I have been asked what I think of both the American and the British Green Parties. Normally, this would not be an appropriate blog to talk about party politics, but I was interested in the question, mainly because the existing political parties are in such a mess, bought by special interests, that one has to wonder why the Greens don’t do better. So this is a brief run-down on the situation.

It seems that the reason why the Greens stay sidelined is that they are split between those who want to gain power the conventional way, and those who are more radical and “community-based”, reluctant to raise money from the usual suspects. The Greens in the United States are split between GPUSA (Green Party of the USA) and GPUS (Green Party US):

GPUSA is a membership-based organization where the membership pays for running expenses by paying annual dues, focusing on environmental and social justice issues. They believe that elections are one of many forms of political activity, which include educational programs, demonstrations, street theater, civil disobedience and direct action campaigns around environmental, social, and economic justice issues. Having an independent dues-paying membership base is deemed essential to prevent Greens from compromising themselves to corporate funding. GPUS, however, operates more like existing political parties, concentrating on electoral campaigns and running Green Party candidates, and often getting heat from GPUSA members, who think they are compromising their values.

Members of the GPUS are like the pragmatists in the German Green Party. They believe that elections should be the single defining characteristic of a political party. They oppose individual memberships and dues and want a United States Green Party structured much the same as the two dominant US parties. Both organizations do, more or less, agree on the Ten Key Green Values:

1. GRASSROOTS DEMOCRACY
2. SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY
3. ECOLOGICAL WISDOM
4. NON-VIOLENCE
5. DECENTRALIZATION
6. COMMUNITY-BASED ECONOMICS AND ECONOMIC JUSTICE
7. FEMINISM AND GENDER EQUITY
8. RESPECT FOR DIVERSITY
9. PERSONAL AND GLOBAL RESPONSIBILITY
10. SUSTAINABILITY

I quote part of a GPUSA commentary on the split between the radicals and the pragmatists: “The division between Greens exists in many countries. But in most countries, both tendencies have been able to co-exist in a Green Party which encourages a range of views. In the US, where elections are designed to exclude minority parties from participation in government (and where even if you “win” an election that election may be stolen, as was the case in the Presidential election of 2000), Greens win very, very few partisan elections (those where candidates are identified by party). The frustration of wanting to change the world through participation in government and yet being locked out of formulation of government policy has created a growing push to “mainstream” the Greens, and to keep out Greens who are more radical”. Radical doesn’t work in the USA.

All this is very sad, because the mainstream America parties have become little more than shills for corporate donors. Fewer people are voting for them because they are seen as caring only for policies dictated to them by lobbyists. They tug the forelock in return for money. A viable political party that was seen as honest and wanting to do things for people should walk over both Republicans and Democrats.

Epicureans would like to see the two Green factions, now weak to the point of invisibility, sink their differences and work together. Sometimes it is leaders who are divisive, wanting their own little fiefdoms. If this is the case (I don’t know), then in the interests of the movement they should sink their differences and work together. It is the Epicurean way.

Tomorrow – the British Greens.