From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Subject: Hawai'i Greens (was Re: Greens vs. Property Rights)
Date: 7 Jan 93 20:19:20 GMT
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO

In article <1993Jan7.093014.28409@netcom.com> 74170.3696@compuserve.com writes:
>[posted for Karen, who _is_ getting to read all messages, though
>usually lagged by at least one full day.]
>
>In reply to message 180037.8487 from dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
>
>Dean says:
>
>> ... while it is true that the national Green organization moved
>> to the left in some areas, it was a very democratic process.  It
>> took years to put the program together, involved people from 
>> around the country, and was finalized at a national gathering in 
>> Colorado.  All Greens had plenty of opportunity to participate. 
>
>Nope, Dean, we Hawai'i Greens didn't have an opportunity to
>participate, because none of us had the money for airfare.  There
>was no mechanism for small, distant and poor groups to participate. 

This is certainly a problem, but since the rest of the Greens are
also a poor lot, this isn't really their fault.  I know that locals
can vote on many issues without going to gatherings, but maybe more
of this is needed to deal with this problem.
>   
>> It does seem that there are parts of the program that Karen does
>> not like, which is not surprising since no document will ever
>> satsify all people in a large group, especially one as diverse
>> as the Greens.  Since Karen has posted here I assume she is still
>> involved with some Greens.  I would like to here what 
>> alternatives she would suggest for the parts of the program that
>> she doesn't like.  Since the Greens have always believed in a
>> consensus process, I hope we can work on these differences, 
>> emphasize the agreements rather than the disagreements, and stay
>> civil about it.
>
>Dean, I'm State Membership Chair for the Hawai'i Green Party.  I've
>been one of a core group of ten or so people that took the party
>from 40 members to some 400 today.  I was also chair of the
>platform committee.  Our platform is short and moderate.  It is
>probably going to get shorter and even more moderate, since a large
>part of our strength is a contingent of dissident Democrats.  I can
>E-mail you the short version if you wish.  It fits on two sides of
>a legal size sheet of paper, and doesn't say anything about
>"democratic ownership and control."  (Nor does it parrot the Animal
>Rights line, but that's another topic.)  

Please do send it to me.
>
>I appreciate your offer to try to resolve differences through the
>consensus process.  I'm not sure what that means in practice, since
>I don't see Hawai'i Greens as having the money or time to
>participate in mainland politicking.  I am also pessimistic about
>the possiblity of the national leadership ever listening to the
>moderates.  

I know that a couple of people from the Clearinghouse visited Hawai'i
this month to start such a process.  I hope it was a good start.  The
national leadership has no great power.  You don't need to convince
them, you need to convince the people who are active and vote on
changes in the program.  The Alaska Greens are distant and also
have strong misgivings about the program.  Nevertheless, they
attended the last national gathering and have decided to support
the national organization.  Maybe you should contact them since you
have similar problems and concerns and you could work together to
make sure your voice is heard and your concerns addressed.
>
>What makes me bitter about all this -- and I _am_ bitter -- is that
>years of hard work on my part may be destroyed by words and actions
>over which I have no control.  No matter how moderate our Hawai'i
>group, we could be completely destroyed by any enterprising
>reporter who publicized parts of the national platform.  Voters
>would label us "socialist" and turn from us in disgust.  I am not
>interested in being a member of an isolated and ineffective group
>of true believers; I want to effect some real changes, soon.  At
>the rate we are destroying our environment, such pragmatism is our
>only chance.

The national program was created from a consensual process from a
large number of participants.  While everyone may have not had as
much opportunity to participate as they wish, it is still a
democratically created, consensual document.  If the contents of
it do not match, or even contradict the beliefs of a different
set of Greens, what is to be done?  Would you sugest that I moderate
my beliefs to match yours?  While you may believe that a
high degree of pragmatism is required, others believe that too
much pragmatism leads to cooptation and nothing really gets
changed.  All I can ask is that you not be bitter that other
people feel that more significant changes are needed to prevent
the destruction you talk about.
>
>--
>cliftonr@netcom.com     Home: +1 808 521 9073  Work: +1 808 625 3234
>Clifton Royston, Pope of the Church of the Subgenius in Paradise
>"Some lives are like that." - attributed to Mark. Gooley


-- 
==============================================================================
	Dean Myerson     (aka dingo in boulder)     dean@vexcel.com
==============================================================================