WELCOME TO MY HOME PAGE

In the sections to follow you will be introduced to my own positions on particular issues with which the California State Treasurer must deal. But here let me say something about the Green Party as a whole as I see it and give a background to the forthcoming discussions of particular issues.

The Green Party is one of several “third parties” in the US, where the electoral system is almost completely dominated by the Democratic and the Republican parties. These have sharp and important disagreements, but these occur within a large area of mutual agreement on many central issues which are simply taken for granted in mainstream politics in this country. One of these issues is the unquestioned acceptance of relatively uncontrolled free-market capitalism. In consequence individuals and in particular large corporations are able to amass huge amounts of wealth, which they use to further their agenda through their influence on government and the public. Their campaign donations allow them to dominate national and state elections and to control each party’s policies and nominees for office. The Green Party does not accept corporate donations and so, unlike the “major” parties, it is free to criticize government policies or widely-held beliefs without fear of losing its main sources of income. It advocates publicly-financed elections and other measures – see LauraWells.com, “Platform: Recipe for a Real Democracy” – to further weaken the power of centralized wealth.

A second point of agreement between Democrats and Republicans is acceptance of a foreign policy of imperial expansion, sometimes by military power and invasion, and sometimes through economic pressures. The US military has grown to an immense size, much larger than the armed forces of any other country, with over 800 bases throughout the world. The “defense” (defense against what?) budget rises every year with practically no serious opposition in Congress. When there is no military occupation, wealthy interests are served when “neo-liberal” economic policies benefitting transnational corporations are imposed by the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. These strengthen the wealthy elites of these countries by eliminating social services and weakening worker and environmental protections. The Green Party favors severely reducing this military budget to genuinely peace-time levels and so defunding the “military-industrial complex” that has been central both to American policy and its economy. Bases must be reduced and imperial expansion eliminated, with international goals achieved through negotiation and the auspices of organizations such as the United Nations. This would eliminate US control over foreign governments and restore local autonomy. It would also allow the immense amounts of money spent on the military to be used for domestic programs such as education, health care, infrastructure, and the environment. Green jobs and work in other sectors of the economy should be encouraged to compensate for the loss of employment in the military and the production of weapons.

This mainstream consensus is maintained by the public media, with the most pervasive sources of information – network TV, commercial newspapers and magazines, talk radio, and movies – only rarely questioning these policies. Remember how little debate occurred on our supposedly free and independent media after 9/11, and how little questioning there was at any level of Bush’s declaration that Iraq had developed dangerous “weapons of mass destruction” and that we needed to invade to prevent their use against the US? Only rare individuals in Congress, or public intellectuals like Noam Chomsky and the late Howard Zinn, have spoken out against such militaristic and imperialist policies. Such critiques appear only in “alternative” media such as Pacifica Radio and in progressive publications, occasional films, and through progressive internet sites.

In our “free” elections, rules for third-party qualification are extremely restrictive. Even after official admission to ballot status, the Green Party has been shut out of presidential debates. It is rarely mentioned in newspaper editorials or network TV; Green Party advocates, or indeed anyone questioning the national consensus, are routinely excluded from national talk shows or news programs in the commercial media. Of course the financial backing for these media comes from major corporations, and even PBS, the Public Broadcasting System – supposedly publicly funded – has sponsors such as Chevron and Monsanto.

The lesson here is that it is essential for the Green Party to continue to offer these critiques. It must maintain its stance outside the two-party consensus so that it can continue to point out the unquestioned assumptions that have defined the limits of political discourse and to propose solutions to the problems to which these give rise. Historically, such groups have been the source of important critiques which have later come to be widely accepted and have changed the course of history. Criticism of slavery originated with the abolitionists, and feminists began their long road to more equal status when women began to organize and demand their rights. Criticism of the Vietnamese war began with groups outside conventional opinion and only gradually came to be accepted by the public. The Green Party has a crucial role here, to continue to provide criticism and commentary of this kind, having confidence that the public and the politicians they elect will come to see their force, the no matter how strongly the challenge to long-standing opinion. In this way deep, lasting progress can be accomplished.

The Green Party does not advocate violent revolution but change through the democratic process. This includes standard governmental procedures such as electing progressive officials to office but it also sees actions such as marches and demonstrations as expressions of the will of the people and so part of the democratic process. Social movements and individual statements and non-violent acts of protest are powerful means of putting forward the thinking of those shut out of the official political structure. Green Party members are not just passive residents but active citizens who want to bring the country into a closer conformity with the values for which democracy stands.

The society which the Green Party envisions, at least as I see it, is one in which the people genuinely rule, with all citizens having access to the services and institutions enabling them to participate fully in a democratic political system. So there must be universal healthcare, education for all from elementary schooling through trade, graduate, and professional training, secure housing, and sources of information that are genuinely informative and do not distract with trivia reported as news and are not biased toward the rich and powerful. Only in such a society can democracy flourish and citizens live fulfilling lives.
Internationally, we must work not for the hegemony of the United States as the world’s dominant power, but for a system in which all countries can co-operate to achieve solutions to the many issues that confront us all: climate change, the growing scarcity of water, food shortages, the problems brought on by globalization, violations of international law. Capitalism need not be abandoned; rather its benefits of innovation and creation of wealth must be made available for everyone and not just for owners and stockholders. These are long-range goals, not to be achieved in any one election or generation; they represent ideals to be firmly implemented as this becomes possible – sometimes with giant steps, sometimes only with small ones and patience. One small step we can take immediately is electing Green Party candidates to office so that we can begin to make real this overall vision.