tion that helped incite the American Revolution. Like the original Committees of Correspondence, American Greens also adopted a decentralized structure where most of the activity and decisionmaking takes place in local chapters. The CoC national office in Kansas City serves mainly as a clearinghouse for information. (Anyone interested in learning more about Green politics should contact them at: Box 30208, Kansas City, MO 64112.) Not wishing to repeat the meteoric rise and disillusioning decline of recent political groups like SDS and the Citizens Party, the CoC has been slow and deliberate in crafting a strategy for the Greening of America. Too slow and too deliberate, complain some Green activists, who feel that valuable time has been wasted and potential supporters alienated. Even Dee Berry, coordinator of the national CoC, admits, “I feel we’ve leaned too far in the direction of decentralism.” So far all the action has taken place in local Green groups, of which there are now almost 200 scattered around the country. Each group emphasizes issues of local importance, which is one reason why Greens have such a low profile. But this does give the movement a potentially powerful grassroots focus; Greens in the mountains of North Carolina can pursue one political agenda that suits their community while Greens in Santa Monicaorthe Bronx can pursuedif- ferent agendas. The highest concentration of Green groups is found in California and New England, but with surprising numbers in Florida, Colorado, and Wisconsin too. In Los Angeles, people affiliated with the Greens hosted the first major conference on eco- feminism (a philosophy integrating feminism and ecological thinking that has become a major intellectual strain in the movement) while groups across California have opposed offshore oil drilling. Nationally, a number of Green groups have rallied opponents of garbage incinerators while others have sponsored study groups. Green candidates have won seats on a school board in Madison, Wisconsin, a county commission in rural Bayfield County, Wisconsin, and a city council in New Haven, Connecticut. (Even though New Haven’s aiderwoman, Toni Harp, is black, the Green movement remains primarily white and middle class.) New England, where Greens routinely win ten to 20 percent of the vote in some local races, is the most fertile ground for electoral politics at the present time. Steps toward putting national Green candidates on the ballot and putting Green politics more in the public eye are now underway in the form of planning for a conference to be held June 21 to 25 at the University of Oregon in Eugene. Members of local Green groups will participate along with representatives from more than 150 peace, environmentalist, feminist, and social justice groups that have been invited—a diverse bunch ranging from the National Organization of Women and the League of Rural Voters to the Rainbow Coalition and the American Indian Movement. The purpose of the conference is to devise a unified program for the Green movement, which until now has had no common agenda except the ten key values drafted at the initial St. Paul meeting: ecological wisdom, grassroots democracy, personal and social responsibility, non-violence, decentralization, community-based economics, post-patriarchal values, respect for diversity, global responsibility, and future focus. “What we want to do with this conference is translate those values into a program,” explains John Ren- senbrink, a political science professor at Bowdoin College in Maine and one of the conference’s two chief organizers. “I have no illusions that we’ll have complete consensus on everything; but I think we’ll find large areas of agreement that we can move forward on.” Right now Green groups across the country are drafting posi34 Clinton St. Quarterly—Spring, 1989 You are still likely to hear more discussion of serious topics like the greenhouse effect at cocktail parties and coffee shops than in the halls of Congress. tion papers on a wide spectrum of topics from energy and child care to the arts, which will be presented to participants at the Eugene conference. Those approved (probably by a 3/5 or 4/5 margin rather than simple majority, in keeping with the Greens’ emphasis on consensus) will be published as sort of a Green platform that people can take home as an organizing tool. Rensenbrink also hopes the conference can agree on a cohesive political strategy to be implemented over the next ten years. One initial strategic question facing the Greens is their relationship to Jesse Jackson, who appeals to part of the same constituency. Some in the movement advocate becoming a Green stripe in the Rainbow Coalition or perhaps backing an independent Jackson presidential campaign in 1992. With experience gained in this election some activists envision a Green presidential campaign in 1996, perhaps with an alternative “cabinet” of ten to 12 people running instead of just two. Beyond that? By the year 2000 Green officeholders on the local level may be commonplace and the movement would then be., ready to wage a campaign in earnest for the hearts and minds and votes of the American people. Such ideas are certain to be controversial with the Green activists who gather in Eugene. Some participants will advocate that under no circumstances should Greens seek alliances with Democrats, while others will propose that any elections other than local ones are a waste of precious resources. Support will probably also be voiced for bypassing electoral politics altogether, concentrating instead on direct action protests, spiritual consciousness-raising, orthe formation of alternative institutions such as co-ops and intentional communities. The relationship of the Greehs to the traditional left will be another hot topic for debate. Howard Hawkins, a Vermont carpenter and organizer of a 1987 Greens conference in Amherst, Massachusetts, views Green politics as an evolution of left political traditions. “The life threatening ecological crisis produced by capitalism.