However, we are almost certainly on the cusp of an era of radical change in which business as usual will not be the watch word. In our past history as a country, such revolutionary times as we are probably going into are wild-card times in which events happen that could not be predicted and in which everybody stands around scratching their heads saying, “a year ago I would not have believed that possible?”

During such times, especially in the early stages, reformist parties like the Greens will often be the first alternatives people turn to, but people quickly grow tired of them as they usually do not really differ much from the radical wings of the corrupt parties they pretend to replace. The Green Party is a perfect case in point. It is essentially a liberal party focused on the single issue of environmental protection. Much like the Prohibition Party of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The Prohibitionists too had a program of radical-reformist liberalism, but were eventually sunk by their single-issue name and orientation.

I expect the Green Party to go down with other single-issue reformist parties of our past during the coming revolutionary epic. The Green Party U.S. has already proven its inability to adapt to changed circumstances, its essential anti-democratic organizational structure and its adherence to an essentially liberal program. In 2004 it shot itself in the foot through its fear of challenging the Democrats, choosing instead to run the “safe-states-only”, stealth Cobb/LeMarche campaign for President opposed to the Nader/Camejo campaign. (Camejo, as a candidate in the Green primary/caucus process won a much higher vote than Cobb did, but the Green misleadership chose Cobb anyway!) Why? Because the majority of its leadership feared the wrath of the Democrats. The results were clear for all to see: loss of numerous ballot lines, loss of 50,000 members (including me!) and loss of the right to claim it is a credible challenger to the Democrats and Republicans.

Ultimately, as a joke, Halle has succeeded with this piece, at least among those who have enough of the political knowledge of this backwash of American popular thought to get the joke. As speculative fiction however, Halle has failed. The reason for the failure is that he fails to take into account the normal response of the populace during revolutionary times, that is, their response in rejecting business as usual, which the Green Party so aptly represents. Matt is a good guy who should have been mayor of San Francisco. If he is part of the radical re-alignment of political forces that will come in the near future, he will be a great asset to the people. If he fails to see the fact that the Green Party has already caste the die, already sealed its own fate, then he will go down with that party of the past. Greenism has been around for three decades internationally, long enough to prove itself or fail to. It is a tiny minority party even in those countries with democratic election systems like proportional representation. It has failed to win elections here in the United States even when all the objective factors are in its favor. The statistic that shows that 92 percent of the few hundreds they have succeeded in electing out of tens of thousands of possible elective public offices ran not as Greens but as non-partisan candidates in non-partisan elections is also telling. After a three-decades-long effort, they have little-to-nothing to show in the United States and internationally. They will certainly not be the choice of the people in the revolutionary period to come.

The ultimate test of speculative fiction is its ability to recognize how events typically unfold given the socio-cultural parameters it sets for itself. Halle sets his parameters as a near future in which a radical change in popular consciousness has occurred. So far, so good. But then he posits the idea that a liberal, business-as-usual reformist party is able to capture the presidency. Not likely! If people become radicalized enough to overcome the systemic roadblocks against such an ocurance, they, I believe, will also be radicalized enough to go all the way to choosing genuine change as opposed to the superficial variety offered by the Green Party.

Sincerely,
Chris Driscoll, chairman, Populist Party of Maryland

– SS

See how much better that is ?

No need to thank me. Your obvious unspoken gratitude is more than sufficient. :D

Seriously, the makeover looks good and you should just ignore the turkeys.

How about the fact that everyone gets a great laugh out of it save those of us who were too stupid or too eager to complete as many instructions as we could.

Well this satire sure made me a dunce today. And I shiver thinking about who may have got the best laugh out of it. I mistook the fiction for the truth in spite of all the clues.

I probably spend too much time dreaming of the best candidates and real justice in this world — and am too ready to snatch on any glimmer that suggests that “Soul Power” can possibly triumph over jaundiced realism — and to hell with the details!

Now I feel even such fantasies are worthless, and it’s time to get off of my cloud — and get “real” like “everyone else.”

