Tuesday, 11. March 2008 0:11
“It ain’t easy being Green.” – Kermit the Frog
There is something of an iconoclast about me. I find myself dissatisfied with so much of what I see in conventionality that I frequently feel at war with the whole of mainstream living. My visual world is bombarded with aggressive advertising from business giants, yet I am an adamant opponent of commercialism. I cannot stand music played on the radio as it all strikes me as insincere and contrived expressions of money-hungry record mogols.
My culture nearly forces me as a working class citizen to purchase mass-produced products of all types from box-shaped corporate chain stores; and I am a hater of capitalism. Insurance won’t cover visits to a naturopath, even though they line up with my views of wholistic living more than does the typical MD. Most movies sell best when filled with exciting violence — the kind that tempts me to compromise my views of peace and justice — yet I am a pacifist.
Some have said this temperment of mine is the sign of a prophet. Not one who divinely fortune-tells the future, mind you, but one who warns of the coming wrath based on the obvious evils of present injustice. To be sure, not too many have told me that. More often than not, I recieve perplexed looks of dismay in response to me exposing my political persuasions or my taste in music. It sometimes makes for a lonely life.
But it also makes it all that more special when I find another person who holds similar interests, which I suppose is why I stay in contact with my friends on this forum. Most of them come as close as any others I’ve found. And I haven’t found many.

So I’d like to take this time to explain some things for those who continue to position facial gestures of disgust when I write or speak. This desire has been provoked by the many great, fruitful dialogues I have had on this forum as well as in person with many of you, but most recently on the last post about abortion.
See, I hate that shit. It’s despicable. I love children, and I see abortion as a direct attack on their pure lives. And when I think of being a child, I think of the Muppets. They were (although I have since renounced television) an important part of my childhood. For me, they represent a kind of innocence, yet one that is full of adult humor. That’s the balance. Pure and innocent AND mature and wise. Not too often do we find both. So it is with politics.
Let me begin by stating why, as a Catholic Christian, I have come to the point where I usually identify myself as a leftist libertarian (or anarchist, if you will). So don’t think I’m head-over-heals for Obama. Instead and in particular, let me explain why I am a member of the Green Party.
First, as Eugene McCarraher points out, the party calls for easing voter registration; twelve-year term limits on public officials; and full public financing of election campaigns. It endorses the repeal of the Taft-Hartley Act, one of the chief obstacles to a robust revival of the labor movement; worker control of pension funds; a proportional, single-chamber Congress; long-overdue cuts to the military budget, and an end to the “war on drugs” that has violated civil liberties, entangled the United States in a counterinsurgency war in Colombia, and distracted attention from urban poverty — as well as failed to stem the consumption of narcotics.
It demands universal health care through a single-payer system; a thirty-hour work week so that “working families” (a phrase that unwittingly ratifies the assimilation of family life to corporate designs) can be just families; and not a minimum but a living wage, something Catholics especially should endorse with historical pride.
Indeed, the Green conceptions of ecology and economics recall some of the oft-forgotten but most desperately needed notions of Catholic social thought. In genuinely “personalist” fashion, the Greens call for an end to the legal fiction of corporate personhood and the gradual breakup of large corporations. Moving beyond the “regulatory” approach to corporations and an idea of civic virtue that does not extend much beyond recycling laws, the Green environmental program encourages bio-regionalist approaches to ecology and production that used to be championed by people such as E.F. Schumacher, John Seymour, the Catholic Workers, and the National Catholic Rural Life Conference.

In what could be considered an imaginative extension of the “seamless garment” ethic, Greens call for the prohibition of patents on life forms in order both to preserve genetic diversity and to guarantee farmers’ access to seeds and other biotechnologies. And by insisting on “workplace democracy” — meaning not only a reanimated union movement but complete worker control of management, supervision, and technical design — the Greens revive not only syndicalism and guild socialism, but the democratic corporatist schemes of Jacques Maritain, as well as the ideals of Dorothy Day and the “small is beautiful” tradition.
While the Greens’ support for unlimited abortion rights should trouble Catholic voters, its conjunction with opposition to capital punishment should also highlight the contradiction and falsity of the positions taken by the consensus parties. Both parties unequivocally endorse the death penalty. But while the Democrats’ advocacy of “choice” is rhetorical, the Republicans’ stated antithesis is, I strongly suspect, bogus – a rhetorical and even cynical ploy to attract Evangelical and Catholic voters. (Decades of relative inaction, the prominence of prochoice governors, and the prochoice sentiments of many Republican voters are additional reasons to suspect Republican integrity on this point.)
I would argue that both major parties fail, in theory as well as in practice, the litmus test of any serious “life ethic.” So, partly by default and partly by conviction, the Green platform is the ensemble of positions most palatable to Catholics. (Although Obama may still get my vote to prevent another war-mongering Bush-type from getting in the White House. Or should I attempt to bunk the whole system and vote my conscience?)
And to think it was the social teachings of the Church that largely influenced the Greens. My theory is that E.F. Schumacher is the medium between the two. He was an ardent student of Church encyclicals on social justice who went on to breathe “Green” politics to life. So I guess I am okay calling myself a pro-life progressive. If by that one means that I align myself in the good company of the Distributists, the Consistent Life Ethic advocates, the Agrarians, the New Feminists, the Democrats for Life, the Catholic Workers, the Greens, Wendell Berry, the Dalai Llama, and Catholic Social Theory in general. Yeah, I’m okay with that. And I think Kermit would be too.