Peter Camejo has written an essay formally denouncing people and organizations who do not officially subscribe to GDI principles, labeling them as “Democratic Party supporters” and believing in “lesser evilism” as a political philosophy.
Read the essay at: http://greens4democracy.net/camejo_3.html
Please offer your comments here or on Ken Sain. I have only these things to say at the moment:
First, I think the “lesser evilism” label is being mis-used, over used and is in fact being used to generalize, create labels, and as a vehicle to make unsubstantiated accusations. The concept of choosing “good” over “lesser evilism” is sound . In reality, however, when the choices are limited (like in the 2004 election), those that complain about “lesser evilism” defacto advocate “greater evilism”.
Second, those who have not “officially” or “formally” signed on in blood to GDI are not necessarily opposed to the principles set forth in the GDI mission. There are many Greens who believe in democracy and independence who have chosen not to be part of this group due in large part to the tactics employed by some GDI participants to achieve their agenda and the lack of respect displayed by the most vocal individuals in that group. Who wants to play with folks who employ the same tactics as that of bullies?
Third, I find it ironic to promote “democracy and independence” on the part of Mr. Camejo and other vocal individuals involved in the GDI, when it was individuals here in Utah (who currently have signed onto the GDI loyalty oath) who, with Mr. Camejo’s blessing, purposefully prevented the voters in Utah from having more choices on the Utah ballot by certifying “no one” on the Green Party line, against the wishes of the majority of the membership.(See past posts referencing this sequence of events.) This is a bizarre display of implementing “democracy and independence”, in my opinion.
Lastly, I think it is a great insult and disservice to Greens (who have been and are working extremely hard to help grow the Green Party) to accuse them of not advocating democracy and independence simply because they do not whip out their pens (or keyboards) and sign their names onto a “loyalty oath” (my words) stating that they believe in and will uphold a group’s mission. I believe in the bill of rights, the first amendment and the constitution of the United States but I have not signed an oath stating that I will uphold those principles. Does that mean I am not loyal to these principles because my name does not appear on a document stating that I am? Does that mean that I support other doctrines simply by virtue of the fact that I haven’t signed onto a document outlining my loyalties?
For the record, my loyalties are to myself, my family, and the planet.
Deanna Dee-Dee Taylor 
Consider the source…
For the record, my responses to what Camejo says in his most recent “manifesto” are likely colored by my previous experience with the credibility of statements he has made.
I am referring primarily to a statement made by Camejo when he visited Utah, seeking to have himself and Nader assume the Green Party of Utah presidential ballot line. The council meeting that he attended was packed, and in order to give everyone a chance to speak, a “go-round” was used. When it was my turn, I stated that “It seems to me that we should provide the Utah voters with more choices, by upholding our affiliation agreement with the GPUS and certifying Cobb/LaMarche as the Green Party Presidential candidates, since Nader is “shoe-in” to being on the ballot as an independent via the petition drive which has already collected about 1500 out of 1000 required signatures.”
Camejo responded to this (incidentally “jumping stack” since the “go-round” hadn’t yet finished) by stating “Nader is not necessarily a “shoe-in” even though he has more than enough signatures on the petition, because the Democratic Party will certainly make efforts to keep him off the ballot in Utah as they are doing in other states.”
Now, how can I retain any respect for the credibility of someone who would present such a naïve and fanciful statement, in an effort to scare the GPUT CC into giving its presidential ballot line to an Independent Candidate? Seriously, anyone who has even a shred of common sense along with a minimal understanding of the political climate in Utah should be able to see that in Utah the Democratic Party would not expend a single cent of resources trying to keep Nader off the ballot. What would be the point? The Republicans win here with a 60 to 70 percent margin on a regular basis. The only states wherein the Dems expended their resources on efforts to keep Nader off the ballot were the so called “swing states”.
Also, for the record, the Nader/Camejo ticket did get on the ballot here in Utah, and there were no attempts by the Dems to keep him off. The only candidate that was kept off the ballot here in Utah, with the support and blessing of Camejo, was David Cobb. I find this ironic for several reasons. First, one of the key rallying cries for having Nader on the ballot is to “provide more choices” for the voters, which I have heard Nader supporters say since 1996. Yet here in Utah, the faction that was swayed by Camejo’s statements acted to limit the number of choices for Utah voters. Second, this faction, which has Camejo’s endorsement, virulently opposed going to the Utah Membership to answer the question of whether or not to certify the Green Party candidate. Instead they falsely maintained that the decision was to be made by the GPUT CC via the formal consensus model. The GPUT bylaws in effect at the time stated plainly that formal consensus is to be used EXCEPT for the Election of Candidates. The individual who had been trusted by the GPUT to act as liaison to the Utah elections office explained why he opposed polling the membership (which is how the GPUT bylaws provided for “election of candidates” issues) on this question by saying “I’d have to be crazy to consent to having a majority wins election when I am in the minority”. How’s that for being a champion of the concept of democracy?
