’Tis of Three
Now’s the time to embrace a third political party. Here’s why.
by Rick Gray, Richmond Style Weekly, May 1, 2012

http://www.styleweekly.com/richmond/tis-of-three/Content?oid=1704288

The situation is depressingly familiar.
It’s early May, and the nominees of the two major parties are locked in. Along with at least half of your fellow citizens, you’re far from enthusiastic about the options. Like 90 percent of them, you know, to a reasonable certainly, the candidate for whom you will vote.

Like nearly all Americans, you dread the next six months. Vast amounts of money have been raised — by the campaigns and supposedly independent super-PACs. Attack ads soon will pollute radio and television. Telephones will ring endlessly with robot calls and push polls. Your favorite websites will deliver spam carefully tailored to your presumed fears and preferences.

The content of the campaign now beginning will be — almost entirely — negative.

Many factors interact to produce the ugly political campaigns to which we’ve become accustomed. Two predominate: That we have only two political parties, and the legal necessity, come Nov. 6, to elect somebody.

Given the rules of the game — a binary, forced choice — the behavior of the two presidential campaigns, and hundreds of campaigns for lower office, will be both rational and predictable. And the candidate who runs a positive campaign, offering plausible solutions to real problems, runs a serious risk. Real solutions inevitably have costs, and voters generally are reluctant to embrace sacrifice.

But despite that most Americans loathe negative campaigns, going negative works. Why? Because when you’re faced with a binary choice, everything that dissuades you from voting for Candidate A moves you closer to voting for Candidate B.

This reality reveals one of the strongest arguments for a serious third party. When three or more parties contend for votes, the game changes. When there’s a plausible Candidate C, Candidate A’s attacks still may drive voters away from Candidate B. But running a negative campaign also will drive voters away from Candidate A. Suddenly a strategy of staying positive becomes viable.

It doesn’t always happen that way, of course. But it can, and dramatically.

In 2004 I spent some time knocking on doors in New Hampshire for Vermont Gov. Howard Dean. While my young friends and I tromped the cold streets of Manchester, higher-ups in the Dean campaign — then focused on Iowa — decided to go negative against Dick Gephardt. Gephardt replied in common.

Had there been only two candidates, Dean’s strategy might have worked. But John Kerry and John Edwards also were in the race, and they carefully avoided joining the fray. The result: Within weeks, Dean’s prohibitive lead had melted away.

In the Iowa caucuses, Kerry and Edwards finished 1-2. Dean made an impassioned speech — ending in an unfortunate effort at a rebel yell — and that was that. Dean’s New Hampshire lead evaporated, and the one candidate with a realistic chance of unseating George W. Bush wound up in the essentially futile post of Democratic Party chairman.

Kerry and Edwards went on to form the Democratic ticket, and lost in November.

Countless other examples, including many from other democracies, could be cited for the proposition that multiple parties work to penalize negative campaigning.

To be sure, Mr. Martin Dooley, a fictional commentator from a century ago, was right: “Politics ain’t beanbag.” In the real world, with so much at stake and so many resources available, negative campaigning will always be with us.

But when the rules of the game change, winning strategies also change. When more than two viable options appear on the ballot, it’s riskier to run a negative campaign — and somewhat more rewarding to run a campaign of ideas, which is reason enough to welcome a third party.

Of course, creating that party won’t be easy. Creating a successful third party will take courage, determination and years of effort against long odds.

But lately the odds have been growing shorter.

For one thing, in-depth polling shows that at somewhere between 34 percent and 40 percent of Americans don’t identify with either major party. The unaffiliated now constitute a plurality — larger than the numbers who self-identify as either Democrat or Republican.

Recent grass-roots movements — the tea party and Occupy Wall Street — have demonstrated that millions of Americans believe our political system is broken.

Even serious scholars and political observers have begun defying the conventional wisdom that third parties can’t succeed in America. Last fall, Columbia University economist Jeffrey Sachs proposed a series of reforms in his book “The Price of Civilization.” The key reform: a third party.

