Green Party = Environmental Damage (?)

Does Anyone See The Irony Here?

Let’s take a possible scenario;

Nader and the Green Party siphon off just enough of the disgruntled Democratic vote to assure Bush’s victory.

Bush spends a minimum of four years (and possibly eight) allowing big business to rape and pillage the environment in ways only dreamed of by past Republican administrations.

With this scenario in mind, the Green Party assists, in some small way, the Republican victory that makes all of this environmental damage possible.

Simply put;

Green Party success = Environmental damage

Before any of you start ranting, allow me to say a few things:

[li]This is way oversimplified[/li]
[li]I support the existence of third parties[/li]
[li]The Greens would not be to blame for this[/li]As I said though, does anyone see the irony? I know that Nader, if anything, is attempting to legitimize the Green Party by securing enough of the vote whereby it shall receive federal funding in the future. I just find it exceedingly weird that by pressing their suit, the Greens may somehow facilitate four or more years of environmental rape.

“The pilot has turned on the ranting light passengers”

Please proceed…

I concur.

I think part of the problem is that many of the younger voters who are supporting Nader don’t remember the environmental havoc wreaked under the Reagan and Papa Bush administrations, and don’t fully appreciate the effect a Baby Bush administration could have.

Man I wish I could reply, but some damn network thing at work keeps me from posting more than like 2 lines… GRRRR.

In reading my post above, it sounds awfully patronizing, for which I apologize.

I do hope that those voting for the first time will educate themselves as to the harm done to the environment by past Republican administrations. Elect Bush, and you run the risk of winding up with another James Watt as head of the Department of the Interior. Result: Our nation’s national resources for sale to the highest bidder. More on Watt here.

Hence my belief that for those concerned about the environment, a vote cast for a candidate who can’t win (Nader) would be better cast in favor of Gore.

My two cents.

God, I am sick of this argument, in all its nefarious forms. The one that holds the least water, however, is this environmental argument. Regardless of his rhetoric, Gore’s record on the environment is abysmal. This is a man who is willing to all but abolish standards for gas mileage to get a few suv-drivin’ suburbanites’ votes (just on example: see for ‘gore’s broken promises’ of all kinds, particularly environmental). He’s also as much in the pocket of ‘big business’ as dubya is.

I’m not stupid; I know there are differences between Bush and Gore. But on the environment, the only differences are in what they say.

That’s just not true. You don’t believe it? Elect Bush and watch the return of unrestrained clear-cutting of National Forests. Watch the oil companies being given the keys to federal wilderness areas. Watch as environmental regulations get weakened, or don’t get enforced at all. Watch as EPA budgets get cut.

I still don’t think you fully appreciate the difference between a James Watt and a Bruce Babbitt.

Maybe Gore’s record doesn’t meet the impossible ideal of the most extreme environmentalists, but it is a damn sight better than what you’ll see under the Republicans.

I’ve never posted to or started a political thread because, in my experience, talking to Bush supporters (most of my family) is like talking to a wall. But I will come out of the closet, so to speak, and say, I whole-heqartedly agree with Zenster, et. al. on this.

I remember James Watt. (ewwww, an old guy!)

You don’t even want to go there!

However much I might choose to disagree with you about environmental records, the aim of this thread was to point out the irony of the Green Party’s efforts.

As per my own preferences, they are completely dictated by the preservation of different political wilderness, that of women’s rights. Bush has every intention of setting women’s rights back 50 years if allowed to do so. That is something I cannot abide. I also think that he will try his best to undo 50 years of environmental protection, but that is a personal opinion and not fact.

Sadly, both of these candidates are lacking more than a bit in the integrity department, but that is grist for another thread. Please continue to weigh in with various arguments on this topic. I hope that some Naderites and Greens will drop in to join the fray.

Environmental regulations have been weakened under Clinton/Gore, and will continue to be under either Bush or Gore. Needless to say, neither one man will be able to carry through his complete agenda (clearcutting national forests, etc.), but NEITHER will stand up to big business. The only difference is Bush is (semi) forthcoming about it. Sorry if this is repetitive, but people really seem to believe Gore when he says he cares about the environment. Maybe he does care, but his record speaks volumes, and it stinks.

Whoever is elected president, in the sad event that Nader isn’t, will be seriously watched by Nader and all Greens across the country. It will be very hard for them to get away with anything. Nader isn’t going to disappear if he loses; he has vowed that he and the greens will act as a political watchdog to ensure things like this don’t happen. So, while Gore and Bush are close to equally threatening to our environment, neither will be allowed to act unchecked.

Vote Nader! (or rather, don’t let your fears keep you from voting Nader. Hey, if you like Gore or Bush or Browne or Biafra or your mom, knock yourself out. Far be it from me to tell anyone how to vote.)

Well for that poor excuse for logic to work, you’d have to prove that a Gore administration would be better for the environment would be better than a Bush one.

I have serious reservations about that reasoning. First, the environmental groups. If gore pushes through anti-environmental legislation they will roll over and take it up the ass. This has been proven under Clinton. If Bush tries, they will most likely try and stop him.