(continued in Consider the source…part 2)
Consider the source… part 2
Ok, that’s enough background for this venue regarding the level of confidence I am predisposed to have for Camejo. Now I will address some of the specific statements made in his most recent paper.
First, the very choice of the name “Greens for Democracy and Independence” is a transparent effort to establish a framework within which anyone who doesn’t agree with Peter Miguel Camejo is de facto opposed to democracy and independence for the GPUS. It doesn’t matter if those who disagree with him are supporters of democracy (like those in the Utah party who wanted the membership to vote on who to put on the presidential ballot line) or advocates for True Independence of the GPUS that want the GPUS to support only Green Candidates. By choosing the name, GDI, Camejo attempts to tar everyone who disagrees with him or his tactics as enemies of democracy and slaves or dependants to the Democratic Party. This is no more true than his assertion that the Dems would try to keep Nader off the ballot in Utah.
Next, regarding the statement from the second paragraph: “I do not know of a parallel to the calmness and patience expressed by all our presenters.”; I wonder what Tulsa National Meeting Camejo was at where his presenters were calm and patient. The Meeting that I was at in Tulsa was witness to everything except calmness and patience on the part of the GDI proponents, including presenters. Was it calm and patient in the specific instance of when one ardent GDI proponent raced around the room jabbing his finger at a last minute addition to the three proposals and yelling at another delegate who had not read it yet? Does anyone else besides Camejo who was at that meeting remember the calm or patience?
Regarding the efforts to denigrate his opponents in the second paragraph under the subheading “Our opponents”, although I am opposed conceptually to “lesser-evilism”, in actual practice, and in the specific instance of the 2004 presidential race, I found myself in agreement (and still do) with some people for whom I have a great deal more respect for than I have for Camejo. That is, I agreed with Chomsky, H. Zinn, J. Hightower, M. Moore and millions or perhaps even billions of other people, here in the USA and around the world, that Bush Must Go. Therefore, had I not lived and voted in the “reddest state in the union” and instead lived in say Ohio, I would have voted for Kerry too. Not because I am a “lesser-evilist” as a matter of principle, but because I believe that the oppressed people of this planet, and the other life we share this world with, would have suffered in the current time perceptibly less. Coming from a “working poor” background, and having scraped by for all my life as a construction worker, I have genuine empathy for those whose suffering is greater under Bush than it would be even under a monster like Kerry. Perhaps Camejo finds himself in that minority of the US population that is gaining financially from Bush’s tax cuts, and that is why he is happy to have embraced the doctrine of “Greater Evilism” during the 2004 election. Incidentally, didn’t Ralph Nader state that he was willing to work with the Kerry campaign to defeat Bush? I am sure this is the case, yet here we see Camejo striking out at others for something that Nader was also willing to do.
(Continued in “Consider the source… part 3)
Consider the Source… part 3
Under the subheading “Utah”, Camejo has referred to the Proposal made at the Tulsa meeting by a delegate from Florida as “our proposal”. Now, as those who attended the meeting might remember, there had been no previous discussion within the plenary of what to do if an individual were to show up on the second day of the plenary claiming the right to represent the Green Party of Utah. No mention of such was made before the plenary throughout the entire first day. And the proposal made by the Florida delegate had every appearance of being a spontaneous response to the situation when it did arise on the second day of the plenary. Yet Camjeo’s reference to this proposal as “our proposal” perhaps reveals that within the GDI “current” there had been advance discussion of this situation, and that all those in the inner GDI were aware some time in advance that someone would be showing up to dispute the GPUT. This appears to be evidence of prior planning to act towards achieving a predetermined goal on the part of Camejo and his GDI “current”. Some might call this “plotting” while others might refer to it as “caucusing”. Still, it is interesting to note that Camejo was not only not surprised by the dispute over Utah when it was presented to the plenary, he apparently had a hand in crafting the strategy attempted to give over half of the Utah delegations vote to an individual that is apparently an old friend of his. Why else would he refer to that strategy as “our proposal”??
