Green-Rainbow Party of Massachusetts

Return to Topic

Green (Only) Party
Tuesday March 02, @10:09PM, by Ion Freeman
Subject : Message and Media
from the Department? dept.
Summary :
Drop the 'rainbow'
Text :
Hi!
I'm a member of the Green-Rainbow party. I don't know what that is. The Green party was clear: we have ten key values, and we try to uphold them. But, the Rainbow part, I don't know what that is. I don't know if it's 'Rainbow Coalition (blacks)' or 'Rainbow Pride (homosexuals.)'
Has this merging move been really good for membership or donations? Because if it confuses me, it probably confuses other people. Greens -- especially this election year -- are under a lot of pressure to break ranks and join one of the major parties. It seems to me that the party has pretty much disappeared from under me, and been replaced with some ill-defined mass. Why wouldn't I want to be a plutocrat? At least they know what they're about.
What needs to be done to get a Green party in Massachusetts again? Would somebody have to start afresh?
Ion
Reply

Re: Green (Only) Party
Tuesday March 02, @10:16PM, by Ion Freeman
Hey, can we make a proposal to drop the 'Rainbow'? I'd need 8 cosponsors.
http://www.green-rainbow.org/StateConvention/2004/local_index#proposal
Reply

Re: Green (Only) Party
Saturday March 06, @11:21PM, by Ion Freeman
Hey, I was researching this a little on the website. Apparently, the Green-Rainbow party polled the membership after the name change, and well over half the membership disapproved.
http://www.green-rainbow.org/Newsletters/previous_newsletters/grp_news_2003_spring.pdf
The newsletter that reports on it gives kind of confusing justifications and defenses of the name change, but points out that we merely need two-thirds of the membership to vote to change the name back.
Can we do that?
ion
Reply

Re: Green (Only) Party
Wednesday March 10, @10:45AM, by Scott Pherson
Hello Ion,

I re-read page 8 of the Spring 2003 Newsletter. The numbers are:

Enthusiastic Support - 44.8%
Accept with Reservations - 19.6%
Not in Favor - 35.5%

(352 replies or 4% return rate)

So really, only 1/3 disapproved of the name change and almost 1/2 approved the name change. If you want to take the 20% and spin them as NOs, you get slightly more than 1/2 disapproving, but still a ways from 2/3. It will be a tough battle to get 2/3 to approve at the convention.

I should point out that I am a supporter of the new name. Yes, to the lay person, rainbow is ambiguous, however, all meanings associated with it are part of the tenets of the Green party (racial, gender, and sexual diversity).

If you would like to go ahead and make the proposal to change the party name, can we talk offline about this. You can email me or call me 978-692-0734. Thanks.

-Scott
Reply

Re: Green (Only) Party
Saturday March 13, @03:13PM, by Ion Freeman
Hi, Scott.
I think you've covered my points adequately. I would just say that
(1) 'Approving with reservations' is the same as disapproving. Providing the option is a way of making the 'no' vote seem lower than it is. _Every approval has reservations; if you feel a need to state that you have a reservation, you'd probably disapprove in a straight yes/no. This is why you don't ask (approve; disapprove but think it has some merit; disapprove)
(2) I don't know how worrisome the 4% is. But, it's definitely self-selecting. Are these people going to be likely to have been engaged in the process of name-changing, and responding because they're plugged in, or more likely to be responding because they're incensed by the idea? When the name change was announced, I don't remember if I rushed off to answer the poll or just let the 3-horse troika fly past*.
(3) The valid question here is, how has this affected the organization? Has this muddied our message? Has it disengaged the membership? What have the two organizations done for each other?
(4) The black rainbows and the gay rainbows don't have any particular connection. 'Rainbow' politically doesn't suggest racial equality and non-discrimination on gender orientation. It suggests one or the other. If it's not clear whihc one we're stressing, it's confusing.
Are we talking about a name change or a merger? I think the name change reflected a merger, and it's the merger that really rankles me. We merged with the Rainbow Coalition, the black rainbows. I had intended to go to the county convention Today to see if we were a little less lily now, but failed.
I don't really understand what was in this for them. They were essentially a special interest group for multiculti interests, right? And we're not that. So, I don't even know how we roped them in. It might have been a better idea to merge with the Red, Orange, Yellow, Blue, Indigo and Violet parties. Then we could call ourselves the Rainbow party.
But, the three key values that relate here -- social justice, feminism (leveraging the rainbow ambiguity,) and respect for diversity -- are not our top values. They're three of our ten values. This is my big objection to the merger. It focuses our mission in a way I protest and makes us less flexible as an organization.
Thanks!
ion

* -- gratiutous Gogol reference
Reply

Addressing your last post
Monday March 22, @01:28AM, by Scott Pherson
Hi Ion,

I've approved items while holding (and expressing) reservations, so I think that it is still a matter of debate about whether the vote would be cast yes or no. I think that we have both clearly made our opinions on this matter of debate.

