March 24, 2004
Voting for the lesser evil, is still evil
To save America, Green Party members and Independents are again called upon to sacrifice our own voice to support the Democrats’ nominee for president. As the “anyone but Bush” crowd likes to point out, the only real option in 2004 is to vote for Kerry—given that Nader (or any other progressive) is not going to win—and that Kerry, however undesirable, is preferable to Bush. Progressive Democrats in particular point out that anyone who does not understand this “basic principle” is strategically unsophisticated, irresponsible, and even destructive.
This type of thinking, however, illustrates one of the fundamental flaws of the left; i.e. our inability to articulate a vision of the future and what steps we need to take to get there. Instead, our political orientation is heavily geared toward the short term, with our highest goal set on throwing out the latest despot in the Oval Office. More often than not, we find ourselves in a defensive holding pattern, devoting little thought to the long-term implications of our actions.
Part of the problem is that we have inherited a highly undemocratic winner-takes-all election system, which insures the hegemony of the two major political parties. However, rarely is there discussion among progressive voters, anti-war activist, etc. about the effect of our electoral system on democratic participation and how it thwarts the rise of a diverse multi-party system. Instead most of our energy is devoted to reaction; i.e. opposing or trying to limit the worst effects of things we don’t want rather than working proactively to construct a new political reality.
The defensive posture of progressives is understandable given that we inhabit a world where our enemies are strong and are determined to implement very undesirable initiatives. The irony of focusing so much attention on containing our enemies rather than conceptualizing and working towards our vision of the future is that we end up hastening the very things we opposed. This is because the more our agenda focuses on opposition the more likely we are to loss sight of our goals and to compromise our values. This phenomenon is exemplified by the progressive obsession of voting for the lesser of two evils (VLTE).
In fact, many of us have so internalized the VLTE mantra that it might be better described as a “see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil” voting strategy. Such thinking has caused progressives to steadily lose ground to the right-wing of this county to the point where we are now supporting Democrats who are more conservative than Richard Nixon (who at least created the Environmental Protection Agency as a cabinet level department). In reality, the VLTE strategy has allowed the Democratic Party to pull the country even more rightward because the Republicans (who are often aided by the Democrats in enacting their policies) are always a little worse.
As Green Party nominee for president Peter Camejo states in the Avocado Declaration (www.avocadoeducationproject.org) “the call to vote for the lesser evil is what makes the greater evil possible. In other words, by always fearing the negative impacts of the Republican administration we allow the Democrats to usurp the political movement towards change. In general, VLTE has turned progressives into short-term political thinkers who have a hard time visualizing the long-term consequences of their actions.
In order to implement meaningful political change, we must begin to differentiate between short-term and long-term political costs (something the right-wing figured out a long time ago).
For instance, given that many people in our country believe in social, economic and environmental justice, we should be developing political strategies to create a state in which
* Inequalities of wealth and income are limited
* Poverty is almost non-existent
* Health Care is universal
* Taxation is progressive
* Minorities, women and gays are full members of our society
* Unions are powerful and democratic
* University populations vastly out number the prison population
* Foreign policy is humanitarian and democratic
* The defense budget is geared towards defense (and thus reduced)
* The environment is strongly protected
* Economic activities are based on sustaining the resource base
* Trade agreements between countries is fair and subordinate to sovereign laws
* Political campaigns are publicly financed
* The election system is based on proportional representation
* The media promotes open and wide ranging political debate
The current thinking about electoral politics by progressives hardly seems adequate to get us headed in this direction. In fact, the continuation of the VLTE strategy is generally moving us in the exact opposite direction.
In order to implement meaningful political change, progressives must begin to differentiate between short-term and long-term political costs (something the right-wing figured out a long time ago).
It bears noting that no significant social change has ever occurred anywhere in human society by focusing of short-term costs. Those who seek to democratize society must confront this basic dilemma head on.
Our fear that a rupture with the status quo may be too costly is understandable, but we must also understand that by exercising prudence we will contribute to the perpetuation of the current conditions. By definition, breaking free from any vicious circle has short-term costs. The longer we wait, however, the more costly (and hence unlikely) our vision of change becomes.
ELECTORAL REFORM
So given these circumstances, what are our best options for implementing our vision of the future? The first, and perhaps most important is to work to change our system of voting. Without a more democratic system that allows for the development of third, forth and fifth parties, we will remain a captured constituency with little chance to make real institutional changes.