Also, under the “Utah” section, Camejo refers to something he calls “the Cobb Minority”. While the Utah Green Party members that were “Pro Cobb” might have been in the minority, the vast majority of Utah greens were advocates for more choices on the ballot, and they were aware (as Camejo apparently was not) that Nader was indeed a “shoe-in” for the Utah ballot as the independent he is. Therefore, the majority of Green Party members in Utah were in favor of having BOTH Cobb and Nader as choices for Utah voters, though they weren’t all necessarily “Pro Cobb”. The tiny fraction of the GPUT membership that was “anti choice” and acted to limit the choices of Utah’s voters is what Camejo erroneously assumes is the majority of Utah greens. He is as wrong on this point as he was when he said with a straight face that “The Democratic Party will attempt to keep Nader off the Ballot in Utah.”
In the subsection “The Green Party without the GDI”, Camejo contends that the delegate from Illinois is a Democratic Party supporter because of his statement “I did not join the Green Party to oppose the Democratic Party”. I wonder if it has ever occurred to the oh-so- astute mind of Camejo that there might be other reasons for wanting to join the Green party besides simply to oppose the D. Party. In my case, it was the way the ten key values resonated with my deep love and respect for this world I live in and all the life it holds. I too did not join the Greens simply to oppose the democrats. To attempt to conflate this statement into meaning that those who joined because of the Ten Key Values are truly therefore D. Party supporters is insulting to say the least. Is opposition to the Democratic Party the real and only reason that Camejo is part of the Greens Party? Do the key values have anything to do with why one would want to work for the Greens? And speaking of working for Greens, and being “independent”. Camejo’s version of independence is simply “opposing the Dems and Reps.”, whereas my thinking on the subject of an independent Green Party is that such an entity should support and/or endorse ONLY representatives of the Green Party. It is ok if individuals want to support an independent Presidential candidate, but to TRULY be independent, the GPUS would only support GREENS.
Consider the source… part 4
Within the portion subtitled “Liberals that backed Nader” Camejo appears to be living in the past. He references M. Moores support of Nader during the first part of the 2000 election cycle. He fails to mention that for the last part of the 2000 cycle, Mr. Moore was afflicted with the same “sickness” that came to infect the majority of the people on the planet who had an opinion about American politics. That is, the dreaded “ABB” syndrome. Camejo apparently did not suffer along with all those people in the USA, Europe, Africa, South America, and other parts of the world from this affliction. His immunity to the ABB Syndrome seems to give him the right to condemn everyone who had enough empathy with the poor and working poor and the biosphere to wish to see something less evil result from the 2004 election. Again, I have a great deal more respect for the opinions and actions of individuals who have demonstrated the ability to reach millions of misguided Americans with educational documentaries, books and speeches such as Michael Moore and Howard Zinn than I have for someone who is so out of touch with reality that he thinks the Democratic Party would try to keep Nader off the Utah ballot in 2004.
Also under the “Liberals that backed Nader” subsection, Camejo says “An argument we are now hearing suggests that the problem in the Green Party is coming from the GDI wing. But there are no examples.” Camejo has actually made reference earlier in his missive to a great example of how the GDI (even before he had coined the name) in the person of none other than himself when he visited Utah to try to steal the Greens ballot line, and thereby created a tremendous problem for the Green Party in Utah. Although Camejo has mis-stated the actual facts of the Utah situation in an Orwellian way that paints those who opposed polling the membership and autocratically deciding by “consensus” on the election of the Presidential Candidate in Utah as “Greens for Democracy and Independence”, the fact is that this is one of several excellent examples of how GDI has create problems for the GP. Those so called greens were for Independence? Yes! As in independence from the Green Party as they chose to support an Independent Candidate while taking action to limit the competition for votes by keeping the Green Party candidate off the Utah ballot.. I think it is fine for people to be independents, but if you ask me, Greens should support Greens, and being independent in the Green Party should mean independent of ALL non Green Party candidates. (This includes the Democrats and Republicans in case that isn’t clear.)
One other little item that might interest some regarding what Camejo said when he was trying to keep Cobb off the ballot in Utah, is when I asked him what his opinion was about Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. He stated that he could not support Chavez because he had heard that he was engaging in un-democratic oppression of portions of the Venezuelan People. Since I have been a big supporter of Chavez ever since I became aware of the Bolivarian Revolution, I was surprised when Camejo refused to whole heartedly embrace Chavez.
All in all, I perceive the efforts that have been made by Camejo in particular as represented by such actions as his creation of the so called “GDI”, the many bitter and disparaging remarks about the GPUS and many individuals, the un-ethical trip to Utah to attempt to steal or at least keep the Green competition off our ballot line, etc. as being little more than a severe case of “sore loser-ism”. I know that sounds pretty trite, but that is the impression that his actions (including this latest authoritarian diatribe against any and everyone who isn’t in total agreement with him) have left me with.
Tom King
GPUT delegate to GPUS