portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts united states

government selection 2004

St. Clair offers the red pill to liberals ready to sign up for Hairy Kerry

Jeffrey St. Clair says don't drink the koolaid; take the red pill before you consider signing up for Hairy Kerry.
The original is at  http://www.counterpunch.org/frank08202004.html

Monkeywrench Hope
An Interview with Jeffrey St. Clair

Jeffrey St. Clair is an environmentalist and author of Been Brown So Long it
Looked Like Green to Me: The Politics of Nature. He is also the co-editor
with Alexander Cockburn of several new books including Dime's Worth of
Difference: Beyond the Lesser of Two Evils, and Imperial Crusades: Iraq,
Afghanistan, and Yugoslavia. He currently resides in Oregon City, Oregon.

Joshua Frank: Jeff, thanks for agreeing to this interview. So many
progressives I've talked to, who admit John Kerry offers no alternative to
the Bush Administration on almost every issue -- often justify their support
for the Kerry ticket by saying that there is at least a stark difference
between Bush and Kerry on the environmental front. They point out such things
as Bush's disregard for science, his horrible forest plan, his roll-back of
Bill Clinton's roadless rule -- while they see Kerry as an environmental
crusader who has received ringing endorsements from all the major
environmental groups. Having covered environmental politics since the early
1990s, how do you respond to this rationale? Do you agree that indeed there
are major differences between Bush and Kerry regarding the environment?

Jeffrey St. Clair: Let's get some things straight up front. The environmental
movement bears very little relationship to the "major environmental groups."
The big groups, aka Gang Green, function politically as little more than
green front for the Democratic Party. Of course, they inflate Kerry as an
environmental crusader. They would say, and indeed have said, the same thing
about any Democratic nominee. That's their job. They do it very well, indeed.
They should, because the Beltway Greens aren't really environmentalists any
more in the way we used to think of enviros 15 or 20 years ago. These aren't
activists, but lawyers and lobbyists, mainly from Ivy League schools,
overwhelmingly white and liberal, who could (and perhaps will) just as easily
be lobbying on health care, abortion rights, trade policy. They come packing
with a PhD in deal making. There's no driving commitment to wilderness or
burning rage about cancer alley or passionate concern about the fate of the
grizzly. It's all very congenial, nicely compensated, prefabricated and
totally uninspired.

The irony, of course, is that the better this new breed of eco-lobbyist do
their job (i.e., act as a kind of mercenary force against the Republicans),
the less seriously most rational people (except the perenniably gullible)
take them. With good reason. There's more threat inflation being waged by the
Big Greens, than by the Bush administration in the run-up to the Iraq war.
Does Bush want to pursue corporate-driven environmentally hostile policies?
Of course. Is Kerry an environmental crusader? Of course, not. And there's
the lie. In it's zeal to become a Beltway player, the Big Greens have ceased
to be truth-tellers. For example, the Greens say Bush has turned his back on
the Kyoto protocols. True enough. But they neglect to say that Kerry turned
his back first, voting against Kyoto while he was a senator and Clinton was
president. This is to say that Bush was tight with Ken Lay and covered for
Enron. Right on. We all know Bush, the inveterate nick-name dropper, dubbed
Lay "Kenny Boy." But they over look the fact that Lay and the Kerry's are
also very good friends and frequent dining companions. Moreover, Ken Lay was
recruited by Teresa Heinz Kerry for a seat on the board of her environmental
foundation, where he was assigned the task of heading the foundation's global
warming task force. They charge that Bush, fully marinated in crude oil,
wants to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling. Horrible, but
true. They say that Kerry opposes this. And that's true, too. But they elide
the fact that Kerry told Teamster's president Jimmy Hoffa that while he won't
drill in ANWR, he does plan to drill "everywhere else like never before."
Where would everywhere else include? The coastal plain of Alaska, offshore
waters of Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico, the Rocky Mountain Front, the red
rock country of Utah, the deserts of New Mexico, the Powder River Basin of
Wyoming. There's more. Kerry met with the American Gas Association a few
weeks ago and pledged his support for a Trans-Alaska-Canada Natural Gas
Pipeline that will cut across some of the most incredible tundra and taiga on
Earth -- a project that will dwarf the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. No one among
the Beltway Greens even squeaked. This amounts to a grand and debilitating

JF: Does this perpetual hypocrisy of the Big Greens go any deeper? Such
endorsements seem to carry a lot of weight with potential voters. Larry Fahn,
the Sierra Club's current president, said following their endorsement of John
Kerry, "Now, thousands of Sierra Club members in every state will be
volunteering their efforts to tell voters about the clear choice in this
election [We are] encouraging all Americans who care about the environment to
vote for John Kerry in November." This is an enviro organization that boasts
of having over 700,000 members. That's a huge number of potential Kerry
supporters. What are the reasons the Club blatantly turns its back on its
radical John Muir roots? What are their motivations for being a "green-front"
for the Democratic Party as you say?

