With The Green Parties Sweeping To New Heights In Europe, It's Important To Understand That The U.S. Equivalent Is NOT The Democratic Party-- At Least Not Yet

MD-05 primary voters will choose between a Climate denier and a Climate activist

On Memorial Day, the NY Times ran an important story by Coral Davenport and Mark Landler that has gone largely unseen, Trump Administration Hardens Its Attack on Climate Science. They make the point that Trump rolled back environmental regulations, pulled the U.S. out of the Paris climate accord, brushed aside dire predictions about the effects of climate change, and turned the term 'global warming' into a punch line rather than a prognosis. But what they're planning is even worse:

In the next few months, the White House will complete the rollback of the most significant federal effort to curb greenhouse-gas emissions, initiated during the Obama administration. It will expand its efforts to impose Mr. Trump’s hard-line views on other nations, building on his retreat from the Paris accord and his recent refusal to sign a communiqué to protect the rapidly melting Arctic region unless it was stripped of any references to climate change.

The U.S. Geological Survey, now controlled by Trump appointee James Reilly, widely considered the least intelligent of all the former astronauts, "has ordered that scientific assessments produced by that office use only computer-generated climate models that project the impact of climate change through 2040, rather than through the end of the century, as had been done previously." The purpose is to distort assessments of the future impact of climate change "because the biggest effects of current emissions will be felt after 2040."

In our radio segment yesterday, David Feldman and I discussed the shocking electoral success Green parties had across Europe in Sunday's elections. All the polling predicted immense gains for the Trumpist neo-fascist extremists and none had so much as mentioned the Greens. Other than in Italy, where there appears to be a genuine craving for another Mussolini-- Trump, amigo Matteo Salvini-- the neo-fascists made much smaller gains than predicted. And the big story was the unexpected victories of the Greens. Not a factor in an Italy and Austria, each bent on re-embracing fascism, nor in Hungary and Poland, where fascism has already taken root, the Greens vaulted into second place in Germany and third place in France, stunned Spain by picking up 4 of the country's 54 seats, gained another 4 U.K. seats as younger voters abandoned Labour, and picked up both EU Parliament seats and local council seats in Ireland. In fact the Green Party candidate, Ciarán Cuffe, came in first in Dublin-- by far, beating the Fine Gael candidate 63,849 to 16,473.

What Feldman wanted to know was if this Green success in Europe meant progressives would have more success in the U.S. That calls for a nuanced response. First of all-- other than on environment and Climate-- Greens aren't necessarily progressive in Europe. The sharp rise in Green voters across the better-educated countries of Europe was primarily caused by two factors. First of all voters under 40 have been growing exasperated that the mainstream right-of-center and left-of-center parties that dominate most of Europe have virtually ignored their growing concerns about the effects of Climate Change (so, same as here). But what happened Sunday was coincident with anger towards the mainstream parties on may unrelated issues-- Brexit, for example.

The politicization of young people over Climate issues is probably as strong in America as in Europe. But in Europe Green parties have been building political machines for decades. That hasn't been the case in the U.S., where Climate activists have been struggling to gain a significant foothold inside a Democratic Party that is riven with grotesque corruption and a geriatric leadership that is two generations away from "getting" the problem. In the advanced European countries the Green Party is now mainstream. Their ideas are catching fire within the Democratic Party, but the party leadership still sees those ideas as a fad. Dinosaurs like Hoyer, Clyburn and Pelosi will have to die off-- at least politically-- before those ideas and that energy came overcome opposition from the younger leaders handpicked by the older leaders to replicate themselves-- whether a Hakeem Jeffries, a Ben Ray Luján or a Cheri Bustos. When AOC took out the designated Democratic leadership's successor to Pelosi, Joe Crowley, reeking of corruption (now a scumbag lobbyist), she struck the loudest political chord for Climate ever heard in this country.

As we saw last night, one of the most potent weapons Steny Hoyer's primary opponent, Briana Urbina, is wielding against him is his own stubborn and clueless refusal to understand the urgency of dealing with Climate Change. Urbina is in her 30's; in 2 weeks Hoyer will turn 80. His home-- and K Street-- will be underwater before he groks the crucial nature of Climate Change.