We must remember that our electoral system was born in a time when the democratic ideas of the founders were still an experiment in people rule. Their approach was to “err” on the side of economic caution, by allowing only the male landowner gentry to have a voice in government. To ensure further safe guards, these men were only allowed to vote for electors, who in turn could vote for the candidate of their choice. Then--as today--money and influence were the primary factors in determining the outcome of an election.
History shows that under this system the Democrats and Republicans (who grew out of the Whigs) have not grown into two counterpoised forces, but rather complementary halves of a single two-party system: one animal with two heads that feed from the same corporate funded trough.
The Republican Party has historically acted as the open advocate for a platform which benefits the rule of wealth and corporate domination. They seek to convince the middle classes and labor to support the rule of the wealthy with the argument that "What's good for General Motors is good for the country".
On the other had, Democratic Party act as a "broker" negotiating and selling influence among broad sectors of society to support the objectives of corporate rule. By preventing a genuine mass opposition from developing, they maintain the stability that is essential for "business as usual", which is essential for the persistence of the Republican Party.
Together the two parties have made ballot access increasingly difficult for alternative parties, defended indirect elections such as the Electoral College, insisted on winner-take-all voting to block the appearance of alternative voices, opposed proportional representation to prevent representative democracy, and collaborate in district gerrymandering to create “safe” legislative seats.
Corporate backing shifts between the two parties depending on short-term social crises and other accidental factors. In the 1990s, more endorsements from CEOs went to the Democrats. At present the money has shifted to the Republican Party. Most corporations donate to both parties to maintain their system in place.
The result is a disenfranchised electorate that must either accept the choices given to us by our antiquated election system or try and minimize the policy impacts by voting for the "lesser of two evils." Unfortunately, this voting strategy has allowed the Democratic Party to co-opted populist movements (e.g. The Union movement in the 1930’s, the civil rights movement, the anti-Vietnam movement, the women’s movement), only to abandon these constituencies once they become a “captured” voting block.
In general, the immutable status we have given to our electoral system is actually quite mind-boggling. Somehow, many of us are capable of condemning the most deep-seated socio-economic problems, but when it comes to a destructive institutional feature of our political system, we accept it as permanent, almost as though it were part of the natural order of things. This attitude is all the more astounding given the enormous benefits electoral reforms such as proportional representation or even instant run-off voting would instantly produce (e.g., a widening of our political options, greatly expanded participation, and the elimination of the "spoiler" effect).
For more information on alternative democratic voting systems commonly used throughout the civilized world check out the Center for Voting and Democracy
THIRD PARTY POLITICS
Secondly, we must begin to support candidates who truly represent our value system, which generally means supporting third party candidates. While the historical success of third party efforts in the U.S. is terrible (owing to our electoral system), this is not a reason to abandon all future efforts.
Today the Green Party offers the best hope for implementing a progressive agenda on the local and (eventually) national level. To be honest, the Green Party is not particularly well organized or experienced, and in fact, suffers from some not insignificant divisions. But this is also not a sufficient reason to write it off. Arguing that we cannot opt for a third party until such a party is strong, well organized, and experienced is to create a "catch-22." If our involvement is essential to building such a party, waiting until it emerges before we lend it our support is to ensure its demise.
Any effort to establish a viable third party should involve a great deal of work at the local level. However, this does not preclude launching a national, presidential campaign. Rather than being mutually exclusive strategies, they can be mutually reinforcing. This is because most Americans, to the degree they are at all interested in politics, focus on national campaigns. In the case of the Green Party, it is highly unlikely that the tens of thousands of enthusiastic people who paid $10 each to attend Nader's "super rallies" in 2000 would have been similarly inspired and energized in the absence of the Nader campaign. Thus, rather than slowly building a local presence all across the country before launching a national campaign, it makes more sense to jump-start the whole process by advancing both efforts simultaneously.
None of this of course rules out the possibility of progressives taking control of the Democratic party. That possibility, however, is extremely small and would require surmounting the overwhelming and growing power that moneyed interests have in the party. It would also require a radical change in strategy on the part of progressive Democrats. Ironically, perhaps the one factor that could significantly strengthen their leverage vis-à-vis their internal party rivals is the emergence of a strong third political party.