JSC: Yes, it goes much deeper than just hypocrisy. It involves big money, an
obscene craving for political access, ego enlargement and a kind of political
paternalism that I (and many others) find revolting. I don't think the
environment will play that much of a factor in the election. Nobody listens
to environmentalists anymore, except their own captive members. That's my
point. The Big Greens have marginalized the environmental movement through
their blatant partisanship. The environment isn't an election issue any more,
because there's no viable green candidate -- a fact that is apparent to the
average teenager in Lincoln, Nebraska. Essentially, Fahn and the others play
the role of cattle drivers, keeping their own herd in line, lest it stampede
over into Nader's greener pastures. Yes, the Club has 700,000 members. But
these aren't activists. The Club doesn't want activists, indeed they run them
out of the organization. Activists have an unwelcome tendency to think and
act for themselves. They aren't great at following marching orders,
especially when it means marching over a cliff.

JF: Speaking of "no viable green candidate," David Cobb, the Green Party
Presidential candidate, is currently polling at 0%. If that is even possible.
His support apparently isn't even a blip on the electoral radar screen. What
do you think the ramifications will be for the Greens who, like the Sierra
Club, were founded on radical environmental ideals, but have apparently
sidelined any radical tendencies, and opted to run a "smart-state" campaign
which basically endorses John Kerry for president?

JSC: I think the Greens are kaput, a kind of group political suicide on the
order of Jonestown or that strange cult in Rancho Santa Fe who neutered
themselves, donned their black sweat suits and Nikes, & poisoned themselves
while waiting for the Hale-Bopp Comet. David Cobb is either Jim Jones or Hale-
Bopp. Take your pick. A long time ago, in a galaxy far far away, the founding
purpose of the Green party was to be a party of resistance. It was never
about party building, or getting school board candidates elected, or anything
but being a monkeywrench against a corrupt political system. Once the Greens
decided to play nice, they ceased to exist as a force of opposition. Why be a
Green when you can be a Dem? Why be a Dem when you can be a Republican? The
only choice now is not to vote. Staying home on Election Day under these
circumstances isn't apathy or laziness or political mopery (as much as I
admire all of those things) but an act of supreme resistance, particularly
against those hysterical Dems who yelp that this is the most important
election of our lifetime. Bunk.

JF: Would you say that Ralph Nader is playing nice this election season? Is
there reason to stay home with him in the race? Or is he just playing by the
rules, much like the Greens, unwilling to monkeywrench against the political

JSC: I think Ralph played coy for too long. Then he was baited into running
by the very smear artists who spent three years mugging him. They really
underestimated what Ralph is made of -- which just shows that they are as
stupid as they are politically corrupt. He wasn't going to stand by and allow
a bunch of political thugs and liars to besmirch his character. Then he was
betrayed by his own political progenies, including the Green Party, which he
almost single-handedly built into a national force. Ralph is a lawyer and a
good one. He lives by rules and plays by them. He's not a monkeywrencher or
revolutionary or even a radical. He believes in ethical government, despite
all the odds. If Nader makes the Oregon ballot -- a long shot given the slimy
tactics used against him by Democrats and some Greens -- I will happily vote
for him. I take Foucault seriously. Politics is really about power. The only
power the Left (loosely speaking) enjoys these days is the power of negation.
We can't elect Nader or Camejo or Jackson. But we can defeat bad Democrats,
like Gore and Kerry. Until the Democrats bend in our direction or a new
political party rises to challenge them. And it doesn't take much, other then
courage, to make this happen -- an all out anti-war & anti-free trade
campaign waged in Florida, Ohio, Michigan, Oregon, New Hampshire, Maine and
New Mexico. Those are the states that matter. Those are the states that will
force the power elite to deal with the Left. Until that happens, the
Democratic Party will continue to move to the right, outpacing the Repubs on
several issues.

JF: On what issues have the Democrats outpaced the Republicans?

