02 August 2016

The Green Party Exposed

As I mentioned in a previous post, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have exposed themselves as frauds, willing to compromise and capitulate in order to retain political standing and relevance. For either of these figures to endorse Hillary Clinton is beyond comprehension and unconscionable.  The rhetoric is sickening, exposing their fraudulent and hypocritical campaigning. They either don't believe in their anti-corporate and anti-Wall Street rhetoric to begin with or in the end it is revealed as little more than a populist tool to garner a disaffected portion of the electorate. These people could apparently just as happily take up another issue if it would get them the popularity they so evidently crave.

Sanders, a pseudo-Socialist who despite his words supports Wall Street, the Capitalist system and Imperialism is now joined by Jill Stein of the Green Party.

The fact that Stein would offer her candidacy to Sanders demonstrates that either she is unqualified to lead the movement, the movement itself is phony, or she is a fraud looking to bolster her party's standing but cares nothing for the actual platform which they purport to represent. Sanders has endorsed the very forces that breed social inequality, war and the wanton destruction of the environment.

Sanders is finished or should be, but I must add the Green Party has now also lost any credibility that it once purported to possess.

Sorry Jill Stein, there is nothing revolutionary about Bernie Sanders or what he stands for.

In this NPR interview Jill Stein lays out her party's vision but fails to recognise that Sanders views are incompatible with it.



  1. I don't know if I'm fully on board with you on this one. The interview with Democracy Now was conducted back in June before Clinton clinched the nomination and Sanders threw his support behind her. This is already old news. Jill Stein has since moved on, assumed the role of presidential nominee for her party and appointed a vice-presidential candidate.

    Further, by urging Sanders' supporters to shift support to her instead of Clinton, she's effectively undermining him. I think any inclination she had toward collaborating with the Democrats has evaporated.

    The latest controversy surrounding Stein concerns psuedoscientific statements she's made concerning vaccines and Wi-Fi that make her appear to be a crank, although I personally think this is a desperate act of yellow journalism.

    1. Is anyone fully on-board with me? I highly doubt it. (smile)
      The link I sourced is older but the story is not. The point though was to expose the problem with the Green Party, its narrative and policy. To offer Sanders the ticket is to contradict their platform.
      In the end I suspect it's political pragmatism.
      If that's the goal then they need to be honest about it. Stein needs to say...

      Look, I know we believe XYZ but in order to get our foot in the door we need to adopt a 'Lesser of the Evils' strategy. We need to compromise so we can begin to exert influence. Our project is long-term....

      Of course even if ideologically pure, it's long-term. It's based on a multi-generational course of education and an attempt to continually both woo and generate outrage, hoping beyond hope for a breakthrough.
      Of course the 'Lesser of the Evils' strategy is also self-defeating, the very same morally compromised pragmatism made to support figures like Sanders, Trump and Clinton.
      Sanders talked of a political revolution. That rhetoric perhaps more than any other aspect of his campaign proved laughable. A revolution it was not, nor are his ideas. He thinks he can generate political transformation operating within the hegemonic system. He's dreaming and I don't know that he really meant it. If he did, then he's not too bright. His thinking was exposed as shallow (if not fake) when it comes to understanding the relationship between Wall Street and US Imperialism. In the end Sanders roar turned out to be a hollow whimper. His so-called Socialism smacks of the Third Way... which in the end is ultimately Right-wing.
      I've spent some time listening to Stein over the past few days. I'm just not impressed. I'm not even talking about whether or not I agree with the Greens. I'm speaking of their analysis and proposals. Were they to get a foothold I think they would fail or turn treacherous along the lines of Syriza.
      But I will grant, any opposition to the paradigm is to some degree refreshing. But there's a danger because Donald Trump represents a variation of that same opposition.

  2. I too am skeptical of Stein's ability to make a difference within the existing political paradigm, and I think her political future lies in cultivating a grass-roots movement with the long-term goal of reshaping the political landscape. That said, I'm also skeptical of the ability of such a thing to be successful.

    Having listened to her myself, I can understand why many would regard her proposals as utopian fantasies. Not a few critics have asked how she intends to finance her policy objectives. That said, she's the only candidate for whom I have any respect, and I say this as a Christian. She has a much better grasp of the everyday concerns of ordinary citizens. She's not afraid to appear on hostile media outlets like Fox News and answer questions directly. Finally, we both agree that if there's one thing she will not do, it's further the sacralist agenda. I figure that has to earn her a least a tip of the hat from you.

    That said, I agree with you and squirm when she uses the word "revolution" to describe her campaign. She also describes the Democratic Party as "counterrevolutionary". One needs to be extremely careful when invoking this kind of language. There is NOTHING glamorous about a revolution. Every single one has been a bloody affair where the observance of common morés and folkways necessary for a functioning society have broken down. The countries in which they take place have required years to recover and stabilize. What scares me is that, based on our current trajectory, such an event in the foreseeable future is inevitable.

    My point is that, at least in my opinion, Stein needs to be more careful in her use of language, even if the above description does not fall within the purview of what she means when she uses these words.