Heather Grabbe, director of the Open Society European Policy Institute, a think tank, explained that "Neoliberalism has triumphed in economic policy, with both the center-right and center-left adopting it. And then the economic crisis came along... The left did not provide alternatives." Huge numbers of German voters told exit-polling firms that Climate and the environment were their top concern as they made their final decision about who to vote for. In Germany that benefited the Green Party, which took 21% of the vote while the Social Democrats (the German equivalent of the Democrats) took 15.6% and the CDU (the German equivalent of the pre-Trump Republicans) took 28.7%.

If Germany has a politician who is their version of Trump, it would be the disgusting Alexander Gauland, head of the neo-Nazi Alternative for Germany (AfD). After the elections he recognized that it was neither the CDU nor the Social Democrats but the Greens who he called "our main enemy." Aside from hating Muslims, Jews, and foreigners, the AfD hates Science and denies man-made Climate Change.

Out of 235 Democrats in Congress, only 93 have signed on as co-sponsors to AOC's Green New Deal Resolution, several of whom are non-believers, just trying to avoid primary defeats. Not even all the members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus have signed on-- not to mention Pelosi, Hoyer and Clyburn-- and the resolution is being actively opposed by the increasingly powerful Republican wing of the Democratic Party (the Blue Dogs and New Dems). Progressive leaders like Pramila Jayapal, Ro Khanna, Ted Lieu, Raul Grijalva, Barbara Lee, Jan Schakowsky, Jamie Raskin, Jim McGovern (MA), Mark Pocan and Judy Chu are on-board, but of all those dozens of freshman members, just 10 are cosponsors besides AOC-- Rashida Tlaib (MI), Ayanna Pressley (MA), Mike Levin (CA), Joe Neguse (CO), Chuy Garcia (IL), Debbie Mucarsel-Powell (FL), Deb Haaland (NM), Veronica Escobar (TX), Lori Trahan (MA) and Jahana Hayes (CT).

First-time voters in Germany overwhelmingly picked the Green Party as their TOP choice on Sunday. Why should they pick the Democrats while Pelosi, Hoyer and Clyburn-- practically, and effectively, Climate Change deniers-- lead it in Congress, not to mention Status Quo Joe?

D.O.A.'s Joey Shithead Elected To The Burnaby City Council

Back at the tail end of the '70s, when I was playing punk rock indie records on the radio, one of my favorite bands was a hard core punk trio from the Vancouver area, D.O.A. They came down to play in San Francisco so frequently, that people came to regard them as a local band. I had them on my radio show as often as an local band, maybe more for their left-wing politics than for their music per se. And also because of what nice guys they were. They weren't one of those bands with a chip on its collective shoulder. They may have looked and sounded angry and even dangerous onstage, but a nicer bunch of guys you were never gonna meet, especially not in the punk rock confines around the Mabuhay.

And their leader singer/guitarist, Joey Shithead, was always so real and smooth at the same time, a natural born politician who everybody liked a lot. Believe me, not every band that tried to crash the San Francisco punk scene was welcomed so thoroughly as D.O.A. was. And a lot of that was due to Joey Shithead's personality and his political adeptness.

So I can't say I was completely shocked this week when an old friend of mine told me Joey had just been elected to the Burnaby city council, breaking the power monopoly of the Burnaby Citizens Association. The BCA elected seven members of its slate-- the seven incumbents, but Joey Shithead Keithley, running on the Green Party slate narrowly beat BCA candidate Baljinder K. Narang for the 8th seat on the 8-man board. Burnaby is the 3rd largest city in British Columbia with a population of around 233,000 and a reputation of being Canada's best-run city.

Keithley won’t be the only new face at city hall.

Independent Mike Hurley defeated longtime mayor Derek Corrigan of the Burnaby Citizens Association in a race that will no doubt send shock waves across the region.

Keithley said the issue of demovictions is the biggest issue facing the city.

“We have to put a stop to that right away… Housing should be a right, not a privilege,” he said.

