against the platform.)  I'm supportive of the new procedures being drafted by the National Committee, on which I serve, to allow for better revising and section-approving.

Move forward; the center leads nowhere.

---

by: scott_laugenour @ Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 19:15:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Scott, what were your reasons for voting nay? (NT) (0.00 / 0)

.

---

by: michael horan @ Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 19:20:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

response to Michael's question (0.00 / 0)

The platform that was written and accepted in 2004 was a better document in my opinion than the platform that was written and proposed in 2008.  The NAY vote was a vote to keep the platform that was in place.  I'm glad we are adopting a better process for platform-writing and approving in the future.

Move forward; the center leads nowhere.

---

by: scott_laugenour @ Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 12:08:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]