Posted by Forrest Hill at March 24, 2004 11:18 AMHelping the Greater Evil win is more evil than voting for the Lesser Evil, in my opinion.
Posted by: ceejayoz at March 24, 2004 12:05 PMEvil? I thought that was just Cowboy talk.
I guess if you’re a Democrat though, it’ okay to use that word in reference to an American President—just not in reference to fascists and murderers who want to kill Americans. Good to have this cleared up.
Posted by: Martin at March 24, 2004 12:35 PM
Martin,
“Lesser of two evils” is a figure of speach. Get over it man.
Forrest,
I think you should go further with the point you made at the end about building a local base. There is no way that a Green can win the presidential election but why not a House seat. I’m sure they’ve won mayorships and state house rep seats around the country. This is where gains can be made and most of the time these positions effect people more directly than the presidency.
And it would have been nice to see this from the conservative third party view too.
Posted by: Jeff at March 24, 2004 01:10 PMHistory shows that under this system the Democrats and Republicans (who grew out of the Whigs) have not grown into two counterpoised forces, but rather complementary halves of a single two-party system: one animal with two heads that feed from the same corporate funded trough.
Beautifully written. No matter who you vote in, the party in power will not allow the creation of any viable opposition outside the 2-party system. The ‘opposition’ party, at the same time, will make sure no rivals emerge. It’s all about power and the addiction to money. Astonishing that the people have not yet started to rebel. How bad does it need to get?
Posted by: Jake at March 24, 2004 01:32 PMWell, Jake. I think that pretty much says it all. I agree.. well written. The only reason I can see anyone debating that quote is to perpetuate the system exactly as the quote describes it; as they know it to exist.. while they may not say it outloud.
Posted by: Mike at March 24, 2004 02:47 PMUse as many vulgarities as you want—I’m used to it whenever the left gets called on something.
Nasty personal remarks don’t change the fact, however, that calling Bush “evil” is not only a staple of the rhetoric on the left, but exactly what’s being done here. If it were only a matter of the figure of speech—“lesser of two evils”— well, it could easily be overlooked, but that’s not what’s happening.
Look at the rest of the language in the post, items such as “the despot in the White House,” or the way the entry starts with “To Save America…” Those fellow Americans who happen to be Republicans are called “our enemies,” as if America doesn’t have any enemies these days except those who don’t vote for “progressive causes.”
If this isn’t the language of demonization, I don’t know what is. And ceejayoz’s post provides just one more example.I guess this has become such an ingrained part of the political discourse on the left now that some just can’t hear it anymore.
All right, if you really want to split government into so many factions what is the reason behind your motives? By creating forexample 3 or 4 parties, there would be some many split on various issues nothing would ever get accomplished. At least now, as things are people can compromise on issues. But all these so called moderates would let everyone do whatever the hell they wanna do. Do some research, we need strong convictions to hold to. Do we really want our states and regions being divided in they views? We need to stay together if we are trying to make a point to the world by saying that even though we have difference we can work them out.
Posted by: Jake Ward at March 24, 2004 03:41 PMMartin,
As far as I can see no one insulted you with “vulgarities”. But maybe you’re right and I just can’t see it because the level of discourse has taken a severe hit recently. This also isn’t a left/right issue as I pointed out in my other post. I thought the article should have talked about the concerns of non-leftist parties. I think the article equally and rightly trashes both parties.
Jake,
Things will get done. In just about every other country in the world (ok I don’t know how true that is) the parties form coalitions. When the mainstream liberal party get’s too conservative the super liberal party threatens to pull it’s support. On your point of “compromise”, I think there is a difference between compromise and collusion. You said that we need strong convictions to hold to. Well what convictions do either of the leadership of the these “two” parties have? I would say none. They represent interests groups, not ideas.
Second half of last comment was directed to Jake Ward, not regular Jake.
Posted by: Jeff at March 24, 2004 04:00 PMThe meaning of that phrase is that when confronted with candidates who all seem subpar, you pick the candidate who is the least flawed. The problem is, you assume, that I’ll assume that your candidate is better than mine. But right now, I look at Kerry, for example, and I see somebody who is much better of a candidate than any of the others I see about me. Should one of your candidates turn out to be a better candidate for office by my analysis of things, sure, I’ll vote for him (or her).
