The largest political position she’s ever held is a Town Meeting Representative- for which she gathered 539 votes.
Everything else has been a failed run for (progressively) larger positions.
So.
Maybe some people see that as a strength; I do not.
2 Likes
From hearing Dr. Stein talk, I get the impression that the alternative medicine, vegan lotus-eating claptrap is really not core values but the stuff in there to satisfy a small part of the party. Much like the DNC’s position statement on faith in the 2016 platform is there to reassure Christians that they’re not voting for some kind of scary athiest.
Remember, the environment used to be much more of a fringe/hippy/feel-good movement in general (despite some solid science showing that, for instance, leaded gasoline was poisoning us). The Green Party has its origins with the granola and patchouli crowd. But protecting the environment is a national security, economic and survival issue at this point.
Stein is vehemently anti-nuclear. I think that isn’t fringey and anti-science but just good policy generally. I know some people believe otherwise. I am not a purist on the issue, but I believe we need to invest in research rather than building and continuing to operate old-school reactors. I live near an illegal nuclear waste dump from the 70s that has an underground garbage dump fire a hundred yards away. I’m not thrilled with the idea of more nuclear waste or convinced that moving to another non-renewable fuel that is more difficult, expensive and hazardous than fossil fuels, where each plant takes a huge investment in time and money to get started, is a great idea. Germany and… Denmark, I think it was? …have both had days in which they generated more than 100% of their electricity needs with wind power, and that’s without even a massive national commitment to clean energy.
7 Likes
The Australian Greens arose from the forestry conservation movement, with a similar tendency to indulge in hippy daftness during the early days.
But those early days are a long time ago. This is the science policy of the Oz Greens these days: http://greens.org.au/policies/science-technology
The international Green movement has gone beyond its hippy roots and abandoned advocacy of pseudoscience. Sounds like the US Greens are on the way there, but perhaps still lagging somewhat?
3 Likes
They’re lagging in a lot of ways, yeah.
1 Like
Cornel West endorses Jill Stein:
This November, we need change. Yet we are tied in a choice between Trump, who would be a neo-fascist catastrophe, and Clinton, a neo-liberal disaster. That’s why I am supporting Jill Stein. I am with her – the only progressive woman in the race – because we’ve got to get beyond this lock-jaw situation. I have a deep love for my brother Bernie Sanders, but I disagree with him on Hillary Clinton. I don’t think she would be an “outstanding president”. Her militarism makes the world a less safe place.
5 Likes
It’s how the Goonhogo took Venus, after all.
There’s some outright misinformation as well as mockery of valid science-based positions ya got there. She’s hardly anti-vax. But in any case, can we fault Dr. Stein for attempting to get the votes of hippies when her competition are competing for the votes of Klansmen and warmongers? Is that really a valid objection under the circumstances?
OK… Here in reality, the major candidates all ritually declare allegiance to a magical invisible sky-man. And you’re worried about a limp palm leaf held out to alternative health care? I don’t think the Greens are the fanatics in the room. 
If your shibboleths are wholehearted, uncritical endorsement of nuclear power or corporate medicine, well, Jill Stein is not the candidate for you, that’s true.
When you actually look at the platforms the Greens are fundamentally more pro-science than either the Republicans or the Democrats. Science says humanity needs sustainable industry and energy production, and the Greens agree - and not just in mealy mouthed speeches. The Republicans and Democrats, meanwhile, are actively accelerating unsustainability - the GOP more so, granted.
I understand the bad taste the Teabaggers left in everyone’s mouths, and this is probably the most valid criticism of Dr. Stein. But seriously; it’s impossible for anyone to make a new path if your requirement is that they already be part of the old political machine.
I think that Dr. Stein’s willingness to take Bernie Sanders - platform and all - into the Green party shows that she is the kind of leader we need. Vote Stein!
6 Likes
Looking into it I was in error re:vaccines, not sure where I’d gotten that, but that is not correct. Sorry.
Outside the error, my general point I was trying for wasn’t “ew hippies,” but that if you want to start a political party that functions in the world as it exists, you need to secure the votes of ~50% of the electorate. Pandering to hippies is fine so long as you’re also reaching out to a bunch of other people, otherwise the Greens aren’t so much political party as a side-show for escapists who wish they could opt out of the harsh political reality they live in by visualizing a political reality that doesn’t exist. I’d like them to become mainstream so they can actually realize change rather than wander back to the drum circle after yet another landslide loss, but instead they’re working to not be mainstream like some hipster political party.
