Friday, July 8, 2016

Andrea Germanos — Green Party's Jill Stein: Sanders Can Lead My Party's Ticket

Presumptive Green Party candidate for U.S. President Jill Stein has reiterated her offer for Bernie Sanders to head that party's ticket instead, where—unlike in the Democratic party—she says he'd be able to continue to "build a political movement."
Stein's new comments to the Guardian US come as the Vermont senator has signaled he may soon offer an endorsement of rival Hillary Clinton.
Stein, who also ran for president on the Green Party ticket in 2012, told the Guardian US: "If he saw that you can't have a revolutionary campaign in a counter-revolutionary party, he'd be welcomed to the Green party. He could lead the ticket and build a political movement," she said.
It's a suggestion she's made already this campaign season.…
According to Stein, "in many ways, the Democratic Party creates campaigns that fake left while it moves right and becomes more corporatist, more militarist, more imperialist.
This is why we say it's hard to have a revolutionary campaign inside of a counterrevolutionary party. That's why we're here as the Green Party to build a place where a revolutionary movement can truly grow with a political voice."
Is Bernie a real revolutionary or just another bag of hot air?

Common Dreams


Andrew Anderson said...

That would make things VERY interesting.

Tom Hickey said...

My money is on Bernie being a bag of hot air.

Jill Stein sums it up: "it's hard to have a revolutionary campaign inside of a counterrevolutionary party."

The grassroots Tea Party is never going to take over the GOP, and progressives are never going to take over the Democratic Party either.

The simple reason is that politics runs on money.

As soon as someone gets elected, they realize that if they want to get re-elected — and newbies have no power since power flows from seniority — they need to play the money game. Needless to say, begging rich people for money dulls revolutionary fervor.

Corruption is built into the design.

This is what a republic is about. The "democratic" in "democratic republic" is a sham.

The only direct democracy today is through referenda and recalls, and generally they also involve a lot of money, since the side that benefits ownership is heavily subscribed. Those funds are used for FUD, sewing fear, uncertainty and doubt.

Nothing will change substantially without getting the money out of politics, ending lobbying, and closing the revolving door.

In the US the military-industrial-financial-governmental complex must also be dismantled.

Dan Lynch said...

Is Bernie a real revolutionary or just another bag of hot air?

That's the whole point of Jill's offer, isn't it, to challenge Bernie to put his money where his mouth is?

Of course Bernie will carry water for the Democratic party, just like he has always done.

Imagine if the millions Bernie raised had instead been used to build up a Green Party organization, instead?

It's hard to see a path forward. I suppose it's possible that another FDR might appear on the scene, a rich insider with a sense of noblesse oblige, but I'm not holding my breath. It was an unusual set of circumstances that led to the rise of FDR -- who campaigned to the right of Hoover -- and then FDR evolving into a liberal giant after he won. Let's not forget that FDR was worried about the possibility of a revolution or a coup if he failed to address the nation's problems.

Tom Hickey said...

That's the whole point of Jill's offer, isn't it, to challenge Bernie to put his money where his mouth is?

Sure. She is saying, Here's your chance to lead a really revolutionary party, Bernie. If you don't take it, the real revolutionaries among your former supporters will have the option anyway. They don't have to sit out the election, or write in another choice to send a message, and they don't have to hold their nose to vote for the least bad candidate, e.g. "because of the Supreme Court."

IN this election there is a good chance that third party candidates will garner enough votes to make their parties political brokers in the future, as is the case with minority parties in a parliamentary system in forming ruling coalitions.

Bernie is going to try to do that in the Democratic Party, but the Clintons have a reputation for shunning opponents and even punishing those who came on board late. It's power politics all the way.

Malmo's Ghost said...

Bernie is a fraud. Anyone who doesn't see that is a dupe.

Ryan Harris said...