Maybe I should just square up and trust that Barack Obama is lying to the Man just enough to get in the door, or that Hillary is really sorry that many of us have no health care. (Well, maybe they are.)

Better, why not turn it all off and just go shopping– there’s gotta be something I can afford.

And then, these pesky hopes — don’t they eventually lead to someone busting down the front door to haul us away? (Or more likely, lead to being ostracized — “oh, he’s just an eccentric relative. Don’t know exactly what’s in his mind.”)

Will it be safe to dream… really dream again?

On another tack, because I’m sounding maudlin: here is a something from someone’s eccentric relative who got me really thinking.

This incarnation of DV (with commenting feature) is only three months old. In the older version of DV (now archived) we posted a number of fiction, poetry and satire pieces, most notably by Adam Engel, Leilla Matsui, Gary Corseri, Vi Ransel, Mickey Z., and others. You won’t find them linked on this version of DV’s search engine because the older DV is housed on a different system and, alas, we can’t at the moment link to them without a lot of tedious work . But the point is, you’re flat wrong as long-time DV readers will know. Do a Google search under “Dissident Voice” and the names I’ve just given and you’ll find them. Fiction, poetry and satire are welcome on DV as long as they have a political bent, as is stated in our Submission guidelines (which are the same guidelines we’ve had for over four years,)

Second, if you don’t like Halle’s fiction, fine then. You’re entitled to your view and you’re being given the space to voice it . . . over and over again. Indeed, this constant harping leads me and others to believe the main source of your displeasure is the embarrassing fact that you actually believed this story was real, despite the “Fiction” categorization below the bio (which was included the same time the article went up) and the past-tense headline which gives it away — something most everyone else, save for a couple of others here, did not miss.

Anyway, would you like to tell the world — yet again — how much you hate this piece? And while you’re at it, might you want to question whether this neurotic persistence over one fiction article is an indication that there are other things you could be focusing your energies on. Like supporting meaningful alternatives to the one party with two right wings?

Yea, and you just started the “fiction” tab. Nice backfill – and only Halle’s 2 posts are there.

If its fiction, satire, or giggles, it’s just bad stuff. It would be only mildly engaging if it were none of these; i.e, if it was…..TRUE!

The bottom field below the author’s bio shows it falls under the fiction category (among three others), and the article is clearly fiction given the title is in the past tense.

Also, DV has in its five years of existence posted a number of fiction and literary pieces. Up until now, nobody save less than a handful of folks, have been confused.

Now can we all move on to more important things?

Such a shame we’ve all been suckered!

Editors if you want to create a “fiction section” like say The New Yorker, I’d suggest you do just that.

And as such this piece mocks – not the powers that be – but those of us who are struggling for change.

Thanks for speaking up. You’ve just provided the reason why there’s nothing satirical about this. Perhaps you should have written the piece. We’re a bit beyond poor irony and satire. I’m very supportive of Greens in particular as a third party alternative; to the extent that that will make a differnce in our deep cultural and economic problems.

But, as someone said (and I paraphrase), if you’ve got to explain it, than it aint working.

If it is to be done effectively, than great, but this piece was about as poorly constructed as I’ve seen.

Right. A Green who lost by a narrow margin — after only entering the race in the Fall of that election year — to a rich and well-funded Democrat (Newsom outspent Gonzalez 10-1), and who so worried the DP leadership, that Al Gore and Bill Clinton had to be flown into SF to shore up the DP’s base. There’s nothing unrealistic about a Green or any other third party candidate winning a mayoral race in an important city like SF, and further down the line having a shot at the presidency . . . a long-term strategy, some would argue, the Greens and other third parties should adopt rather than go for broke and run a presidential candidate without having a substantial enough base to win.

Gee, you sure are taking this so seriously given the non-stop comments . . . which I find rather humorous. Maybe you ought to give it a rest and move on to something else.

Well I guess we’ve cleared things up now, haven’t we?