In February, journalist Linda Killian spoke to the University of Virginia’s Miller Center Forum about her new book, “The Swing Vote,” which likewise prescribes a third party as one way of restoring America’s political system.

Even President Clinton’s former Secretary of Labor, University of California at Berkeley professor Robert Reich, has hinted his approval.

Can it be done?

A viable third party must avoid several historic traps.

It must not become the plaything of some outsized ego, to be abandoned at the candidate’s whim.

It must not define itself merely as a party of the center. Both major parties are adept at maneuvering toward the center — for just long enough to win an election.

Most of all, it must not accept the standard definition of success imposed by journalists and political scientists – in other words, the ability to win the next election.

A new third party must be disciplined and patient. It must embrace serious reforms and commit itself to strong principles.

But it also must be smart enough, and agile enough, to take advantage of growing public discontent with the existing major parties — building slowly while concentrating on changing the rules of a game that no longer makes sense. S

‘Rick Gray taught history at Midlothian High School and the Appomattox Regional Governor’s School, and writes a column for the Village News in Chester.

Green Hour air times>>Hello,>>Beginning on April 25, 2012, the Green Hour cable TV program has the following air times, Wednesdays, 10pm,
Saturdays, 11am

Don Rouse hosts the program Green Hour. This edition of Green Hour features U.S. Green Party Presidential candidate Jill Stein speaking to Arlington Grens.

‘The Green Hour’ is produced on Arlington Independent Media (AIM), the Arlington public access cable TV channel (69 Comcast and 38 Verizon). “The Green Hour’ is meant to discuss important social justice and environmental issues from a Green and Green Party perspective, but includes interviews with activists who are not necessarily Greens.

See AIM’s schedule too for other broadcast times http://arlingtonmedia.org/schedule

Virginia Greens including many Arlington Green Party members have begun gatherin the 10,000 signatures that will be required to get a Green Party Presidential candidate on the Virginia ballot in November. Virginia has one of the most restrictive ballot access laws in the U.S.–10,000 signatures with 400 from every of the 11 Congressional districts.

However, enthusiasm for Green candidate Jill Stein runs high this year. She is a medical doctor graduate from Harvard, and a longtime advocate for environmental health and universal healthcare in Massachusetts, and a candidate for governor who faced off Mitt Romney!

Check out Jill Stein’s campaign website: www.JillStein.org

The Arlington County Board in its zeal to overdevelop the Columbia Pike corridor keeps exaggerating the transportation and environmental benefits of a trolley.

Compare a trolley with a rapid bus system and the trolley uses more carbon fuel per passenger mile than a rapid bus. Studies indicate that construction of the trolley is much more carbon intensive than building a bus since so much street construction, steel and cement are involved. Secondly the trolley uses electricity–most of which in Arlington is produced at coal-fired plants many miles away from here and meaning significant loss of electricity in transmission before it arrives here. A rapid bus using for example clean diesel or natural gas is very efficient in burning carbon fuel and immediately using that energy to move a vehicle.

Secondly, a rapid bus system which uses the long buses with an elevated platform is much less costly to build, according to a recent study conducted by the WMATA (the Washington Metrobus and Metrorail system), around $50 million cost for the Pike versus well over $250 million for a trolley, according to Patricia Sullivan, “Columbia Pike housing, transit questioned,” the Washington Post, Mar. 10, 2012 . The $200 million extra goes for street rebuilding, cement, steel costs, all of which have a high carbon footprint.

Recently, a Portland Oregon politician promoting streetcars there claimed that streetcars carry more people than buses, but PolitiFact says the politician is wrong. True, a streetcar has a maximum capacity of 92 riders, double the 51 or so riders who can fit on a single bus. But, for safety reasons, streetcars must be separated at least two or three minutes apart, whereas a bus can arrive every 20-30 seconds. That means, even if a single bus has only half the capacity of the streetcar, a bus line during an hour has three more times the capacity of a streetcar line.