Probably need to address race in a more passionate and credible way to make a revolutionary party that isn't pasty white. The whiteness of Bernie and Jill result from their rosy utopian vision, where it they imagine most racial disparity is wiped out by a rising tide lifting all boats, yet lacks any semblance of credibility in a world where innocent black men are gunned down every few days by government officials. White kids caught shoplifting get their hands slapped, parents called down to the police station, black kids get dead. If you read this stuff in the green party platform,, they are as disingenuous as Billary Warren herself. It makes me nauseous to read their self aggrandizing invitation when they are completely unwilling to make any serious commitment to solve real problems. The midwest and west are hot beds of racism now, and the green party all but promises to keep things the same. You can't win an election as a third party unless you make it inclusive! More extreme versions of the same exclusive policies of Dems are hardly revolutionary. Revolutionary would be providing mandatory weekly psychological/mental care for police, and a national system of education and testing for police. Setting stringent standards for when deadly force can be employed, would be revolutionary. Revolutionary would be enabling latinos to have drivers licenses. Revolutionary would be giving social security benefits to "illegals" that have paid into social security for their entire lives but get NOTHING now. Cut the crap, Green Party, you are pathetic losers, that will never win with the same old exclusive Democratic BS that imposes mass suffering on more people than you help. Fixing the environment and while spending loads of money on rich white people programs isn't appealing to the rest of us.

Malmo's Ghost said...

What innocent black men were gunned down?

Ryan Harris said...

Last count I saw was +/- 120 so far this year, which innocent black person do you want the details of? Names? Not really the point, the point is that until they tackle some of the most egregious issues of injustice, progressives can't expect support. For a progressive to win, they have to unite the poor across racial lines, to do that, they have to address the major injustices that impact people in their daily lives in real ways. Dems and Repubs divide on race and pit the poor against one another. No other path to victory exists for progressives.

Malmo's Ghost said...

I live outside Chicago. There has been 300+ murders there this year. The vast majority have been black on black, many of which are gang related. More than a few are obviously innocent victims. If you were inferring that cops are the problem and are responsible for 120 innocent victims being killed I call bs on that. By far the biggest problem in black communities is black on black crime. All the hand waving to the contrary is just agenda driven crap that does nothing to solve a very real life and death problem in these communities.

Matt Franko said...

"Innocent black men get gunned down"

The cops are on commission and it escalates...

It all goes back to this idiot ZIRP policy... 6 dead in just last few days due to ZIRP hope the ZIRP people are happy... it's an idiot policy for now...

Dan Lynch said...

Malmo is right, most Chicago homicides are black-on-black, and it's hard to get people to talk about that.

My take: 1) homicides definitely correlate to economic inequality, and blacks are more unequal than whites.

2) homicides correlate to urban unemployment, and the black unemployment rate has been double the white unemployment rate forever and ever.

3) urban homicides are often related to the black market for drugs, turf wars between rival dealers and rival gangs. Why is this a uniquely black problem? Maybe because blacks have fewer legitimate economic opportunities?

4) Post traumatic slavery syndrome. Slaves were beaten and killed, people who are abused often become abusers themselves, and this is passed on to their children until the cycle is broken.

Decriminalize drugs, put the unemployed to work, and tax the living daylights out of the rich to reduce inequality.

The cultural problems have no quick fix, but it might help if our leaders stopped using violence to settle their conflicts.

Malmo's Ghost said...

In 2012/13 82% of interracial crime is black on white, which is consistent with the previous years trends:

The whole narrative from the libtard press is ass backwards.

Ryan Harris said...

Imagine you are a politician,
The Black Lives Matter movement arose because of a pattern of injustice. Offer to fix the injustice in a real and credible way, get their support.

Don't offer to fix it, and don't get their support.

Blame black on black crime? How is that politically helpful?

Or be like Billary and instead talk about how awful Trump is. Garner the support of brown people on the fear of the other guy is worse than she is. That is her selling point. And Trump lets her call him a racist. He is just stupid or something, or blind. We aren't talking about reparations here, were talking about doing simple things to make peoples lives better. People will tolerate a few bigoted comments, if Trump would do practical things to make their lives easier. Same for Stein or the washed up old white guy from vermont.