If you’re concerned about outright misinformation, first, claiming both parties are competing for the votes of Klansmen is at best deeply misleading. Second, I didn’t see “start a bunch of wars” as either’s policy position. Clinton’s a hawk, but she’s not running on being a hawk. Trump’s a moron, but actually not a hawk, but rather an anti-interventionist. While he’d probably blunder his way into some wars, he’s not saying anything like “start a bunch of wars.”
1 Like
You’ve got a valid point, but I think you’re overstating its importance. Keep in mind that there are solar panels going up on rooftops and churches around me in ever increasing numbers, and that rural conservatives who fish and hunt are some of the greenest people in the country. Greens could do worse than keep to their principles and let people come to them, rather than swinging more mainstream.
I phrased it poorly. Clearly only a subset of the Republican candidates were actively competing for the racist vote. Carson and Kasich stayed out, as did the Dems. But nearly all the candidates (and certainly Clinton!) are pandering to warmongerers pretty blatantly, with all their “tough on terror” posturing. Hmmm, you’ve got a point there about Trump, too; he’s actually not at all conventionally hawkish.
I think that if the Greens were first and foremost a conservation/environmentalist centered party, and didn’t pick up all the other hippy stuff to the point of diluting that issue they’d do better and have broader appeal. The locals in the rural areas around here are generally pro-conservation/environmental protection (unless there are jobs involved, in which case the environment can burn), but I’ve actually talked to a few about politics since I’m a white guy, and I can keep it cool with the shit-kickers. The general consensus from my small sample is that they hate Trump (New York con artist), but loathe Clinton more (Clinton Body Count), but think Bernie’s the only worse option (Communist), and they aren’t aware of the Greens. They also loathe hippies.
Having the Greens adopt a bunch of positions that only serve to paint themselves as an enemy to a significant block of the populace they might actually find a constituency in seems foolish to me if they really want to be effective at realizing the massively difficult goal they claim to. In addition, running for pres. at this point is a strange vanity that only makes them look more absurd, unrealistic, and ineffective. If there was a TX Green Party that reached out to rural and urban TX (and other states) in a way that got people engaged in every race, and started getting people elected and groomed with experience in the dumb broken system they’re saying they want to change, then in maybe 12 years a Pres. run might make sense. Now it’s a hollow gesture, since they haven’t done any of the massive amounts of prior work required, and it makes it look like they don’t actually have a shadow of an understanding of how to do the job they’re saying they want.
2 Likes
Right now the best chance progressives have of making a difference is keeping up the pressure on HRC to stick to her leftward turn during the campaign. We do that by staying in play, so her campaign continues to court us, and that she continues to make promises in public that we can try to hold her to if she wins. At least make her start her presidency from the left before the inevitable compromises begin.
Endorsing a third-party candidate, rather than keeping your cards close to your vest (even if you already know you plan to vote for that candidate) is just giving away what little power you have, making yourself irrelevant. In 40 years of visible 3rd party candidates, it has never once been the case that the effect of that candidacy has been to pull a party in their direction.
Politicians view the world through the currency of political capital, and even in a state where Clinton is likely to draw a superminority of votes, she would far rather get 30% of the vote than 25% of the vote, because she knows that difference will translate into tangible influence when she is elected. She needs an incentive to court progressives even if those progressives live in Texas or Alabama.
Vote for whichever candidate you are comfortable voting for come November, but for heaven’s sake let’s keep the 3rd parties a threat, an alternative for Clinton to try to avoid, rather than a done deal.
10 Likes
Cogent.
3 Likes
Third parties aren’t nearly as effective as primary challengers, and that’s over now. I don’t recall seeing any policy changes in response to the Greens that affected Gore, Kerry, or Obama’s campaigns, though maybe I missed it. Do you know of any?
Maintaining pressure on Clinton from the left is important, though I think donating time/money/anything possible to the UCS, ACLU, NRDC, or whatever orgs backs your preferred issues most will net more results since you’ll be helping organizations that work the system, know how it works, and keep up the fight.
8 Likes
No. There aren’t any.
Incidentally, it occurs to me that I’ve probably met Stein; she was in my sister’s high school class, and I attended many events at her childhood synagogue. That wouldn’t be a good reason to vote for her, of course.
3 Likes
I’m kind of undecided on that myself so I haven’t a single argument to offer.
The Greens have at times taken stands that are far enough from their core principles that they are probably scaring people away, and I don’t think they’re crafting their message well enough to appeal directly to the average hunter, fisherman or gardener. I do see that. They need to counter the “Greens are anti-science hippies and that’s true because I say so” propaganda you can see up-thread here.
