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.