Ryan Harris said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bob said...

Hillary doesn't have to do a damn thing to get the black vote, and this was true before Trump arrived on the scene. BLM are no better than Bernie if they offer up an endorsement for the HillBillies.

Ignacio said...

As long as society is built upon a pseudo-apartheid with ghettos and deep economic divides this is what you get. On top of that you build a prison-legal complex that is overblown and is a profitable money machine to perpetuate the state of things.

USA prison complex is around 8 times the size of most developed nations which don't have the death culture present in the USA (ZIRP or not), law firms probably profit from all this immensely too.

Just scratch a bit and is always the same, greed and corruption feeding on insane dysfunctional institutions and laws.

You need to pay a visit to Central and South America, because that's the future that is being built for the USA. no worried though, if you are part of the professional urbanite or educated classes that are needed to keep the system running you should be fine for now, until they come for your wealth because this is seen as a zero-sum system by the elites. Your childs and grandchilds will be left on the hook for that...

Matt Franko said...


What about the "brain drain" that seems to be going on? Where the productive people leave the areas they are in and gravitate towards better areas for them? Like the US, or perhaps Germany or UK over there...

then the productive people leave and the areas are left undeveloped and in chaos as the people qualified to run the material system are no longer there...

btw those people like a non-zero risk free rate too....

Ignacio said...

Yes, the 'professional' class gravitates towards urban centres and people moves where they hope they can grow up professionally and wealthy. But in the process ghettos are created, because the community is destroyed. The paradox of urban centres is that you are surrounded by millions and you know and care about no one. This has been proved time and time again, for example the responsiveness against petty crimes.

OFC they like non-zero risk free rates, everyone who can and does save likes that. Shouldn't mean they should be provided with them. The policies of the last 40 years are the policies that have been pushed by the urban salaried professional classes, and you can see the results so far. This cohort pushes politicians to enact policies that either are good for them, or feel good for their sensibilities and political correctness. They have been pushing policies to drive up real estate prices forever, stock markets higher, their favourite corporations profits higher, and enact social policy that is counterproductive, just because it "feels good" and they can sleep better at night that they are "doing something".

The problem with this approach is that most people is not a smart as they think they are, or don't understand what they think they understand, and ofc, they are not as impartial as they think they are. If they were we wouldn't be talking about this. Is dishonesty about the limits of one self and arrogance which creates bad outcomes. And then the 'smart' guys who bend laws to make it profitable business (don't let a crisis go to waste style).

The death of the commons is the beginning of the end of good-for-all societies (which is what democracies should be about). Former Greek democracies requires informed and involved citizens, and where not like the ones we have, which are a product of the enlightenment which were always an elitist project ("for the people, without the people"). If you don't get that, you get down-top societies, where everything goes one way. Those societies are capable of great things too, and some people thieves under them (the so-called "competent" ones). Former kings of first big civilisations surely thought about themselves quite high and probably thought they were quite competent in comparison to their lesser ones and the people they subjugated to keep their systems going for thousands of years. Looks like inevitable we need this sort of cycles to go forward.

The degradation of everything beyond the urban centres of power and the creation of the wastelands around them in the last decades probably have a lot to do with the current state of affairs everywhere.

Humanity is not made to live in communities of millions without proper meaningful information transference between actors, not to say thousands of millions. Looks like whenever we reach our current limits to transfer and spread meaningful information things go to shit fast as a low percentage of the population leverages and abuses it to stay on top.

Detroit Dan said...

Bernie is the best politician ever, from my perspective. He says almost exactly what I believe.

I'm planning to vote for Jill Stein. But it's not because I'm holier than thou. It's because Stein is smart to enough to recognize that Sanders is on the money.

Long live Bernie!!

Tom Hickey said...