People who have lived in Portland have often grown weary of their trolley which during peak hours rarely moves at speeds above 5 miles per hour, which is about the speed of a fast walker or slow jogger, and way slower than a bicycle or a bus. The “cuteness” of a trollley quickly wears off when you have to rely on it for daily commuting, says one former Portlander who now lives in Arlington. Tourists may love a slow-moving, clunky trolley, but residents who need to get to work or to daily shopping come to dislike them.
Particularly when a fast moving, rapid bus can get you there much quicker and at a cheaper fare

Arlington Green candidate Audrey Clement received 7 percent of the votes cast in a midterm election for a vacant county board seat, denying the ruling majority Democrats a majority of the votes cast, for the first time in well over a decade for any election in Arlington County. A majority of Arlington voters voted Green or Republican against Democrat Libby Garvey in the Tuesday special election (who got 49 percent of the votes cast). This was a low turnout election, 12 percent or fewer than 15,000 votes were cast out of about 135,000 registered voters on a cool, but sunny March day.

Arlington Greens remained positive that Clement’s message of supporting affordable housing, fiscal responsibility, and environmental sustainability set the dimensions of the election debates. Arlington Green Party chair John Reeder said, “even though Ms. Clement was outspent nearly 10-1 by both the Democrats and Republicans (a good portion coming from corporate and business interests), she got our message across to Arlington voters that there is a third way. Greens are shaping the discussions on expensive, unneeded vanity projects; the shortage of affordable housing; and a need for sustainable smart development in a community overwhelmed by overcrowded schools, streets, and Metrorail.”

The signs of Clement’s efforts can be see with discussion of the need for an expensive, and ill-designed Columbia Pike Trolley, and advocates for the homeless who are scheduled to take the street by weeks end. With the an eye firmly set on making Arlington County a sustainable community, the Green message is to press on on better environment and sustainable development, government spending, and social justice policies. Practical, common-sense Ideas and solutions are what is needed. Green candidate Clement presented good alternatives to the pro-development policies of the Arlington County Democrats. The two opposition parties in Arlington got the majority of the vote, and sent a message of disapproval to the ruling Democrats.

Member County Board
(ARLINGTON COUNTY)
Libby T. Garvey 7,007 votes – 49.1%
Mark D. Kelly 6,194 – 43.46%
Audrey R. Clement 1,007 – 7.06%

‘The Green Hour’ is produced on Arlington Independent Media (AIM), the Arlington public access cable TV channel (69 Comcast and 38 Verizon). “The Green Hour’ is meant to discuss important social justice and environmental issues from a Green and Green Party perspective, but includes interviews with activists who are not necessarily Greens.

Currently, the program is featuring an interview with Green Party county board candidate Audrey Clement. This program will air through March 25, Wednesdays at 12:30pm, Saturdays at 9:30am, Sundays at 11:30pm. See AIM’s schedule too for other broadcast times http://arlingtonmedia.org/schedule

Because this is not a regularly scheduled series, the Green Hour is not in line to be allotted a regular time slot in the programming. However, there are five future programs in the works; an interview with Green Party presidential candidate Dr. Jill Stein, a discussion on voter suppression laws and other important Virginia issues with Kevin Simowitz of Virginia Organizing, a program and subsequent documentary on development, gentrification, and the lack of affordable housing, and a discussion of school system environmental sustainability.

We will keep you posted on viewing times. Plus, there is the possibility of the programs streaming on internet. Stay tuned.

The ‘Green Hour’ was initiated several years ago, with a several year hiatus between productions. The earlier programs featured a three part series by Paul Hughes of the Northern Virginia Greens delineating the overwhelming abuses of corporate power in our society, two programs attacking the unconstitutional invasion of Iraq and the mistaken Western policy toward Iran, and an interview with Sam Smith of the Green Party, discussing the disenfranchisement of the American people in a society of total impunity.

All the above programs will be available free to organizations for non-commercial use; just email the Arlington Greens.

Columbia Pike housing, transit questioned Patricia Sullivan, Published: March 10, 2012, the Washington Post
Residents of the Columbia Pike area told the Arlington County Board on Saturday that they are worried a massive, proposed redevelopment would drive up the cost of housing and that a streetcar line may not be the right transportation choice for their corner of the county.

