Green Party Uses Right Winger To Target Jesse Jackson Jr.
In the congressional elections of 2010, the Illinois Green Party is pushing hard, with candidates in 12 of the state’s 19 congressional districts, as well as a candidate for U.S Senate. In some of these districts, more than one candidate is competing to represent the Green Party in the general election. However, there are some signs that, in order to obtain candidates in many congressional districts, the Green Party of Illinois is sacrificing its traditionally progressive identity.
A case in point is Green Party candidate Anthony Williams, who is seeking to challenge Democratic incumbent Jesse Jackson Jr. for the 2nd district seat in the U.S. House of Representatives.
A Christian preacher by profession, Williams threatens to blur the separation of church and state by campaigning in the name of “God, family, and country”. On the issue of abortion, he declares himself “pro-life”. Williams also opposes equal marriage rights for same-sex couples, declaring that “Gay marriage and civil unions will destroy the fabric of any society.”
On issues of economics and foreign relations, Williams takes on the kind of xenophobic tone that one might expect from a Republican candidate. He campaigns against immigrants, and declares the United States should cease all foreign aid until “life of America and Americans is in order first.”
The appeal of the Green Party has been that it promoted progressive principles without compromise. Green Party campaigns by politicians such as Anthony Williams contradict this appeal, suggesting that the Illinois Green Party has become a convenient route for opportunists to gain attention for some remarkably unprogressive causes.
Now that the Green Party is an established party in Illinois, anyone can get on the ballot as a Green with enough signatures. Williams has not received the endorsement of any local or the state party and did not receive one in 2008 when he attempted to run as a Green for the reasons mentioned in this article.
Anthony Williams ran as a Republican in 2008. His positions do not reflect the Green Party platform. See the Illinois Green Party website . The election law in Illinois allows anyone who collects sufficient signatures to get on the primary ballot of any party. The Illinois Green Party has no say in who chooses to run as a Green Party candidate. Green Party activists certainly repudiate the stands of Rev. Williams on abortion rights, gay rights, and immigrant rights.
You need to remember that an unaffiliated person might well claim to be in the Green Party when they have nothing to do with it. This has happened before. Unlike the two largest parties, the Greens cannot afford to sue such people — they have better uses for their money. I think Mr Williams is no more endorsed by the Greens than George Bush was.
I’ve been working with the Greens for a while. I can’t remember Williams ever coming to any meetings. He’s not listed as the Green candidate on the Party’s web site: A guy named Michael E. Mayden is listed as our candidate. I know Mayden, he’s been working for Green causes for a long time – in fact I was the one who talked him into joining the Greens. Where did you get Williams from?
Michael E. Mayden doesn’t even list his policy positions on his campaign web site – and the videos I watched from his site were also devoid of specific policy content. He doesn’t look like a serious candidate. Williams looks nasty, but at least he has bothered to write policy positions. I don’t write about candidates who aren’t offering policy statements.
If Anthony Williams can come in and out-hustle Mayden, the Green Party of Illinois needs to work harder, or it could have a right-wing takeover on its hands.
Congress Watcher, I know others have pointed out the flaw in your argument…but I really have to object to this line:
“However, there are some signs that, in order to obtain candidates in many congressional districts, the Green Party of Illinois is sacrificing its traditionally progressive identity.”
What “signs” do you have that the Green Party did anything to recruit Williams? He decided to run on his own…he was not recruited by the Greens.
I’d appreciate it if you would expand upon what “signs” you’re talking about, or else issue a correction to the article.
Good question, PFK.
One of the signs, as I mentioned in another comment, is that the other Green Party candidate for this seat has failed to articulate a progressive alternative to the right wing agenda promoted by Williams. If the Green Party truly rejects the politics of Williams, well, then why don’t we see that? Where is the groundswell of rejection? Where is the campaign in support of another, clearly progressive, candidate?
Michael Mayden seems mostly to be promoting himself. He doesn’t promote the Green Party, or its traditionally progressive principles. The candidate with clear positions is Williams.
Then, there’s the ballot status issue. A big part of the Green Party’s agenda has been to focus on ballot status as a political goal, saying that if only there was equal ballot status, then the Green Party would move forward with progressive ideals. But, ballot status seems to have actually opened up the Green Party to candidates with some anti-progressive ideas.
This move brings to the fore serious questions about the search for power, and how far the Green Party is willing to go to sacrifice its ideals in order to promote its electoral presence. Yes, the Green Party has a lot of congressional candidates, but those candidates don’t need to represent the Green Party’s supposed principles. Is the Green Party of Illinois going to continue to go forward with this new structure that allows gay bashers in? Before, requiring candidates to gain individual ballot status through petitioning of individual Green Party members required the candidates to prove themselves in line more with the principles of the party itself.
You can’t just say that Anthony Williams isn’t with the Green Party, because the Green Party has purposefully created a process that allows candidates like himself to come in. The Green Party of Illinois would benefit from some more self-reflection about what it’s done in this regard, rather than coming out with these statements that Williams somehow doesn’t count as a Green Party candidate.
I never said that the Green Party recruited Williams. Neither, however, did the Green Party recruit Mayden. No one, Williams or Mayden, is truly endorsed by the Party until, through a primary, caucus or similar process, one is chosen over the other. They have equal status.