Yeah, If You Live In A State Where Trump Has A Chance, Just Hold Your Nose And Vote For Hillary... You'll Live

This week The Nation features dueling perspectives on voting for Jill Stein, Kshama Sawant's Don't Waste Your Vote On The Corporate Agenda-- Vote For Jill Stein And The Greens and Joshua Holland's Your Vote For Jill Stein Is A Wasted Vote. Unless Trump suddenly looks like he's going to have any chance of winning in California-- Clinton is up by an average of just over 19 points here-- I plan to, once again, vote for Jill Stein. Obviously, I don't expect her to win. It's simply a protest vote to send the Democrats a message that their dishonest corporate candidate is not acceptable to me. Yes, she's much, much, much preferable to Trump. So would a steaming pile of dog poop, but, unlike Divine, I'll respectfully pass on eating it. Unless you want the Democratic Party to just keep on nominating candidates like Clinton (up and down the ballot) you won't vote for her in any state that is safe from the Trumpist contagion. I have now switched my position enough to say that if I lived in Ohio or Florida or North Carolina or any state that could be a firewall against Trump, I would unhesitatingly vote for Hillary. That said, I don't represent Holland's assurance that between 75 and 90% of those who say that they’re planning to vote for Green Party candidate Jill Stein in November won’t follow through and that the her support "is an expression of contempt for the Democrats that evaporates in the voting booth." If I voted for her instead of Obama last time, you can count on me not voting for Clinton this time. I'm not a typical voter though. Holland makes a pointless effort to bash the Green Party, pointless to me at least, since I see them-- at this point at least-- as nothing other than a vehicle to protest unbearable Democratic Party corporatism and corruption.

"Many Greens," he concludes, "think that their vote isn’t wasted because it sends a powerful 'message' to Washington. But why would anyone in power pay attention to the 0.36 percent of the popular vote that Jill Stein won in 2012, when 42 percent of eligible voters just stayed home? Political parties are merely vessels. The Green Party provides a forum to demonstrate ideological purity and contempt for 'the system.' But the Democratic Party is a center of real power in this country. For all its flaws, and for all the work still to be done, it offers a viable means of advancing progressive goals. One can’t say the same of the perpetually dysfunctional and often self-marginalizing Greens."

Voting for Stein in safe blue states (or even profoundly backward deep red ones where Trump will win by landslides-- say Wyoming, Idaho or Alabama) is a smart move for progressives who can then busy themselves trying to perfect the Democratic Party or the Green Party or any other party... and trying to make sure the Democratic Party reforms itself;f so that it doesn't steal the nomination from the next Bernie Sanders. Sawant sees the Green Party as a legitimate alternative to the Democrats. Good luck with that. "Most progressives," she writes, "will vote for Clinton to keep Trump out of the White House. That’s understandable, but even more important is building an alternative to pro-capitalist parties... [O]rdinary people feel disenchanted and disempowered. Donald Trump is an abomination, and consistently over 60 percent of people polled disapprove of him and his bigotry. Trump is the single-most-unpopular major-party candidate ever, and he deserves to be trounced. But, incredibly, the Democrats have managed to nominate the second-most-unpopular candidate in history: Hillary Clinton, whose disapproval rating stands at 56 percent. Make no mistake: I want Trump to lose this election. But progressives should not support Clinton. Her close ties to corporate America and its brutal neoliberal agenda will serve to increase the appeal of right-wing populism even if she wins."

Clinton’s billionaire backers, who wined and dined her throughout August, want her to promise as little as possible to ordinary people for fear of a mass movement developing under her administration. They know that working people, and young people especially, are fired up in a way that we haven’t seen in decades. E-mails recently leaked from Nancy Pelosi’s office contain explicit instructions not to agree to any specific demands from Black Lives Matter.

The Democratic Party has a special talent for enabling the right. President Obama was first elected in 2008 on a wave of opposition to eight years of George W. Bush’s wars and tax cuts for the rich. But he and the Democrats continued the bailout of Wall Street and stood by as millions lost their homes-- and the leadership of the labor movement and most progressive organizations gave him a pass. This created space for the Tea Party to exploit the legitimate anger of large sections of the working and middle class. It wasn’t until 2011 that Occupy Wall Street gave a genuine left-wing expression to the widespread outrage at corporate politics.