“I’m afraid if my neighborhood is chopped up, its poor residents will be kicked out . . . and million-dollar homes will replace historic properties,” said Sandra Hernandez, a resident of Freedman’s Village along the Pike. “The few remaining elderly and [those] of modest income will not be able to pay their real-estate taxes, and they too will leave.”

The project, years in the making, is intended to ease congestion, revitalize housing and boost economic development along one of the key corridors in the southern part of Arlington. It’s also home to some of the most affordable housing in the county, and residents fear the project will bring gentrification and higher rents that will push them out.

“It’s fair to say there’s been concern on many, many different levels” about the plan, board Chair Mary H. Hynes (D) said. A series of community briefings have been underway and the project’s housing-and-land-use study will come before the board in May or June.

To help address the lack of affordable housing, the board on Saturday approved lending $6 million to the nonprofit AHC Inc. to buy a Shell gas station at 5511 Columbia Pike and replace it and surrounding land with a six-story, 83-unit affordable apartment complex. Most of the money will come from federal Community Development Block Grant funds as well as the county’s fund for housing initiatives.

The Columbia Pike project also proposes the construction of a streetcar line from Skyline Plaza in Fairfax County to the Pentagon in the north. It’s a controversial proposal and has become a standard question voters pose to candidates who are running in the March 27 special election for an open seat on the board.

The cost of building a streetcar line jumped in the most recent estimate by $100 million to about $250 million, and a recent study by the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority showed that a route using extra-long buses could carry about the same number of people at about the same speed for about $200 million less to build. Opponents have seized on that report to urge the county to rethink its proposal.

Jim Hurysz, a Fairlington resident who frequently criticizes Arlington government, said Saturday that a streetcar project should be shelved. “Arlington needs new public infrastructure, and its existing public infrastructure adequately maintained — schools, streets, water-distribution networks and street lighting,” Hurysz said. “Focus totally on development, not transportation.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/columbia-pike-housing-transit-questioned/2012/03/10/gIQADtH53R_story.html

For Immediate Release
Miriam Gennari
Press Secretary
Arlington, Green Party

March 6, 2012

On March 10, 2012 at 8:30AM Saturday morning a group of concerned Arlington residents will rally and speak at the County Board meeting to voice their opposition to the disappearance of affordable housing opportunities for low to moderate income families in the county, particularly along the Columbia Pike area in Arlington, the last major source of affordable housing left in Arlington. Many community organizations, faith based and neighborhood groups in Arlington, including the Arlington Greens, are concerned that the redevelopment of the Pike area will push residents making less than $50,000 a year out of the Arlington community. The county board public meeting is held on the second floor of the county office building at 2100 Clarendon Blvd. in Arlington.

The immediate pressing issue on the minds of these citizens is the Columbia Pike development project which stands to forever alter the historical community of Freedman Village, also known as Foxcroft Heights, an area known for its affordable housing that is filled with minorities and immigrants. Most resident along the Pike are unaware of the massive changes the county board is considering. Looming as well on the county government’s development agenda is, the county government’s building of a trolley down the Pike at a public cost of approaching $300 million a moved that will eliminate nearly all current market-rate rental apartments along the Pike, according to the county government’s own planning study.

Neighborhoods with substantial numbers of section 8 housing are slated to be demolished and replaced by mixed use/commercial-residential buildings. Many will be replaced with luxury housing and the current over 5,000 affordable apartments will not be replaced. Sandra Hernandez, a resident of Freedman Village/Foxcroft Heights, says she expects many of her neighbors and possibly herself and family to be forced out of the county if the moderate-cost rowhouses are demolished, and million-dollar townhouses built as replacements.

As for the trolley, many citizens oppose the plan which has come to be called �the solution without a problem.� The street car will add to the county�s electric bill, use more energy to move riders than buses currently do, require passengers to use a credit card, and occupy two lanes of traffic on a road that many feel currently runs quite well during rush hour. The Pike corridor is the busiest bus corridor in the State of Virginia, slow moving trolleys are likely to impede the flow and buses. Additionally, the cost of the trolley will be paid for by assessing higher taxes on small business and property owners in addition to what the developers will pay. The cost of the trolley back in December 2011 was estimated at $240 million to $260 million, but this is likely to rise substantially.