Someone brought up James Watt, a millenialist. If you’re going to bring up past Republican presidents, how about another one, Nixon. Let’s see what did he do that destroyed the environment? Oh yes, the EPA, the ESA, the clean air and water bills, among many others.

Clinton has done more damage to the ESA than Bush or Reagan ever did. Evidence? here. And Gore hasn’t spoken out against this. One can only assume he supports it. And they also both support NAFTA, sigh.

and let’s see what hte man, Nader, himself has to say?

MR. RUSSERT: What don’t you like about Al Gore?

MR. NADER: Well, let’s start with his wonderful book in 1992 on. He’s broken more of his priorities in eight years than probably any other current politician. He and Clinton have given the auto companies eight years holiday, no fuel efficiency standards, losing eight critical lead-time years. They’ve turned the auto safety agency into a consulting firm for Detroit. And one area after another, whether it’s the forests, whether it’s land erosion, whether it’s not protecting small farmers and ranchers, whether it’s pesticides, whether it’s genetic engineering, you name it, they have fallen down on the job. And Al Gore will go anywhere in the country to raise big money from Silicon Valley types and others, but he won’t go down the street in Washington, despite repeated invitations, and meet with a thousand citizen leaders, in a downtown hotel, representing millions of members around the country. That’s the kind of priority he is exerting and reflecting.

MR. RUSSERT: As you campaign around the country, reading the clips, you’ve called Al Gore a chronic political coward and the ultimate panderer. Do you really believe that?

MR. NADER: Yeah. Oh, yes. I – not only do I believe that, I mean, we have people coming up to airports, saying, “Do you hear the latest Al Gore? That’s the last straw for us.” I mean, he has pandered to big business. He has pandered to the types of lobbies in Washington that are taking over the city. I mean, when have you seen Al Gore stand up and challenge the international autocratic system of governors which downgrades environmental, consumer and workplace standards called the WTO or NAFTA? I mean, that goes right at the core of his environmental philosophy. And he abandoned it. He hasn’t challenged the fossil fuel industry and nuclear industry, though he’s been quite critical of it. And he

hasn’t come out for solar energy policies all over the country. That’s supposed to be one of the greatest environmental forays for our country and extending it across the world. He’s been very silent on that. He’s never made a single speech on consumer policy affecting the pocketbooks of the American people and their health and safety, all the rampant corporate crime, fraud and abuse that you see reported in The Wall Street Journal or on “60 Minutes” or in the Post or in the Times. He’s not even reading the papers, Tim.

MR. RUSSERT: Would he not be better on those issues than George W. Bush?

MR. NADER: On corporate power issues, apart from the rhetoric, no. A careful reading of the federal regulatory agencies, like the approval of pharmaceuticals, the food regulation, the auto safety, aviation, the regulatory agencies under Clinton/Gore are as bad or worse than under Reagan/Bush. Dr. Sidney Wolfe has said that the OSHA performance is even worse under Clinton/Gore than Reagan/Bush. I mean, that’s why we call the president George Ronald Clinton.

–from Nikita Chrystephan,

This is such a great debate.


Great Debate?
Buh Bye! :slight_smile:


If anyone on the planet has not been made aware of this potential irony (whether they believe in its truth or not), they must be totally out-of-touch with this election…And, certainly not on the SDMB!!! :wink:

But, seriously, yes…What is the saying?..The best is the enemy of the good? Actually, I think a more clear-cut case [no pun intended] is Mark Udall (son of Mo Udall) running for Congress in Colorado in a heated race. In his case, I think there is little argument that he is anything but a very committed environmentalist in deed, as well as word, and yet the Green candidate running there could potentially swing the election to his Republican opponent. I heard that some people have said Green stands for “Get Republicans Elected Every November.”

Having said all that, I must say that I am still hashing out how I feel on all this and am not entirely swayed by these anti-Green arguments. After all, the Democrats have a lot of forces pushing on them from the corporate/anti-environmental direction and may need people like the Greens to prevent them from taking the environmentalists for granted…You know, “we’ll throw them a few little bones to keep them quiet,” but compromise away on the big issues.

Boy, these issues can get very tough. I agree with both sides…Gore’s rhetoric has not matched his deeds. But, Jesus-freakin’-Christ, with Bush there is little doubt about what you are going to get on the environment and it ain’t gonna be pretty! And, I can’t believe that the major environmental groups like Sierra Club, etc., have been completely duped…and they are all strongly supporting Gore.

So, where do I come out in the end in my recommendation (as if my recommendation matters to anyone…but hey…)? The Ivin’s Rule…If you live where you can afford to vote your conscience and send the Democrats a message, as I do here in New York, vote for Nader. But, if you live in a battleground state where your vote, along with those of others of similar stripes, may tip the balance, please don’t fool yourself too hard into believing that Bush is no worse on the environment than Gore, because I don’t want to be saying “I told you so!” when Son-of-James-Watt takes over the Interior Department.

The problem with all this “the-Democrats-are-no-better-than-the-Republicans” rhetoric I’m hearing from Nader is that it’s simply not true.