My sentiments, too. although I am disappointed that he did not go after HRC more forcefully and that he has said he will support her if she is nominated. But I understand where he is coming from and it's his choice. I suspect he is aware that it will disappoint a lot of people and has taken it into consideration..

Bernie gave it his best shot and it's not over yet. Let's see what happens.

The reality is that Bernie is too old to lead the revolution, anyway. Others will step in and that is what we need. Tulsi Gabard, Kshama Sawant and Pramila Jayapal, all women, are emerging leaders on the left and all are already involved in politics. I am sure there are many others who will step forward.

Greg said...

Mal, that "black on black" crime crap is utter bullshit!

Most white people that are shot are shot by another white person too....... so what!? Everyone is more likely to be killed by someone they know not by some random drive by or break in. Murder is a crime of passion and passion is usually only expressed to someone you know well. Inter racial murders are the rarest of all so those stats mean NOTHING!

Cops using inappropriate force on suspects is the issue and it happens when the perpetrator is a black person waaaay more often.
Its not even debatable. Too many cops are too quick to use deadly force, and they use it on black suspects way out of proportion to the risk the black suspect presents.

Tom Hickey said...

As serious as it is, cops killing people unnecessarily or malevolently is not the issue. It is endemic politic brutality as a means of intimidation. This is policy.

Only a fairly small number of police are "bd apples," basically sadists, psychopaths or sociopaths, although it is a significant number. Reddit Hudson estimates it is about 15$ based on his service with a major US city police department.

He also estimates that about 70% of the force is influenced by the officers they happen to be with in any incident, and also that the top levels of the department were not among the "good cops."

The basis of security is fear. Many police leaders know this and use intimidation as a policy. That means "street justice" administered even before an alleged lawbreaker is booked. I have personally witnessed this.

While all of this over the top and tantamount to torture even if the suspect is only marginally injured. It is based on extra-judicial and extra-legal punishment.

Most police avoid seriously injuring or killing suspects since that calls attention to itself. But "everyday brutality" goes unnoticed.

This shit has to stop, and if it doesn't after a while everyone but the privileged becomes a target.

If fact, when I first moved to LA in the early 60's from the Northeast, I visited some former neighbors that had preceded me. The wife warned me that LA cops were different from New England cops and to be very careful because they wee dangerous. The LA police culture was well-known.

Some believe that this was a big reason for the outcome of the OJ Simpson trial, in that the police were no trial as much as he was. If he were not a celebrity, the case would have been cut and dried.

The US uses similar tactics of fear in national security and foreign policy, intimidating other nations both with internal subversion through clandestine operations and ofc militarily, which is what having the biggest club is all about.

This is a very sick culture.

Greg said...

"As serious as it is, cops killing people unnecessarily or malevolently is not the issue. It is endemic politic brutality as a means of intimidation. This is policy."

Agreed, but the black on black crime trope is trying to say that black folks should be more worried about other black folks killing them and not policemen..... which is crap. If cops have a double standard when dealing with one class of citizen then THAT problem needs to be addressed.

I agree that the bad apples are not the norm, that is also true of the black community btw ( I know I dont need to remind you of that Tom), but the bad apples are going un addressed..... previously.

Dan Lynch said...

Re: black on black crime vs. cop on black crime.

We don't have to choose only one. Both are real, and they're related.

As I said earlier, I believe African-American culture is violent in part because African-Americans have been treated violently. People who are abused often become abusers themselves.

People who have a criminal record because of racist overpolicing often have no honest way to make a living and are driven to criminal activities to survive.

Ryan Harris said...

If Sanders was willing to make a coalition government of his Democratic party with the Greens, it would form a rare coalition of the center-right Dem party with the center-left Greens. Certainly an improvement over the far-right and center-right Dem-Repub coalition government which has held power for more than 150 years. I think it would be a death blow to the Democratic party, as their majority right leaning Hill-Billy base would forever split with the left who are uncomfortable with the conservative tendencies of the Democrat party. Of course, the Greens would have to abandon many of their conservative policies which were designed solely to form a passable bridge with the Dems who don't often realize how conservative they are while fancying themselves to be "left."