Realistically speaking, though, I think your people are going about things backwards. You want the top office in the land, when you have few if any offices in the government below that. I think, to have a serious chance of shifting the political spectrum, you need to have senators and representatives in congress at the federal level first. When you can elect people at that level, then you can talk about the presidency.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 24, 2004 04:06 PMHaving coalition governments would be a great thing. More third-party support would be an excellent development for our government, because it would be good for democracy… in fact, I’d love for the term “third-party” to become meaningless altogether. Wouldn’t that be great!
Unfortunately, there are many, many items that are hurdles to third-parties entry into high office. The commission that decides on Debates, for instance, can simply do whatever the hell it likes in regards to rules and formats. It’s basically a shill for the two dominant parties. I have also heard passingly about court decisions that also bias things against 3rd parties.
The bottom line is that there will be no substantial progress made for third parties given their current strategy. Rather, by working from within the system and building consensus within the parties that do hold the keys to power, 3rd party agendas can be pushed and successfully realized. I believe, in fact, that were a strong 3rd party supporter to go this route, we might even be able to see some rollback of these unfair rules biasing against the involvement of third parties.
Apart from the larger strategy that I think should be enacted by third-party members, I can suggest the following short-term strategy. I myself follow this, since I feel that 3rd party involvement is so key. I vote almost exclusively 3rd party for local and state elections. Building a stronger 3rd party office-holder base has to be the start, and I think that excellent inroads are being made in that respect. However, in national office-holder elections, I will vote based on ensuring that my vote promotes and does not hurt generally leftist ideals. I recognize that there will never be a candidate that I agree 100% with, and so I have to look at the larger picture. I have to cast my vote in such a way that my general goals are advanced, and specifically so that an extreme right-winger like Bush does not get into office and literally destroy so many initiatives that I feel strongly about.
I would suggest that all left-leaning third party members vote for Kerry, and all right-leaning third party members should vote for the third party candidate of their choice. :)
Posted by: Gaelen Burns at March 24, 2004 04:44 PMI understand the idea behind voting for Nader. Unfortunately, if it leads to Bush getting a second term, I will have no other choice but to blame Nader supporters.
Posted by: Anthony at March 24, 2004 06:03 PMBlaming Nader supporters for supporting the candidate of their choice is like blaming Republicans for Kerry losing or Democrats for Bush losing. You can blame the opposition all you want, but, their right and freedom to support the candidate of their choice is no more blameful, or blameless than a Republican voting Republican or a Democrat voting Democrat.
Posted by: David R. Remer at March 24, 2004 06:58 PMThere is such a thing as the electoral college.
In some states you could vote for bugs bunny and it wouldn’t affect the outcome of the election.
I voted for Nader last time as a protest vote. But I did so with the knowledge that my state was going to go to bush regardless.
If the vote is close in you state then vote “anyone but bush”. If not, then GO BIG GREEN.
Progressive - Someone who wants to take progressively more of your freedom and your money.
But beyond that bit of humor, a few structural problems remain. The electoral college, though antiquated, is mandated by the Consitution and can only be changed by amendment. Although, if my guess is right, Greens probably do not care about that and would be happy if they just passed a law that ended it.
Second, there is strong Supreme Court precedent holding that the US system is one person and one vote. It is unlikely this will change. After all, the reason they reached this conclusion is because even after the 15th amendment, states still devised ways to limit the ability of blacks to votes.
Any change in the way votes are counted or cast will likley have to go through the amendment process.
“If the vote is close in your state then vote “anyone but bush”. If not, then GO BIG GREEN.”
Yes, indeed. But make *sure* that the polls going in have a HUGE spread. Like 10% plus.
I live in GA, which Bush won by 12% last time. I voted for Gore all the same, because I had hoped that my voice in the popular vote would sway Bush (should he win) into a more moderate, bi-partisan stance. You know, the whole “uniter not divider” thing. We all see how that turned out, so this time that wont enter into my thinking.
However, I think that even GA will end up being close this time around. The case against Bush is too compelling. I just have a feeling.
If it isn’t within 8-10%, however, I’ll be voting Green.
(offtopic: Why in the hell are we seeing so many energy company commercials on CNN? There are at least 2 per commercial break, from a huge range of companies. Strange.)