I can see a very clear difference between the two in my own back yard.

Under Reagan and Bush, logging roads were cut into the Chattahoochee National Forest, and logging rights sold to paper mills. (And in fact, the roads cost more than the pulpwood sales brought in, meaning taxpayers were subsidizing the paper industry.) I saw clear-cut after clear-cut in the formerly pristine North Georgia mountains.

Under Clinton/Gore, construction of logging roads in the Chattahoochee National Forest has been halted.

Under Reagan and Bush, industries in North Georgia were pouring pollutants into the rivers with virtual impunity.

Under Clinton/Gore, stiff fines have been levied on polluters, and EPA standards have been enforced.

Under Clinton/Gore, fines have been levied on cities that failed to adequately treat sewage before dumping it in our rivers. Those fines have been used to help fund improvements of treatment plants. Under Clinton/Gore new road projects have been halted in cities which don’t take steps to reduce air pollution levels, forcing cities to get serious about mass transit.

For ever instance you can point out where Clinton/Gore do not meet Nader’s environmental ideals, I can point out an instance where the difference between Republican and Democratic policies on the environment is the difference between night and day.

Nor am I comforted by the thought of Nader acting as a “watchdog” over a Republican administration. Do you know how much influence Nader would have on Republican policies? Zero. If anything, the Republicans would want to encourage Nader to maintain a high profile so he can run for President again in '04 and split the left once more.

I am also not persuaded by the argument that Nader needs to get his 5% so that he can get federal matching funds. Great. That would mean he or another Green candidate could afford to come in and split the left in every Presidential campaign in the forseeable future. That is not what we need.

I don’t mean to attack Nader or the Green Party in general. I agree with some of their positions. However, dividing the left into factions will not accomplish anything except to assure us of getting a string of Republican administrations.

This is getting very far from the OP, but I can’t let this go unanswered.

Spoke, you’re saying that Greens shouldn’t run because there’s one left-leaning party, the democrats, and that should speak for all of us? Do you realize how simple-minded that is? Need I remind you that the Republican party was once a third party? These things aren’t set in stone. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say “There shall be two parties, and one shall be liberal and one conservative.” The point it, both parties are getting more and more centrist and business-oriented every election. The left is not being “divided into factions.” Gore has abandoned the left, and the Greens are creating it anew. Why should we step out and surrender the political process to people who have been bought and paid for by corporations?

The Democrats and Republicans are on the way out. Maybe not this election, maybe not next election, but the people will find their voice, and it will have nothing to do with those parties.

Well, that sounds a lot like People’s Party rhetoric from the 1890’s. And yet, here we are 100 years later, with the same two major parties.

The American people are “centrist” by nature. That’s a political reality ignored by the Greens. And yes, it is better (and certainly far more realistic) to work for a left-leaning centrist party to defeat a right-leaning centrist party.

Barring a total economic collapse on the scale of the Great Depression, the American people will never elect a President from the far left. In economic good times, the voters will seek the center, or even the right. We are in the midst of the greatest economic prosperity the nation has ever known. In that circumstance, it is unrealistic to expect a majority or even a plurality of voters to follow you in a radical new direction.

I trust you aren’t hoping for a derpression?

actually the so called “greatest economy” is mostly words. You know more people are declaring bankruptcy than ever. Ive never seen clinton do anything for america except get impeached and provide us with a spectacle. The problem is you cant trust people who will vote for gore or bush to spout anything but retoric, well that and idiocies based on their own opinion. (though the people who say they are voting for bush seem alot more sane)

Asmodean wrote:

If true that’s a meaningless stat. There are more people than ever, therefore it would not be surprising if there are more bankruptcies than ever. Unless you can give me evidence that the per capita rate of bankruptcy filings is higher than ever, you have failed to make a valid point.

Oh yeah, and as for the rest of your post, is it just my imagination or has the Dow nearly tripled over the last few years?

Please remind me of when that was, because it isn’t true. The Republican Party was started in the mid 1850’s after the Whig Party had collapsed. At no point did both the Whig Party and the Republican party field candidates for the Presidency, and I dare you to find any single state race where there was both a Republican Party candidate and a Whig Party candidate.

Look, I’ve nothing against those who support third-parties (and I’ve often jumped in to state that people should vote in the candidate they most want, not in some strange “Well, I’m planning to vote for so-and-so not because I actually want him to be president, but because there’s a one-in-three-trillion chance that my single vote will be the one which elects the candidate I like least”), but exaggerating the facts doesn’t help your case. There was straight continuitiy between the major party of the Whigs and the major party of the Republicans.

I’m pretty sure, although the Republican party was made up of Whigs, Free-Soilers, etc., the Whig party had not collapsed. Admittedly, the Republicans were a bigger party than the greens are now, but they were a new party in a political landscape that had been dominated by two parties. I believe they got a third of the vote in their first election.

Sorry if I’m bein’ a pain, but I don’t think I’m wrong on this one.

That said, JC, I appreciate your defense of (for lack of a better catchphrase) conscience-voting.