I want to address a few points made in your last posting.
- It is not possible for political parties in Massachusetts to merge, hence it was forwarded to the secretary of state as a name change. However, the reality of the events is that it was a merger.
- The Rainbow Coalition Party draws most of its strength/membership from Eastern Massachusetts, particularly the Boston area. The Rainbow Coalition candidates have won elected offices and contributed to the electoral political history in the state. They have also been around much longer than the Massachusetts Green Party.
- My view on the party merger:
GAINS:
Mass Greens gained valuable new members and elected officials, e.g. Chuck Turner. Many of the new members bring skills in organizing and running campaigns (and hopefully candidates). Mass Greens earn more credibility in communities of color.
Rainbow Coalition gained ballot access with all of its benefits (easier to register voters, easier to get candidates on the ballot).
LOSSES/NEW DIFFICULTIES:
Mass Greens name change may confuse some voters. Less flexability in choosing what Green values to focus upon (debatable).
Rainbow Coalition must change its structure/operation to be in compliance with Mass Green political structure and subject to major party status regulations. Even though the political designation F still remains, the party operates within the Green-Rainbow Party now.

- How will this merger play out?
It has been only a little over a year since the "merger" was official. During this time, new StateCom members have been elected, F voters have changed to J, and most documents have been successfully merged (although the new combined party platform has not been formally approved). There has been some accomplishment in increasing the diversity of the StateCom and AdCom membership [although I'm too new to the party to really have a sense of what it was pre-2002].

I am disappointed that no new Rainbow Coalition members have stepped forward to run for public office (at least that I'm aware of).

The short term benefit has been an influx of about 1000 (maybe a few hundred more) Rainbow Coalition voters- this indeed helps towards reaching our goal of 40,000 registered J voters in the state to maintain ballot status. The question is, will this help in the long term? Again, I think that it will, I think that Greens place value on both interpretations of the rainbow.

What would strengthen your proposal (to revert the name back to Mass Green Party) is evidence that the name Green-Rainbow Party has somehow hindered efforts to obtain new voters and/or gain votes in elections. It is too early to know this information, in my view. Perhaps the 2004 convention will be a better time to bring this issue forward, as it gives you time to reflect upon the outcome of GRP electoral races and membership/diversity numbers?
Reply

Re: Green (Only) Party--and something else!
Tuesday May 04, @10:40PM, by Ralph Walton
I would like to say a few things about where the Rainbow came from. The phrase "a 'Rainbow Coalition' of the disadvantaged and rejected from all races and creeds." was used during the organization of the poor peoples' march on Washington for peace and freedom around 1965 or 67. During the first Reagan term Mel King revived the phrase as he ran for Mayor of Boston printing rainbow buttons in a large number of languages and cultural themes. Subsequently he formed a formal Political Designation out of the movement started by his mayoral campaign called the Massachusetts Rainbow Coalition (indicated by the letter F in Massachusetts voter lists). Mel is said to have suggested for Jessie Jackson to use the same phrase the next year during the Democratic Primaries. Jackson later attached the Rainbow name to his PUSH organization (I think with Mel’s blessing) Note: Rainbow/PUSH is a separate organization from Massachusetts Rainbow Coalition. I think I first saw rainbow banners and ribbons used by LGBT movements in the later eighties, though there were probably several versions of a gay rainbow button during Mel’s campaign but I could be wrong. So I see the rainbow which merged into the Massachusetts Green party as a revival of the rainbow march for peace and freedom stimulated in response to the regressive first Reagan administration.

I am a white male who has lived in Boston since 1980 and I love Mel's Rainbow.

- Ralph Walton
Reply

Thanks, Ralph. It's good to have context
Sunday June 27, @03:41PM, by Ion Freeman
Although ours was no less white than, say, Nebraska's delegation to the National Convention. And, we had no members in the black caucus.
Reply