Posted by: Gaelen Burns at March 24, 2004 09:32 PMTodd,
I see a contradiction in the constitution with the electoral college and the one-man-one-vote principle. The minimum number of electoral votes a state can have is 2. Voters in the states that have 2 but not 2/435ths of the population actually get a tiny percentage more than 1 vote. Do you see what I mean? I think an amendment is in order because of that reason (not to mention the 2000 election). But no way it actually passes as small states would lose influence if we went to the straight popular vote. But then again, my conservative father’s vote in central NY would actually matter in a national election.
As a libertarian, I think Stephen’s last comment was spot-on. The libertarians are under no illusion in regards to taking government from the aptly named “two-headed animal”, however. They are gaining ground in the local roots of government as a foundation for greater support, with the exception of Harry Brown’s recent candidacy.
As to the topic of a single vote, “wasted” or otherwise, I say if it were any other republican in the white house, if it were any other democrat running in opposition, and if we weren’t the front-line flag bearer in a global war, then I would vote for a third party candidate. From where I sit in the country, things are the worst they’ve ever been. I completely despise Bush Jr and his administration. On the other hand, I’m more in agreement with Kerry than I was with Gore, so beyond the long-term effect of a continuation of the circle (republican to democrat and back again), I feel that there’s too much at stake this time around.
This election year bears an urgency factor - which I can only descibe as the morally corrupt, and politically inappropriate neo-christianity movement spreading through the country like a wild fire up a mountainside. And for whatever reason, those in line with it seem not to understand, or want to understand what other people are up in arms about.
This two-party system is built like a fortress, so it seems. Except now, if you’ll bear with the analogy, instead of locking us out, they want to keep us locked inside.
Posted by: Will at March 24, 2004 10:49 PMOn the other hand, if Nader represents those progressive principles you believe in, principles the mainstream of Democratic party has abandoned, why would you want to give your vote to somebody who has voted for most of Bush’s agenda (tax cuts being the big one)? How will these principles ever come to fore again if you keep voting for those who don’t share them?
Better to keep Bush in there, have a chance of taking back Congress in a midterm election (when the party out of the White House usually picks up seats) and then have a real shot at electing a progressive candidate (Dean?) in 08?
Wouldn’t it be better for the progressive agenda in the long term to have Bush in there as a rallying force for the left? A Kerry win could marginalize the progressive agenda for perhaps decades to come. And as far as judicial appointments, or even overturning the tax-cuts goes, Kerry’s going to have virtually no ability to advance a progressive agenda—even if he wanted to—with a Republican-dominated Congress.
Everybody should vote their conscience, for the candidate who best represents their true heartfelt ideals. Full disclosure: I don’t want Kerry or Nader, but if I were a “progresssive,” I doubt I would be serving my ideals by voting for Kerry.
Posted by: Martin at March 25, 2004 12:05 AMThe argument that Nader’s voters in 2000 might not have actually voted for Gore if Nader wasn’t running (i.e., the idea that Nader wasn’t stealing Gore’s votes) doesn’t make sense to me. While it’s true that many Nader voters might not have voted at all if Nader wasn’t running, they *might* have voted for Gore if the Green party formed a coalition with the Democrats.
In other countries where there are 3+ parties, it is fairly common for several parties to form a coalition to make sure that the “enemy” candidate does not win. This is the way parties use their power in 3+ party systems. The point of creating a third party isn’t to give people an opportunity to toss their votes into oblivion. The point of a third party is to create an even greater number (and a greater variety) of forces aligned to defeat the forces they all agree are bad for the country. An effective American Green party, for example, should cause the total number of liberal/progressive voters in this country to increase. These voters then become a block, a block which can - and should - vote together in times of shared goals.
I guess it’s just a side-effect of the American third-party movement’s immaturity that they can’t figure out how to use their power effectively, preferring to “vote their conscience” in an idealistic, impractical way. I’m sure that voters in multi-party foreign countries would laugh at the way our third parties operate.
I should also point out that many countries with 3+ party systems have multiple-round voting and/or they require the winner to get more than 50% of the vote. We have neither of these rules, which even further suggests that third parties in America should practice powerful coalition-building instead of idealistic vote-wasting.
