WHEREFORE ART THOU, GREENS

Lance Tapley’s piece on the New Chautauqua in Unity (ages ago, “More terrorist casualties?” Oct. 5-11) brought to the surface several issues, express and hidden, which are critical to the political survival of one of Maine’s important left activist groups — Maine’s Green Party. In his article, Lance expressly concludes that left-thinking activists have much to teach us, yet are in danger of alienating themselves from the American public. However, Lance’s article, and the subsequent responses from John Rensenbrink, and from Nancy Allen, poignantly reveal another issue which is especially relevant to the public’s acceptance of the Maine Green Party: that the Party’s leaders are engaged in personal politics, and essentially disregard addressing current key issues facing the Party.

Although educating the public, and potential voters, about Green political philosophies is currently a critical task for the Green Party, you wouldn’t know that from its leaders. It is very telling that neither Nancy’s, nor John’s, response uses the media access that Lance’s article generated for the Maine Greens to actually promote Green political positions, or to undue the damage that the last presidential election has done in eroding the Green’s voting base. The Green’s political viability, or their “real engagement in the political process,” as John puts it, is in trouble — real trouble, and this isn’t solely due to the alienating rhetoric of its leftist dialogues. Their dilemma is, to a large degree, due to the fact that Greens have also alienated their voting base, and that its key leaders are in denial about this outcome.

Take the Maine Greens, for example, who are fully aware that they must get a minimum percentage of votes during a state election to maintain a third party status. Hence, their offering of Pat Lamarche as the Green Party candidate during the last gubernatorial race. Apparently, though Pat was the best they had to offer, that wasn’t good enough to garner the vote of even the soon-to-be Maine Green Party co-chair, Sydney Mackey. Why is this important? It is important because it highlights the fact that the Green Party knows, or should know, that it relies heavily not on its own registered voters, but on those left thinking voters outside the Green Party who are willing to sacrifice their votes for what they think is a better political philosophy. The notion that the Party’s leaders will not sacrifice their own votes for their own candidate signals that the Party should be treating those unregistered Green voters with much more tenderness than the New Chautauqua rhetoric reflects. At a minimum, they should discuss it within their own circles, and, when given the opportunity to bring the issue to the public, they should capitalize on the opportunity. Neither response, Nancy Allen’s nor John Rensenbrink’s, did that.

Instead, Nancy and John continued their “real engagement” in a process of “personality politics.” Their responses do nothing to maintain the loyalty of those registered Green voters who are not willing to let a Pat Lamarche lead our state, nor to maintain the loyalty of those voters thoroughly pissed off by casting their vote for an ungrateful Green Party Presidential candidate, Ralph Nader. (If you think I am exaggerating about the effective outcome of Nader’s callous disregard for the political process, then you should know that he is now considered a pariah even by his own leftist compatriots. If his long-time activist friends are no longer returning his phone calls, no lefty Democrat is going to risk her vote for the guy next time around.) Which brings us to the question, “So who is the Green Party grooming to take Nader’s place on the next ticket, and how do they plan on getting votes?” My best answer is an answer that brings us full circle; The Greens are too busy alienating themselves from the American public, and writing self-serving responses to the Lance Tapleys of the world, than to strategize how to offer viable candidates next time around, how to maintain voter loyalty from non-registered Green voters, and, ultimately, how to remain engaged in the political process.

Thanks for a thought provoking piece, Lance.

Anne Coyle

Brunswick, ME

NOT OUR FRIENDS

About Seth Gitell’s front page article, “Our best friend Israel,” (Oct. 26-Nov. 1). Now see this war of September 11, 2001 is really one of fermentation. We are in a new war, but it’s not new. September 11, 1984 was the date of the first illegal Jewish settlement Eli on a mountain ridge between Nablus and Ramallah. If we want to find out more we need to study the Arab/Israeli conflict. An August, 2001 news picture of Palestine farmers looking over a field spotted with the carcasses of dead lambs. Jewish settlers had poisoned their wells. My first thought, even before Sept. 11 was, “oh, no, they, (Palestinian terrorists), are going to poison our American water supplies.”

Israel does not allow news reporters or want the UN peacekeeping forces that Arafat asks for. Ariel Sharone’s political/military life is stained by the blood of helpless refugees.

Also, Seth Gitell’s article missed the news. Israel refused use of its air bases. America panicked and turned to Israel asking for help and received a huffy rebuff. “Fight your own war. Israel is a small country, no, you cannot use our facilities. We will do nothing to compromise Israeli security. No, you cannot use our intelligence. No, sorry, no.”

The Arab nations, even as their citizens spill into the streets denouncing America, destabilizing and threatening, let us use their bases. The Arab nations, not Israel, offer coalition and support.

We need to see who our friends are. Last week, the CIA sent the Israeli intelligence office home. “Pack your bags and go.” There wasn’t a press release as to why. America is a hurting nation and a nation of nationalities. We need to join together as one country and win this war with the help of world friends. And Israel isn’t a friend.

Lucia Connelly

Falmouth, ME

---