Comments on: Urban Greens vs. Rural Progressives?

By: Jon Stahl

Jon Stahl — Fri, 01 Oct 2004 14:30:33 +0000

Pat, the specifics that I thought were lacking were how rurals have "been sold down the river" by urban environmentalists. I would argue that rural communities have been sold down the river by extractive industry far more than by greens. (Example: spotted owls have cost far fewer jobs than mill automation.)

As to the importance of old-fashioned community-based organizing, I couldn't possibly agree with you more strongly. Some of the most effective groups I know (Northern Plains, Oregon Rural Action, etc.) are those that do this kind of nuts-and-bolts organizing.

By: pat hayes

pat hayes — Fri, 01 Oct 2004 04:58:40 +0000

Fearing the slice and dice of editors I kept my post short. As to your comment re:
specifics…Mansfield, Melcher, Metcalf, Pat Williams, frank Church, the Udalls,
Andrus and a host a govs and state legs in the inland west. My core belief is that
progressives can alter the tipping point and recapture state offices by old fashion
community organizing. I put much of the onus on greens on the basis of twenty+ years
work in rural communities. Too many fail to respect the fragility of single industry
communities and fail to recognize the unintended consequences of protest and litigation.

By: Steve Andersen

Steve Andersen — Tue, 28 Sep 2004 16:15:03 +0000

I think one of the big problems we face today is that neither party has the economic interests of the working class in mind. Clinton gave us NAFTA, Reagan gave us trickle-down. The working class isn't dumb--they've seen the Dems sell them out just as quickly as the Reps. But, the Reps have social issues that resonate with a lot of Americans--over half the country thinks that abortions are a bad idea. Since either choice gives you the same economic result, you may as well chose the party that matches your social outlook. Thomas Frank addresses this situation in his book What's Wrong with Kansas. Here's an interesting interview he gave.