On the other claw, at some point America’s going to have to admit the hippies were right. We’re no longer punishing people for sex outside of marriage and certain positions; we no longer teach schoolchildren that war is glorious and desirable, we’re legalizing pot everywhere, science says going “back to the soil” is literally, provably good for your health when the environment has been properly cared for… I remember the sixties and seventies, and purple and orange bellbottoms, and nearly all of what the hippies were on about is now mainstream. They were (mostly) correct and the Demolicans & Republicrats were dead wrong.
So I really don’t know if the Greens are better off drifting Right, and becoming another party of corporate compromise to get votes, or holding their hippie idealism and waiting for voters to realize that their flaws are less important than those of the dominant political machines. I just don’t know.
Either way, I’ve voted for Green candidates in local elections, and I’m happy to vote for Jill Stein for POTUS. The more votes the Greens get, the better for the human race as a whole.
9 Likes
Might as well leave this here. Even if you do disagree with the author, it does at least give some idea as to Stein’s policy positions
4 Likes
I don’t know that conflating yourself with the #Brexiters is the best move to make to win left-wing support…
Thanks, @Jerwin! An excellent example of a political hatchet job, but like you said, it does give a few hints of what the Green platform looks like.
Edit: here is the TLDR; version of the wall o’ text down below:
Columnist says all Jill Stein’s radical positions (sustainability, anti-pollution, education, &etc.) are really liberal mainstream but also “snake oil” because:
a) Bernie Sanders did it better so f**k her
b) nobody can really make these things happen anyway
c) she is a scary hippie! A scary COMMUNIST hippie!!
d) she did not condemn antivaxxers in strong enough words
e) her party refuses to comprehensively condemn all alternative medicine
f) she is willing to support the American public’s majority position on nuclear power
g) she is willing to support the American public’s majority position on GMOs
h) she is willing to support the American public’s majority position on pesticides
i) her economics are not conventionally perfect according to an economics columnist
In my opinion the point e was overstated but has some validity, and the point i is well outside my expertise but doesn’t really matter.
WALL O’ TEXT VERSION, with actual quotes!
Some of the ideas, like a $15 minimum wage and free college tuition, are mainstream these days, thanks to the work of progressive activists and Sanders himself
In other words, it’s great and revolutionary when Bernie Sanders says it, but when Jill Stein says it it’s just bandwagoneering, pay no attention to these parts of the Green platform <INSERT GIANT EYEROLL HERE>. Slate’s columnist isn’t brave enough to denigrate or belittle her stance on these critically important issues, so he’ll just pretend this is “mainstream” when clearly it isn’t.
Bipartisan Saint Ronald Reagan wrecked the American educational system with help from both major parties, and he started by eliminating taxpayer funded higher education in California. The political mainstream stands quite firmly against free tuition (more accurately called tax-funded tuition) and total per-pupil funding for education is dropping steadily all across the entire USA. They talk big about education while they defund it.
The Green Party’s stance on higher education should matter quite a bit more than a dismissive first paragraph, but he’s introducing this first in hopes that he can whip you into an anti-hippie froth later in the article, and you’ll forget all about this part.
Others, like moving to 100 percent renewable energy by 2030 (while ditching nuclear), are deeply unrealistic, if admirable in spirit. And more than a few sound like they were hatched in an old Bay Area commune.
Oh, those dirty Bay Area hippy communists, nothing they say is achievable, it’s all drugs and crystals, you know? We have to live in the Real World ™ with the Superpredators and Sanctuary Cities. You won’t see Jill Stein cracking down on Welfare Queens and Crack Babies like those reality-based Democrats and Republicans do, she wants to focus efforts on pie-in-the sky stuff like achievable, science-based policy and goals. Every analysis of what it would take to go 100% renewable comes in at no more cost and effort than our endless War on Brown People With Accents Terror.
Cut defense spending in half and close more than 700 foreign military bases? Sure, maybe after we get done levitating the Pentagon.
Apparently those are bad positions to hold because they are violations of physical laws like gravity. Uhmmmmmm… OK… sure. The military budget is locked in stone and no candidate can change it, if elected. Oddly enough, Jill Stein is not the only person suggesting modifications to the military budget. Are all her competition communist hippies too?
Tucked into this long, starry-eyed list of progressive causes are a few lines that remind you of the far left's fraught relationship with biological science. There's a call not just to label genetically modified foods but to “put a moratorium on GMOs and pesticides until they are proven safe.”
