The Greens and the Politics of Transformation by John Rensenbrink is a history of the Green movement in the US from 1984 to 1992 and a broad vision of how we can transcend the politics of protest to transform our soceity. Clearly written and free from jargon, it describes our how soceity degrades and dominates both people and the environment despite the promises of modern life, and points out the need for fundamental changes in policies and the structure of power.
Title: The Greens and the Politics of Transformation
Author: John Rensenbrink
Publisher: R & E Mills, San Pedro, CA
ISBN: 0-936810-20-3
Year: 1992
Pages: 305
Libraries: Alternative
Talking with people, we find there are three perceptions of modern life: one is of a soceity in expansion, offering a vast variety of goods and services. Advances in technology have created hightened expectations, and many feel entitled to a future that's better than what we've seen before. At the same time, we feel a deepening frustration, the feeling that we're going downhill. Many of us find our personal lives miserable and unfullfilling, pollution and sprawl destroy our environment, and our government seems indifferent to the wishes of all but a small clique of billionaires. Fortunately, people are on the move to do something about the widespread degradation and domination of life -- to build a movement that can unite the constituencies of ecology and democracy to create a political alternative with with the powers-that-be must deal.
The history of America has been a history of revolution. Although people are most familiar with the American revolution and the "new left" of the 1960's, many groups have been able to change the course of American civilization, including farmer's revolts of the 1820's and 1830's, the Abolition movement which ended slavery, the feminist movement which gained the vote for women, and the populist, progressive and labor movements which began a struggle in 1880 that ultimately resulted in the New Deal. The looming ecological crisis, combined with the contradictions of global capitalism without an alternative to check it, create the conditions for another time of change.
Successful government requires trust between leaders and citizens, the capcity fo decisive action on critical problems, and an opportunity for alternative voices to be heard and to seek and share power at all levels of government. Measured by these standards, democracy in the US is failing -- as a result, many American choose not to participate in politics at all. The power of money is immense in the US, creating a barrier to anyone who wants to be heard. The media reduces the complexity of life into one-dimensional issues that polarize the public along false lines. Yet, history shows that a movement that can engage about 20% of the population can put irresistable pressure on the political system -- the challenge is developing the political conciousness which can bring enough people in.
The politics of protest is one of the largest barriers to change. In it's mainstream form, millions voted for George Bush because they hated the corruption and scandals of the Clinton Administraton, while millions of others held their noses and voted for Gore because they were afraid of the consequences of a Bush administration. Rather than being for anything, people in the US tend to mobilize against things they don't like, be it higher taxes or nuclear power. The danger of this negative orientation is that it ultimately burns people out and turns them away from politics. The current anti-globalization movement has brought a new generation into activism, however, it too will wither if it doesn't develop a positive, optimistic, view of social change. Rather than expecting somebody in a position of power to do something about a problem in response to our complaints, we need to take responsibility and get power.
Life in the modern world wears people down and creates a psychological syndrome that creates a fear of success, or a will to failure among many activists. One-dimensional thinking leads to back-stabbing, sectarianism. More than one movement has become more and more radical, thinking less and less about how to expand by reaching out to the wider communication. It's difficult for people who recognize the sickness of the world to develop a healthy self-image, and social movements need to recognize this problem from the very beginning.
The challenge of the Green movement is to circumvent both the barriers that those in power erect to change and to overcome the internal weaknesses that have undermine social movements. Embolded by the 1984 victory of the Green Party in Germany, a small group of people began the slow process of addressing them in a scattering of local groups across the US. Many have criticized US Greens for being slow, but the Greens have sought to get back to the basics of sound organizing.
In 1984, US Greens held a founding meeting of what was called the "Committees of Correspondence" where they create the "Ten Key Values" document that we still use today. The next year, a national Clearing House was established in Kansas City, and by 1989 a total of 36 Green regional organizations had been formed. By 1990, however, many felt that the national organization had become ineffective. In meetings in Anne Arbor and Boulder, Colorado, the organization was renamed to "The Greens (USA)" and the group was reorganized into 11 regions.
The statement of Ten Key Values rapidly became a symbol of unity for Greens throughout the US. About 24 locals were formed in 1984, which gre to 50 in 1985, 80 in 1986 and 150 by 1987. By 1989, there were about 200 groups with at least one in every state.
John comprehensively covers both the ideology of greens and the practical organization issues of building a movement, a question which is more important today, now that the Green Party is rapidly becoming a political force, than it's ever been. How do we build organizations that are accountable and democratic, but still effective and able to take actions both in government and the electoral sphere? Although consensus is a preferred way for small groups to make decisions, can it be applied to larger groups, and if not, what alternative should we seek?
In Germany, the Green movement has always experienced a split between "realo" greens who take a pragmatic orientation, and "fundi" greens who are less likely to compromise on principles. Rather than being a sign of schizophrenia, this split is a source of strength for the Greens -- the more fundamental Green "movement" pursues a general transformation at all levels of soceity, while keeping the Green Party, aimed at electoral success, in line with it's values. In the US today, this split is represented by the Green Party/USA, an individual membership organization which represent the "Fundi" side of the movement, and the Association of State Green Parties which is focused on electoral activity.
John's book thoughtfully combines the issues of government, organizing activist groups, and the personal dynamics of change, and is worth reading for anybody who's concerned about the direction our soceity, and the Green movement is taking.