Over the past decade, the county government was unable to meet its annual countywide goal of adding 400 committed affordable apartments. In 2010 Arlington added only 141 units and spent $5 million from its Affordable Housing Investment Fund for that purpose. The county planning study for the trolley found that the county government will need to spend around $300 million to keep 5,000 affordable apartments along the Pike. The county now facing severe school overcrowding and a need for more school classrooms will likely have to spend hundreds of millions for school building in the next five years, and will face a dilemma of where these funds will come from.

Last week at the Organization of Women Voters debate candidates for County Board Libby Garvey (D) and Mark Kelly (R) were asked how they would vote on the plan for Columbia Pike. Kelly said that given the current plan and budget issues he would oppose the plan as it stands today. Garvey response included �listening and learning�, but offered no concrete commitment to address citizens concerns. Green candidate Audrey Clement is making affordable housing and the Columbia Pike Trolley a focus of her campaign for a seat on the County Board. Clement has stated she wants to create and fund a housing authority in Arlington that will help low and moderate income renters by consolidating the county�s housing programs under one umbrella. In addition, Clement wants to help seek out the millions of dollars of federal funds available for public housing that other northern Virginia jurisdictions already receive.

Occupy Supreme Court Demonstration on January 20: Amend the U.S. Constitution to Ban Corporate Political Contributions and Corruption

A group of Arlington Greens, including Steve Davis, Miriam Gennari, Don Rouse and John Reeder attended the Jan. 20, 2012 demonstration at the U.S. Supreme Court asking that Congress pass a consitutional amendment to reverse the Supreme Court’s decision that legalizes unlimited corporate political contributions and to declare that only living people are “persons” under the Constitution.

http://movetoamend.org/press

Green Party Presidential candidate Jill Stein spoke eloquently at the Demonstration about Greens support for eliminating corporate campaign contributions of all kinds. The national and Washington DC Occupy groups also supported the constituional change. Speakers all pointed out that a corporation is not a “person” and is not entitled to inalienable rights like the right to free speech, participating in political matters, and running our government.

On Friday, January 20, the Occupy movement took to the Supreme Court as part of a nationwide plan to “Occupy the Courts”. Over 110 actions are planned in front of U.S. federal courthouses across the country to mark the second anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s infamous Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision that opened the floodgates to unlimited corporate money in elections.
The Move to Amend coalition is working to grow grassroots support for a constitutional amendment that clearly and unequivocally states that: 1) Rights recognized under the Constitution belong to human beings only, and not to artificial legal entities such as corporations or labor unions; and 2) Political campaign spending is not a form of speech protected under the First Amendment.

November 18, 2011 –Also posted in Arlington Yupette website

All the police in Arlington, Va., in full riot gear, were on hand for the totally peaceful demonstration of Occupy DC and Occupy Northern Virginia at Key Bridge yesterday. What was the county board thinking?

There were large representations of union locals among the many who marched to the bridge and gathered there to show signs protesting the failing infrastructure and the economic and income disparity between the small minority in our society and the large majority; between multinational corporations and the rest of the country, and the disappearance of any activity that would bolster the U. S. economy; basically, that we have lost everything.

There was also another demonstration. The county board demonstrated whose side they are on, and it ain’t you and me.

It was an impressive police turnout for such a small county with its own economic problems. Given the heavy traffic conditions that always exist at the bridge, it is easy to see why the police deemed riot gear useful as protection from oncoming vehicles. Unless, of course, they anticipated encountering teachers in full riot gear.

Although the demonstrators disrupted neither pedestrians nor vehicles, police continually maneuvering their vehicles did do that. Given the current state of our society, it is easy to see why unions must again be out on the street. For that matter, now we all need to be out on the street. Since increasingly, formerly middle class persons are finding themselves homeless, might this be inevitable?

18 November, 2011