Third party proposes Green New Deal alternatives

Ballot in hand, Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein emerges from her polling station after casting her ballot for President of the United States at the Town Clerk’s office in Lexington, Mass., Friday, Oct. 26, 2012.
Associated Press / Stephan Savoia, File

Despite public opinion that the Green Party primarily and singularly focus on environmental issues while promoting an organic lifestyle — polarizing and controversial statements, violent outbreaks at political rallies and indecisive commentaries from frontrunners representing the two major political parties have now infused interest and optimism in the independent party proposing a Green New Deal.

Offering an alternative to the two-party traditional options, they are winning converts to vote in large numbers next November if only to change the pattern of replacing one party with the other.

Among the list of issues they are now focused on are: Downsizing the military, rededicating to a new foreign policy, restoring the infrastructure, a green economy, stop supporting Israel’s war machine and liberation of young people from predatory banks they believe are profiting from student loans.

“Forty three million young people are locked in debt from loans, the same way the government bailed out the banks with a strike of a pen, student loans should be canceled,” Dr. Jill Stein, Green Party presidential candidate said.

As a matter of fact, Dr. Stein believes that if her message is able to reach the masses in the mainstream voting demographic, the 43-million youth population alone could determine the next president of the United States.

While the medical specialist does not believe that will happen, the activist doctor believes her party’s agenda could benefit with disenchanted supporters of the Democratic Party voting a third party candidate.

The 67-year-old physician and activist stated, “We are all realizing that we, the people, have to take charge because the political parties that are serving the top one percent are not going to solve the problems that the rest of us face.”

The concept of a “Deal” is probably patterned after President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal, which he advocated when he accepted the Democratic nomination for president of the United States on July 2, 1932.

At the time, Americans were recovering from the stock market crash of 1929 and the Great Depression that followed and were ready to accept a different deal, anything better than the one they endured under Republican President Herbert Hoover.

The Democrat promised domestic reforms and economic relief in industry, agriculture, finance, waterpower, labor and housing.

Needless to say, his campaign won but it also increased involvement by the federal government.

According to Dr. Stein, like FDR would implement a policy in which renewable energy jobs would be created to address climate change and environmental issues. The objective would be to employ “every American willing and able to work.”

She noted the successful economic effects of the 1930s’ New Deal projects, and said she would fund the start-up costs of any plan with a 30 percent reduction in the U.S. military budget, returning U.S. troops home, and increasing taxes on areas such as speculations in stock markets, offshore tax havens, and multimillion-dollar real estate. In addition, she added that the multiplier economic effects of this Green New Deal would later recoup most of the start-up costs.

To devoted two-party supporters her plan may be perceived to be going back to the future in a green way.

However, her response is that “Americans should not have to choose between the lesser of evils.”

The two evils, she offers are Hillary Clinton, former secretary of state and any one of the Republican choices — businessman Donald Trump, Senators Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio.

While she spewed venomous descriptions of the three conservative GOP contenders, she had the harshest words for the “Apprentice” reality show host.

Describing recent statements he made to his supporters to evict disruptors at his rally as irresponsible, she said she fears the worst if Trump emerges the choice of the Republicans.

With regard to differences between the two party contenders, Dr. Stein said there was little that distinguished Trump’s arrogance from Clinton’s sense of entitlement.

It is a statement she has repeated during two previous campaigns but now more than ever believes that the discourse repeated by candidates representing the Republican and Democratic Party only give lip-service to their ambition to move into the White House but bodes little for any real change that would benefit the average citizen.

“We need people in Washington who will refuse to be bought by lobbyists and for whom change is not just a slogan.”

She added that given the constraints within the Democratic Party, neither Clinton nor Vermont’s Sen. Bernie Sanders could ever deliver on their promise.

She said no candidate representing the Democratic Party could.

“President Barack Obama had aspirations for change but adopted Bush policies when he got in the White House and even deported more people than any other president before him.”

“They fake left but go right,” Dr. Stein said about the party many African-Americans and other minorities claim to being most qualified to address their needs.

She also cited Jesse Jackson’s bid for the presidency in 1988 saying “he won 12 primaries but they neutralized his campaign.”

Stein’s arguments against the popular party were stacked with disenchanted reflection on how the Dems had betrayed their supporters.

Not only does she believe her third party could provide a viable choice to express the opinions of the disfranchised but she also contends that a windfall of votes to the third party could boost the party’s status to mainstream attention.

Dr. Stein is a resident of Massachusetts.

She is a Harvard University graduate and also fulfilled post-graduate studies in 1979 at Harvard Medical School.

Her foray into politics emerged when she combined a concern for health and the local environment.

Throughout she actively advocated for improvements to the environment.

Following community activism in 2002, she became the Green Rainbow Party candidate for governor of Massachusetts. She finished third in a field of five candidates, with 76,530 votes and received approximately 3.5 percent of the vote.

In 2008, she helped formulate a “Secure Green Future” ballot initiative that called upon legislators to accelerate efforts to move the Massachusetts economy to renewable energy and make development of green jobs a priority.

After receiving 456,169 votes in the 2012 election, she was named the most successful female presidential candidate in US history. Reportedly she received more than one percent of the popular vote in three states – Maine, Oregon and Alaska.

Stein is only the second Green Party presidential candidate ever to have qualified for federal matching campaign funding.

Ralph Nader was first when he became eligible in 2000.

“It’s the usual difference between political rhetoric and political deed,” Nader said of the current campaigns.

“I think a lot of people see that Bernie Sanders is more authentic in saying what he means and meaning what he says.”

Nader who ran for the White House presidency on five different occasions added that Sanders has been more authentic on the topic of Wall Street than fellow Democratic presidential candidate, Clinton.

During this campaign season, Dr. Stein believes voters can change the trajectory of both parties’ dysfunction by voting a Green agenda.

“People are waking up to the propaganda of fear and intimidation. They are demanding a coalition for justice.”

With a potential to deliver 100 percent renewable energy by 2030 Dr. Stein said she would guarantee a green economy by producing clean energy that would not justify war for oil.

“We have to declare a national emergency,” she said.

“America maintains 1,000 military bases in 100 countries,” Dr. Stein explained, “military costs are spiraling…”

Alleged to cost more than $1.7 trillion, in contrast with Russia’s $60 billion budget, Dr. Stein’s proposal seems to resonate with citizens opposed to inflated military spending.

Dr. Stein seems to be softer on the Sanders positions. Although she does not nit-pick his bid remains determined that the Green Party is the best hope for change.

She did say that a coalition could be forged aligning a “Power to the People” alliance with Sanders that would defeat the Clinton candidacy.

“The biggest way people give up power is by not knowing they have it to start with,” she quoted Alice Walker saying.

“And that’s true, for the environmental movement, the student movement, the antiwar movement, health-care-as-a-human-right movement — you put us all together, we have the potential for a Tahrir Square type event,” she added with reference to the 18-day Egyptian revolt of 2011.

“It’s time to build a people’s movement to end unemployment and poverty; avert climate catastrophe; build a sustainable, just economy; and recognize the dignity and human rights of every person. The power to create this new world is not in our hopes; it’s not in our dreams — it’s in our hands.”

Mobilization and power of the people she said could “turn the White House into a Green House in November.”

Catch You On The Inside!

More from Around NYC