Oh, by all means, let’s make the deciding factor on the presidential race whether Monsanto’s profits are protected. Education and foreign military adventuring and the militarization of domestic police are just tiny little issues when compared to a politician who is willing to curry favor with the electorate by doing what the vast majority of US citizens want. I am not anti-GMO, personally (although I am pro-labeling because anti-labeling is simply anti-science, full stop) but I don’t see the problem here. Nobody will starve if GMOs are banned; nobody will be harmed except some of the most viciously amoral corporations in business. You have to wonder why this columnist is so shocked by the Greens’ open support for the majority of US voters’ beliefs. Is this really as important an issue as education or sustainability?
She would also “Ban neonicotinoids and other pesticides that threaten the survival of bees, butterflies, and other pollinators.
Again, right or wrong (and it’s actually quite unclear, thanks to the Merchants of Doubt) this is not a plank that should be considered more important than education or sustainable energy policy. Nobody will starve or die if we save a few monarch butterflies. It only affects the bottom line of a few corporations well known to be morally and ethically challenged; corporations who are major polluters. Any surprise that the Greens aren’t sculpting their message to suit these corporations?
It is also in keeping with the last official Green Party platform, from 2014, which supports the “teaching, funding, and practice” of “alternative therapies” such as naturopathy and homeopathy, i.e. funneling money into quack medicine
This somewhat muddled and edited statement actually is an official plank of the Green Party, which has unfortunately not yet received enough votes to be revised. I don’t like it, and I think it’s a valid criticism that it introduces religious views in what should be a solely science-based plank, but again this is simply a reflection of the mainstream viewpoint of the American public. It is not the same thing as Dr. Stein personally proposing dilution homeopathy be mandated for all your babies, so nobody here needs to derail into the usual BoingBoing anti-homeopathy pile-on, nor is it (as the columnist claims) the same thing as “funneling money into quack medicine”.
But you know, this whole bogus anti-science charge (based on cherry picking a few issues where the Greens represent the majority of public opinion, such as nukes, GMOS, and alternative medicine, and ignoring the other 90% of the Green platform) should be completely dismissed by anyone aware of how science and public policy work. Jill Stein wants to educate Americans and do something about pollution. If someone really cares more about GMOs than about sustainability or police shooting unarmed children, they should still consider supporting Stein for her educational policies, because the data says the only way to get Americans to stop fearing GMOs and stop believing in dilution homeopathy is to educate them.
Next the columnist holds up Sanders faintly weasel worded (“I am sensitive to the fact that there are some families who disagree”) endorsement of vaccination as a paragon of plain talk and calls Stein’s (admittedly also weasel worded) endorsement of vaccination “pandering” and “fueling fears” even though the two candidates hold exactly the same position. As does Hillary Clinton, I might add. But falsely painting Greens as anti-vaxxers - when it’s more accurate to paint California Democrats with that particular tar-brush - is a standard tactic. Browns know it’s important to keep voters from realizing the Greens have the strongest pro-science credentials of any party simply by virtue of wanting to build a sustainable society. Even the Democrats, who come in second place in this regard, aren’t willing to oppose deep-sea oil drillers or nuke fetishists - despite the vast majority of the American public being fundamentally against these energy sources! And who other than the Greens is entirely basing their infrastructure on open source software, I ask you?
The rest of the article is a lengthy farrago of complaint about Dr. Stein’s lack of understanding of how the bank bailouts worked, fear-mongering about the economic effects of bailing out student loans, and (near the end) a possibly legitimate criticism of her position on raising the debt ceiling, couched in scare verbiage equating her position with “austerity”. The author is billed as an economist, and excoriates Dr. Stein for having less knowledge of the arcane intricacies of finance than he himself does, and for pandering to American beliefs about Wall Street chicanery rather than to the erudite elite of the Economic Schools. I don’t have the financial chops to say if his nitpicking is really meaningful, so I’ll assume he’s absolutely right about everything, and the Stein has no more knowledge of economics than 85% of US presidents, or of 99% of the public. Really not a big deal for me! I also would not be upset if it turned out she doesn’t know how to tune the carburetor of the presidential limousine - I figure as long as she knows how to find an honest mechanic and judge the results of his work that she doesn’t need to personally balance a carb float.
10 Likes
" Pet/Baby thought translators"
Not a good idea for some. I have done things my cat has seen that I would never want divulged to other people.
2 Likes
I don’t understand your post. I followed the link and I can’t find anything about British politics at all. Plenty of the usual “Stein is an antivaxxer and hates science” lies and disinformation, of course, but no Brexiters.
1 Like
I’m talking about the #DemExit hashtag.