Greg said...

What about white on white crime? Why is THAT never talked about? More whites commit crimes against other whites than blacks on whites. It does seem that more blacks commit crimes on whites than whites on blacks... at least as is measured by our stats... and that is the main fear many white people have, and I would argue is how many, if not most, PDs are programmed to prioritize.

I just dont see any value in changing the discussion of police brutality to a discussion of black on black crime.

Police are NOT trying to protect black folks form other black folks with their tactics, they are trying to protect white folks from black folks.

Dan Lynch said...

White on white crime in the US is similar to Canada and Europe. It's the black and hispanic violence that makes America seem like a violent place. Chicago is actually a safe place to live if you are white.

Tom Hickey said...

Agreed, but the black on black crime trope is trying to say that black folks should be more worried about other black folks killing them and not policemen..... which is crap. If cops have a double standard when dealing with one class of citizen then THAT problem needs to be addressed.

I agree that the bad apples are not the norm, that is also true of the black community btw ( I know I dont need to remind you of that Tom), but the bad apples are going un addressed..... previously.

Two issues here:

1. Black people and other minorities have been complaining for a long time that the police are not protecting them in their community but rather harassing them instead. That is policing by intimidation rather than to enforce security effectively. TPTB don't really care about minority on minority crime as a social issue.

2. Crime is a social and political issue with economic underpinnings. Crime rate is one indication of social functionality vs dysfunctionality. The US has a marginal culture owing to insistence on the myth that individual liberty results in spontaneous natural order. It does not in the absence of a high level of collective consciousness, which is absent in the US owing largely to the cultural myths and poor education. Accompanied by a low level of collective consciousness emphasis on individual liberty results in the law of the jungle where there are inadequate measures to culture social functionality and reduce social dysfunctionality. This requires political engagement and economic policy.

People have to be educated to be both free and responsible. Only then will culture and institutions reflect this level of collective consciousness in design and operation. For individual liberty to work well, individuals need to be socialized.

This is not just a problem at the bottom of the social scale as many believe. It would not be the case if it were not for the those that exert power and influence in the system. When the people at the top run the place for their own interests and don't see how their interests are connected with the whole, the system is dysfunctional by design and it’s the people down the social ladder that bear the brunt of it.

Finally, some of them can't take it anymore and rise up angry. They either more intense repression, or they win.

Ryan Harris said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Andrew Anderson said...

The US has a marginal culture owing to insistence on the myth that individual liberty results in spontaneous natural order. Tom Hickey

It doesn't because of government subsidies for private credit creation since the rich are the most so-called credit worthy of what is, in essence, the public's credit.

So the rich get richer and the poor get poorer especially since automation financed with their own legally stolen purchasing power is used to dis-employ the poor.

We can reform the system and reverse a lot of unjust wealth inequality in the process or we can suffer the consequences of ignoring the ethics of fiat creation and credit.

Greg said...

"White on white crime in the US is similar to Canada and Europe. It's the black and hispanic violence that makes America seem like a violent place. Chicago is actually a safe place to live if you are white."

Okay....... but again, why do these facts have to be brought up in a discussion about cops in general (and mostly white cops in particular) and the way they inappropriately interact with one sector of our society? Police tactics are not devised to reduce black on black crime so talking about it is irrelevant I think. This isn't a game of which happens more black on black crime or white cops inappropriately treating black people ( I won't even say suspects because in many cases "suspect" is an inappropriate term). There is no illumination in changing the discussion to that topic.

Tom Hickey said...

One thing that is extremely important that doesn't often get mentioned about crime.

The top sets the tone for the rest of the society or group. If the top is criminal or even unethical, of if there is an obvious double standard. or if the top makes things that are iilegal for other legal for them, then the eventually the whole structure is influenced negatively.

This is a huge problem with corruption, and even the appearance of corruption such as apparent conflict of interest.

The US elite is rife with it.