(and by East Bloc state capitalism...) leaves no one unaffected,” Hawkins says. “And the crisis can be resolved only by bringing the economy under democratic ownership and control in order to uncouple the capitalist growth dynamic.” Traditional socialists have been blind to environmental problems, Hawkins says, because of their belief in centralized power and their strict focus on class issues rather than The Greening Several Green groups have blossomed in Minnesota as the fresh idea of a political movement embracing ecological issues takes root in American soil. The Twin Cities Greens, founded in early 1988, are currently engaged in recycling campaigns and rallying public support for proposals to ban some plastic packaging now being considered by city councils in both Minneapolis and St. Paul. For more information contact the Twin Cities Greens, P.O. Box 6523, Minneapolis, MN 55406 or call Dennis Otto- son (824-7126) or David Hartley (922-9430). Also working in the Twin Cities is the Green Alliance, which takes a more left-oriented view of Green poliissuesthat affect everyone, like pollution. By emphasizing these “human issues” as an argument against capitalism, the Greens will appeal to a broader portion of.the American public than earlier left groups, Hawkins says. Others in the movement put forward the idea that Greens politics is an entirely new synthesis. Kirkpatrick Sale, author of noteworthy books on SDS and the new ecological concept of bioregionalism, notes, “There is an immense constituency, not just the social activists and progressives, but ordinary people who will be drawn to this sort of politics. I think that’s why Green politics must go beyond the left/right focus of politics today.” Another difference of opinion that is sure to show up at the Eugene conference involves the political and spiritual wings of the movement. Spiritual Greens (also known as Deep Ecologists), who draw on Buddhism and New Age teachings, sometimes criticize the more politically-oriented Greens (also known as Social Ecologists) for relying too much on the rational, linear, Western way of thinking that got us into this environmental mess in the first place. While careful not to discount the value of spirituality, political Greens answer that environmental problems are political problems that demand political action. As you can see there is a lot of hard work and delicate balancing that must be accomplished before the American Green movement can move forward. The 1987 Greens conference at Amherst, which did not even attempt to decide policy, offered a preview of potential problems. Feminists at the conference challenged what they perceived as the overly-male tone of the proceedings, political Greens grew impatient with the lengthy guided meditations that opened some sessions, and animal rights activists were up in arms about a chicken barbeque. Look for continued discussion of these issues at the Eugene conference as well as sharp exchanges about population control and ecology as a key value above all others. The resolution of these conflicts without any sacrifice in the movement’s diversity will be the first true test of whether American Greens can live up to their lofty ideals. Unity is paramount to the movement if it is to rise above the internal squabbling that has stymied progressive movements in the past. Yet diversity is also crucial to the Greens' success. In a nation so large as the U.S.—with so many regional, sociological, and ethnic differences—activists must be able to tailor their politics to address the needs of local communities. of Minnesota tics. They are currently sponsoring a series of study groups and political forums as well as discussing further political activity involving issues such as the garbage burner. For more information contact Lyn Verthein or Tim Holschlag, 2304 Grand St. N.E., Minneapolis, MN 55418 (789-2713). Green groups have also been organized at St. Olaf College (contact Karin Peters, c/o St. Olaf College, Northfield, MN 55057; 507/645-9822) and Gustavus Adolphus College (contact Joel Pederson, P.O. Box 353, Gustavus Adolphus, St. Peter, MN 56082, 507/9318047). A St. Croix Valley Green group is also forming (contact Jeff Peterson, 715/472-2728). “ I think there’s a very useful tension in our movement,” John Rensenbrink says, “a tension I hope we can keep. We need both a political leg and a spiritual leg to stand up. But if we make divisions out of our differences then I think we’re missing the point of Green politics—indeed of ecology itself. A natural eco-system thrives on diversity.” Yet no matter what happens at the Greens conference in Eugene this summer, Green politics in one form or another will become a force to be reckoned with in American politics. It seems the only logical step for activists tackling issues as varied as feminism, nuclear weapons, imperialism in the Third World, and the farm crisis. Most of these movements have now incorporated an ecological element into their analysis—from rainforest destruction in Central America to health dangers posed by nuclear weapons facilities right here at home. And at the same time, Greens’ insistence that the spiritual dimension of life matters (not necessarily a tradi- tionaf image of God but at least an acknowledgment that there is a mystery to nature and human nature that cannot be adequately measured in terms of statistics and scientific theorems) brings in a broad constituency that until now has chosen consciousness-raising over protesting and voting. Green politics holds the exciting potential of weaving together a broad tapestry of people who oppose the direction that our corporate-dominated society is taking us. The Greens’ vision seems capable of reigniting the yearnings and cerns of the 1960s. But another period of American history also seems to offer lessons for the Greens. The movement seems a direct descendent of the populist uprising of late 1800s. At that time the common people of the Midwest, West, and South saw their lives were being manipulated by distant and indifferent forces—and they revolted. It wasn’t a carefully-plotted insurrection under the guidance of a particular ideology, it was an all-out prairiefire that took many forms— electoral politics, boycotts, cooperative efforts, direct action. There was a Populist Party, which, sadly, was absorbed by the Democrats, but there was also a populist spirit, which still infuses many people today. Green politics may well take the same broadly-focused form. For every person who seeks out a Green group and joins up, there could be dozens more who are seized by the spirit in other ways. They might join a protest against biotechnology tests or roll up their sleeves and plant a community garden. And they might vote Green too. It’s everyday people, folks not conversant in Marxism or Zen but concerned instead about the safety - of their children and the quality of their lives, who are the backbone of Green politics. And as the news gets worse—tainted air and snarled traffic, corporate avarice and urban alienation-more and more people will hear the message of Green politics. A formal Green party, running candidates who raise crucial issues for the American electorate, would be a welcome addition to American politics. But the Green movement’s success will also be measured by its growing influence in Democrat and Republican policies, unions, workplaces, schools, neighborhood groups, farm organizations, food co-ops, city councils, meditation classes, rock ’n’ roll lyrics, college term papers, and Sunday sermons as well as in the conversations taking place at cocktail parties and coffee shops across America. Jay Walljasper is executive editor of the Utne Reader. Portions of this piece first appeared in the L.A. Weekly. Eric Walljasper is a Twin Cities art director who may or may not be related to the author of this article.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTc4NTAz