Change comes from mass movements, not from on high, as Bernie Sanders has said. His campaign proved decisively that ordinary people can build a powerful electoral movement representing their interests without taking a penny from corporate America. Polls consistently showed that Sanders would crush Trump in the election. But his campaign was trapped inside a party whose leadership was prepared to do almost anything to stop him.

We need to build a new political party, one completely free from corporate cash and influence... Many progressives will vote for Clinton in spite of their opposition to her politics, simply to prevent Trump from setting foot in the White House. I understand their desire to see him defeated, but even more important is beginning the process-- too long delayed-- of building an alternative to the pro-capitalist parties monopolizing US politics.

Not radical enough for you? Paul Street, writing yesterday for TruthDig also urged his readers to vote for Stein. "Every four years," he writes, "liberal-left politicos scream wolf about how the Republicans are going to wreak plutocratic, racist, ecocidal, sexist, repressive and war-mongering hell if they win “this, the most important election in American history.” The politicos conveniently ignore the plutocratic, racist, ecocidal, sexist, repressive and military-imperial havoc that Democrats inflict at home and abroad in dark, co-dependent alliance with the ever more radically reactionary Republicans. Democrats fail to acknowledge their preferred party’s responsibility for sustaining the Republicans’ continuing power, which feeds on the “dismal” Dems’ neoliberal abandonment of the nation’s working-class majority in service to transnational Wall Street and corporate America. They commonly exaggerate the danger posed by the right-most major party and (especially) the progressivism of the not-so-left-most one." he points to journalist Mark Leibovich's observation that DC has "become a determinedly bipartisan team when there is money to be made. … 'No Democrats and Republicans in Washington anymore,' goes the maxim, 'only millionaires.'" 

So why might a serious left progressive living in a contested state (someone like this writer) consider following the venerable left political scientist Adolph Reed Jr.’s advice this year to “vote for the lying neoliberal warmonger” Hillary Clinton? Part of it could be that lefty’s sense that it is better for “the U.S. Left” (insofar as it exists) and the development of the dedicated, day-to-day, grass-roots social movement we desperately need in place beneath and beyond the election cycle when a corporate Democrat occupies the White House. The presence of a Democrat in the nominal top U.S. job is usefully instructive. It helps demonstrate the richly bipartisan nature of the American plutocracy and empire. Young workers and students especially need to see and experience how the misery and oppression imposed by capitalism and its evil twin imperialism live on when Democrats hold the Oval Office.

At the same time, the presence of a Republican in the White House tends to fuel the sense among progressives and liberals that the main problem in the country is that the “wrong party” holds executive power and that all energy and activism must be directed at fixing that by putting the “right party” back in. Everything progressive gets sucked into a giant “Get Out the Vote” project for the next faux-progressive Democratic savior, brandishing the promises of “hope” and “change” (campaign keywords for the neoliberal imperialist Bill Clinton in 1992 and the neoliberal imperialist Barack Obama in 2008).

Hillary will be much less capable than the more charismatic Obama (under whom there has been more popular organizing and protest than some lefties like to acknowledge) of bamboozling progressives into thinking they’ve got a friend in the White House. Unlike Obama in 2008, she’s got a long corporatist and imperialist track record that connects her to the establishment and is hard to deny.

It is an urban myth that Republican presidents spark and energize progressive and left activism. True, they’ve done outrageous things that can put lots of folks in the streets for a bit. One thinks of Richard Nixon’s invasion of Cambodia and Bush Jr.’s invasion of Iraq. But the waves of protest recede, followed by repression, and everything tends to get channeled into the holy electoral quest to put Democrats back in executive-branch power. The second George W. Bush term was no activist heyday, thanks in significant measure to the great co-optive and demobilizing impact of Democratic Party electoral politics and the deceptive, not-so “antiwar” Obama phenomenon.

But the main reason it is easy to understand why many intelligent lefties stuck behind contested state lines might follow Reed’s advice is that Trump is no ordinary Republican wolf. By some dire portside reckonings (including Reed’s), “the Donald” is something like a real fascist threat worthy of mention in the same breath as Hitler and Mussolini. He’s a really bad version of the wolf who finally appears to devour the sheep in the ancient [Boy who cried wolf] fable.