That’s a bunch of b.s., Congress Watcher. The quote I highlighted is a pretty clear assertion by you that the Green Party recruited Williams. You said that we were “signs” that the GP is “sacrificing its identity” in order to “obtain candidates”. Then you go on to talk about Williams. It’s pretty clear cut what you said and what you meant…and it’s totally incorrect.
Furthermore, you said in your last comment that the GP has purposefully created a process that allows Williams to come in. Did you not read the other comments left here? The IL election code allows anyone to run for any party, provided they get the signatures and file the paperwork correctly. We didn’t create these laws — they were created by the GOP and Dems. They — not us — set up a system where there is VERY LITTLE any party (Greens, Dems or GOP) can do to stop a candidate from running in their primary.
You clearly haven’t done your homework. Anyone who knows what they are talking about wouldn’t make such claims.
Obtaining ballot status, by the very reasoning you’ve just used, makes the Green Party vulnerable to right wing takeover in the same way that the Democratic Party has become vulnerable to the Blue Dogs. Are you suggesting, and is the Green Party working of Illinois, to create an alternative process?
A point that you’ve failed to address is what the other candidate is doing to confront Williams – and what Green Party activists are doing on that score. I’m seeing no political content from Mayden. Can you point out where I’m missing that?
Congress Watcher, you keep trying to change the subject. Your article is factually incorrect, and the fact that you refuse to correct it is disturbing.
You keep bringing up Mayden… explain to me how exactly the content of his web site means we’re using Anthony Williams to “target” Jesse Jackson?
I’ll say this again: Anybody can run in the Green Party primary…Williams, Mayden. We have no control over these candidates or who is running.
It really is beside the point…you lied when you said there were “signs” that we used Williams to “target” Jesse Jackson. There are no signs, and now you are trying to look as though you actually had some kind of intelligent point.
Patrick, you continue to ignore my central point, which is what you’ve done to your Green Party by opening it up to people like Anthony Williams. He’s a Green Party candidate, and you can claim to reject him, but right now, he and his supporters are out there with as much right to speak for the Green Party as you. You don’t get to decide what your party stands for any more than he does.
Instead of being angry at me for pointing out that right wing Green Anthony Williams has a stronger campaign right now than Mayden, why don’t you tell me what you’re doing about it – or even what Mayden is doing about it? Right now, I see nothing but some whining about the Illinois Greens being caught with their pants down.
And now, my concerns are validated. Anthony Williams WON the Green Party primary yesterday over Mayden, 59.6 percent to 40.4 percent – nearly 20 points, with 97 percent of the precincts reporting. Just over 200 greens showed up to vote in the district.
A homophobic takeover of the Green Party? More on this later.
[...] in December, we wrote of the Green Party contest in the 2nd congressional district of Illinois. Two Green Party candidates were competing for their party’s nomination to challenge [...]
When Green Party Candidate Elect, Anthony Williams, stands on principles historic to scripture and even more historic to the African culture concerning sexual perversity, it does not give people the right to make “homophobic” mockery. When Green Party Candidate Elect, Anthony Williams, brings the principles of scripture to the government of which it’s basic laws and constitution were founded, does not open the door to mock Him as a “Theocrat”. Now I understand the wise man who once said, “…we get the government we deserve…”
Barney, there is no religious scriptural basis for the Constitution. Show me where the right to a jury trial is in the Christian Bible. Using government to advance one religion over another is Theocracy, and that’s what Anthony Williams is doing.
Barney, so now citizens don’t have the right to question Williams? Oh, that’s rich.
The problem here is not the Green Party nor this candidate. The problem is a system that forces parties who have ballot access to use taxpayer funds and have “primaries” which allow the hijacking of their ballot lines. Candidate nomination is a party’s own business and needs to be decided by the parties and their active, card carrying members. No, I don’t mean those so-called “members” who designate themselves Green, Democrat, Republican, whatever, on a taxpayer funded voter registration form. I mean actual active members that voluntarily affiliate with a party and pay dues and are tracked by that party and its organization, not taxpayer funds. This also means separating ballot access from parties altogether.
The solution is to have equally accessible ballot access requirements for all regardless of party, or no party, affiliation. Ballot access should be predicated on an individual’s ability to meet those requirements. If an individual does not have the authorization of a party to use their label next to their name then they are simply considered and independent or can opt to have no label.
Here is a good example in practice. In the UK if you want to run for NATIONAL parliament all you have to do is find 10 eligible voters in the respective district and get their petitions. Yes, I said 10. Then you must file a 500 pound fee, which is refundable if you win 5% of the vote or more. Then you are on the ballot, thats it. If you do this by yourself without a party, you are an independent. If a party grants you authorization, then you can use their label on the ballot next to your name. Usually, candidates of parties are selected by whatever internal process the party and its members decide on, the after they are selected the party members in the local chapter provide the ten petitions and the party puts up the filing fee along with the authorization to use their label on the ballot.
Obviously, such a system prevents the kind of ballot and party hijacking seen in this case as well as encourages the building of member-driven parties that do not waste taxpayer money to track their actual members or decide their nominees. It also provides equitable and accessible ballot access requirements that encourage competitive, pluralistic democracy, as opposed to being used as weapons to keep competition off the ballot.
If Illinois were to adopt a similar system, it would be better off, as would all other states.