JSC: It's a long list, Josh. NAFTA, welfare deform, evisceration of the
Endangered Species Act, the drug war, logging the national forests (the
ANNUAL cut under Clinton was three to four times the TOTAL cut under Bush for
his first 3 years) and, most recently, their ridiculous objections to the
Bush plan for withdrawal of US from Europe, which signals the end of NATO.

JF: We heard so much about the rampages of Bush's "Healthy Forest Initiative"
from Big Greens, who cried foul as the horrible legislation floated through
congress. It seemed that under Bush some of these green lobbyists were
actually invigorated, where as under Clinton they seemed to sit back and idly
watch the salvage rider clear-cut ancient forests, while NAFTA blatantly
undermined environmental regulations. Do you think that having Bush in office
another four years will energize these big enviros to do some good? How about
the radical environmental movement on the ground? For many, it seems like
dire times indeed, with little hope for environmental salvation.

JSC: As a general rule, environmentalists, like other social movements, are
better playing defense than offense; better at organizing against something
than for something; better at attacking enemies than holding purported allies
accountable for their actions. This has borne itself out again and again. At
the legislative level, much of Bush's most insane policies have been stymied
or sunk. The problem, naturally, comes at the administrative level, where
there's often little recourse beyond litigation followed by direct action.
And the Big Green groups don't DO direct action. And for the past 30 years,
the federal courts have drifted steadily to the right. The "right" is
probably the wrong term since true conservatives are supposedly suspicious of
unbridled executive authority. This judiciary is exceptionally tolerant of
almost any decision made by the executive branch. So the courts are becoming
a much tougher venue to wage these battles. Yes, the environmental movement
is "invigorated" under Bush, but for the wrong reasons.

The foot soldiers of the environmental movement have been conditioned to hate
Bush -- and I mean hate -- and all his minions -- fair enough, they are a
hateful bunch. What's missing, of course, is any admission that it's the
political system which is aligned with the corporations against the
environment; what's missing is any acknowledgment that Bush -- from forests
to water policy, from oil leasing to power plants, from salmon to toxic
emissions -- is merely openly pursuing policies which Clinton (with the aid
of many Democrats in congress) quietly established. And that's the fatal flaw
of the Big Greens. They have refused to act as honest brokers, as non-
partisan defenders of the planet. Instead, they seduced their own members
into believing that a change in the White House will lead to a change of
direction in environmental policy. That's the crucial lie. And it's a big one
and a dangerous one. On paper, Kerry is marginally better than Bush on the
environment. But where a unified resistance has confounded many of Bush's
plans, Kerry will face little resistance. In fact, the Big Greens are likely
to be complicit, as they were during Clinton time. The press will play along.
And that's when the real damage will be done. Then we will be left once again
with that thin green line of defenders, Earth First!, people in neighborhoods
fighting power plants and landfills (the dreaded NIMBYS) and the like, who
put the needs of the earth & the lives of their children above the niceties
of two party politics. Cherish those people: they are our only hope.

Joshua Frank, a contributor to CounterPunch's forthcoming book, A Dime's
Worth of Difference: Beyond the Lesser of Two Evils, is putting the finishing
touches on Left Out: How Liberals did Bush's Work for Him, to be published by
Common Courage Press. He welcomes comments at  frank_joshua@hotmail.com

homepage: homepage: http://www.counterpunch.org/frank08202004.html

One man's opinion 26.Aug.2004 08:16

Brian Setzler

I've lost all respect for Mr. St. Clair. In 2008, let's see how great his pundancy is regarding the Green Party that he now opines "Kaput".

The Green Party continues to grow domestically and internationally. Currently Greens are divided in 3 camps (due to an antiquated electoral system): 1 camp supports Kerry (ABB), 1 camp supports Cobb/LaMarche (Green Party) and 1 camp supports Nader/Camejo (Reform/Independent). St. Clair falls in the later catagory and like many in that group, spend most their time trashing others rather than offering something positive.

It's funny how he trashes "Big Green" organizations for getting rid of "free-thinking activists". However, that is exactly what the entire Green Party is comprised of. The Green Party is a decentralized activist party.

In fact, when Nader ran in '96, he didn't even spend $5,000. The campaign was entirely run by the grassroots and Ralph simply loaned his name. Nothing stopped local Greens from doing the same thing this year so a so-called "safe state" strategy could only be implemented by those on the ground. There is no top-cown control in the Green Party.