...In warning about Trump and instructing lefties not to vote third-party this time, Reed reminds us of the German Community Party’s fateful error: choosing not to ally with the German Social Democrats against the Nazi Party during the early 1930s. The moral of the story is clear: All sane left progressives need to report to duty to protect the flock under the banner of the admittedly horrid (good of Reed to admit that) Hillary.

...[There is] enough to scare lots of left progressives into voting for “the arch-corporatist and Wall Street-sponsored neoliberal imperialist Hillary Clinton (a candidate whom Gupta has described as “right-wing fanatic” and “enemy of workers”) as the proverbial “lesser evil” in a contested state? Sure. For many lefties (this writer included), however, the Trump threat level does not rise that high. The wolf cry still falls on deaf ears. This is for at least six reasons.

First, ominous warnings from smart people notwithstanding, the American corporate, financial and imperial ruling class doesn’t yet need or want real or quasi-fascism through Herr Trump or anyone else at this historical moment. The U.S. model of corporate-managed and “inverted totalitarianism” (Sheldon Wolin) sold as “democracy” is not about strongmen and brown shirts. The notion that the nation’s “deep state” power elite-- the actual rulers who run the nation’s commanding-heights affairs behind the marionette theater of electoral politics-- would (a) let an uber-narcissistic man-child like Donald Trump into the Oval Office and (b) permit him to do the crazy things he talks about is far-fetched.

Neofascism is simply not where the American ruling class is right now. When it is, we will know. If and when it gets there, it will put forward a far more serious and capable frontman than the preposterous Donald-- a man so uninterested in the actual work of ruling that he offered the “moderate” Republican John Kasich control over “domestic and foreign policy” in a Trump White House if Kasich would be his running mate. Trump’s ascendency to the White House could well portend a further chaotic delegitimization of “homeland” authority and a pervasive sense of societal absurdity (I’d be lying if I didn’t acknowledge that my anarchist streetfighter side would relish the installation of a commander in chief as completely absurd as Trump). Along with the humiliating black eye that a Trump White House would be for Uncle Sam on the global stage, this is something the American power elite has reason not to want. It would be bad for business-- and for American-style business rule as usual.

Second, it is frankly comical to think of the ludicrous, soft-fleshed, silver-spooned draft-dodger and pampered television personality Donald Trump as some kind of neo-Fuhrer. He is seen as “unfit for command” by most top military commanders and is far too monumentally unpopular with the majority of citizens to ever rally enough masses to overcome the hostility he faces with the corporate and imperial establishment.

Third, the populace would not be as pathetically supine and powerless as Gupta imagines in response to the election and policies of a vicious clown like Trump. His selection and installment as U.S. president would be understood by tens of millions of Americans as an incredibly provocative development-- provocative and dangerous enough to spark protests and mass mobilizations on a scale like nothing ever seen in American history. That, too, is part of what makes Trump a different kind of Republican wolf. I suggested above that ultra-left backlash theorists (folks who think “things have to get worse before they get better”) are wrong to assume that it’s better to have Republicans in the White House when it comes to sparking popular protest. Trump would be an exception to that rule. The “deep state” has zero interest in the riotous instability that would result from Trump’s election and inauguration.

Fourth, Trump’s not going to win. For all Hillary Clinton’s obvious terrible flaws as a candidate, the big insider cash, the national electoral demographics, and the Electoral College map (just ask Nate Silver and his team of multivariate election predictors at FiveThirtyEight.com) strongly favor her. Her health stumbles and some recent homeland terror attacks have, yes, boosted Trump in the polls recently. That will fade as cold campaign finance realities and corporate media bring the bipartisan ruling class’s long-chosen candidate Hillary to the moment she has literally craved for so long. The big and smart money is still on “the lying neoliberal warmonger.”

Fifth, the Green Party’s Party’s Jill Stein and Ajamu Baraka are combining genuine social movement activism with an electoral campaign for a Green New Deal-- a many-sided program that is much more than just another bit of progressive policy wonkery. It’s an existential necessity for a decent future, one that combines a giant livable ecology-saving program of national and energy and economic reconversion with a giant jobs program and universal health insurance paid for by genuinely progressive taxation (long overdue in “New Gilded Age” America) and massive reductions in the nation’s giant Pentagon System (which accounts for half the world’s military spending). How does any environmentally sentient and peace-advocating lefty not vote for all of that in the current age of savage inequality, rampant militarism, and ever-more imminent eco-catastrophe?

Sixth, “lesser-evil voting” (LEV) has a “terrible track record,” as Stein reminded me last spring. The more American liberals and progressives do it, the more the Republican right wing is emboldened, the further the Democrats move into ideological and policy territory formerly held by Republicans, and the more dire the American and global situation becomes. LEV is a viciously circular, self-fulfilling prophecy that itself holds no small responsibility for the ascendancy of horrible Republican presidents and other terrible things like the tea party and Donald Trump phenomena. And one does not seriously challenge LEV only in so-called safe states. You have to draw some lines in the sand and exit left at some point: Protect the flock.

I am not so inured to the quasi-neofascistic evil of the Trump phenomenon and the ugly prospects of a Trump presidency-- especially on the ecological level-- that I cannot understand why many fellow leftists would mark a ballot for the hideous imperial corporatist Hillary Clinton to block Herr Trump. The intra-left bloodletting that takes place on a regular quadrennial schedule over the difficult question of how best to respond to the United States’ plutocratic electoral and party system certainly does not serve the progressive left cause. Let us join together after the latest quadrennial extravaganza to build and expand a great popular movement with a list of demands and the introduction of an election and party system that deserves passionate citizen engagement.

It's a point of view.I hope you're glad to have read it. You can contribute to stopping Trump here if you want to:

Fukushima Catastrophe Had Another Victim: The Conservative Government Of Baden-Württemberg

Germany's conservatives, through the CDU (Christian Democratic Union), have ruled the country's richest state, Baden-Württemberg, for 58 years. That ended this weekend when state premier Stefan Mappus was defeated not by the Social Democrats but by the Greens! The CDU's share of the vote went from 44.2% in 2006 to 39% in Sunday's election, while the Green/Social Democrats coalition grew to just over 48%, enough to form a new government. (The Greens grew from 11.7% to 25%.) The Greens also tripled their share of the vote in Rhineland-Palatinate to 17% on Sunday and hold the key to the continued ability of the Social Democrats to continue governing. The state will be run by an SD/Green coalition now. Meanwhile, the corporate-party that works in coalition with the CDU, the Free Democrats, crashed and burned, dropping from 10.7% in 2006 to 5.3% Sunday and disappearing off the parliamentary map entirely in Rhineland-Palatinate by failing to get to the 5% threshold.

Later today, we're going to look at Germany's burgeoning alternative energy sector, but the vote Sunday had a great deal to do with the impatience of the voters to wean the country off fossil fuels and nuclear energy fast enough. The Free Dems and CDU were viewed as dragging their feet on behalf of corporate interests, even though Merkel-- sensing a political disaster-- moved rapidly against the nuclear industry after Fukushima. It was too late for voters, who largely saw it as a ploy, since she had just resisted public opinion by extending the lives of 17 plants by over 10 years each.

The outgoing Baden-Württemberg premier (or "minister president") has been a major advocate for nuclear energy and the party was on shaky ground even before the catastrophe in Fukushima. The German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, blamed her party's losses on fears sparked by the Japan nuclear crisis. "The debate in connection with the Japanese nuclear plant of Fukushima was clearly what led to our defeat," she said. "My view of atomic energy has changed since the events in Japan." The corporate rightist media in Germany reacted much the same way it reacts to victories by pro-worker candidates in the U.S.-- with warnings, hand-wringing and veiled threats.

Right-wing daily Die Welt called the potential new coalition in Baden-Württemberg a “bizarre constellation” that wouldn’t fit in-- at least not at first.

“Democracy can be exciting. It exists on the possibility of change,” the paper wrote. “The change in values has also washed over Baden-Württemberg - the bastion of tradition, and above all the industry success model for the country that continues to flourish-- and it has lost its quiet self-assurance.”

“A Greens-SPD coalition has against the foundations, the mentality, and many traditions of Baden-Württemberg. Thus the leaders of both parties-- despite the yells of triumph from backbenchers-- must try to avoid trampling everything.”