In a way, in America our third parties already exist, but we call them PACs. The Christian Coalition regularly gets conservative Christians to vote for candidates who are more viable than the likes of Pat Robertson. Unions endorse candidates from both parties, using their power as a lever to get their political objectives acheived. Groups like MoveOn.org, which may be more to the left than the Democratic party itself, nonetheless seems to get liberal voters of all flavors riled up against Bush and unified in their vision of defeating him.
-Cf
I’m a little tickled by Jake’s comments. Just about every other Democracy on Earth is run by a coalition government (two or more parties which alone do not have enough votes to control congress/parliament but together do). As a matter of fact our two party system is an oddity in world democracy. And it’s a stifling oddity that must end.
The Green Party is a viable alternative to the two “major” parties. The Green Party, unlike the Dems and Republicans, actually has a growing membership base. And there are more than 200 Green office holders across the country. Why right here in Minneapolis two of our 13 City Council Members are Greens. We’ve got a sprinkling of Green mayors across the state as well. And all this progress has happened inspite of Republican and Democrat attempts to stifle the Green Party, discredit the party, and exclude our candidates from ballots and debates from coast to coast.
Posted by: Brandon Lacy at March 25, 2004 09:36 AMYes, there probably are many Greens in office on the local level. However, what you need to have cohesion and to get some national media coverage (as a way to communicate with voters) is some political figures that are at least regional (governors, senators, congressmen). Otherwise, a guy runs for President every 4 years, gets scant media coverage, and then the whole party disappears from the picture for 3.5 years.
The other point I wanted to make is that in cases where a bunch of parties form coalitions (voting blocks) going into an election, there is a contract. The smaller parties in the coalition get something in return for their loyalty. If a government is elected based on their support, they can also bring it down if it acts detrimentally to their beliefs. Do you see the Greens able to take down an elected President if he does not fulfill campaign promises in a scenario where the Green party has aligned itself with the Dems and the vote is so close that they make the difference when he gets to be President? I don’t think so. Once elected, you reign supreme for 4 years. Only gross misconduct can throw you from office, if at all (as we’ve seen). The more I spend time on it, the less I like the Presidential system. It’s too much like a monarchy. It takes a significant reform of the system to give other parties a shot, which will not happen unless there is overwhelming popular demand for it. It would almost take a revolution.
Posted by: Jake at March 25, 2004 12:36 PMYou Greens keep talking about the blessings in forming coalition governments, yet I’ve never heard of Greens actually proposing the creation of a real coalition government: The Green party already has the power to do this. They could endorse Kerry instead of putting up a symbolic candidate that has no chance of winning.
Like I said before, this is what “mature” 3+ party systems regularly do. You can’t demand a coalition-based system without being willing to participate in such a system.
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at March 25, 2004 01:13 PMWe’re stuck with the “lesser of two evils” paradigm until joe/jane average figures out two points: the political spectrum is wider than simply “left” and “right”, and that focussing on the next four years rather than on systemic change just leads to facing the two evils again and again and again. The only way to make third party/indie options viable at some point down the road is by supporting them NOW.
Posted by: CitizenX at March 25, 2004 02:59 PMDo we have a “mature 3+ party system”? No, we don’t have any 3rd parties that can compete nationally because the deck is stacked against them with ballot access laws, no run off voting and lots and lots of money. So I say loosen ballot access laws, move to a run off system and implement stricter campaign finance laws. What would allying with the major party actually gain any of these parties at this point? When they become viable parties I can see that happening.
You keep going back to the Green party so I’d ask you why would the Green party, which is trying to fight big business’ influence on American politics, ally itself with the Democratic party which gets just as much money from big business.
Posted by: Jeff at March 25, 2004 03:56 PMYou ask why there is a lack of a long view in politics, I believe it is symptomatic of one of the core problems of our society. Western society (I can’t speak for Eastern, not being as familiar with it) and particularly the US are obsessed with NOW. This quarters’ numbers. Annual reports. The latest latest new new thing. The majority of investors are incapable of seeing further out than four quarters. Companies don’t plan beyond 2-3 years in any seriousness. Politic aims don’t extend beyond the current term. This is a sign of society in decline.
It’s a short step from this to eternal belly-gazing.
> why would the Green party, which is trying to
> fight big business’ influence on American
> politics, ally itself with the Democratic party
> which gets just as much money from big business
Maybe the Green Party has other objectives in addition to fighting big business’s influence on American politics?
It seems like so many Greens these days vote on that single issue alone. There are other issues that are important as well, and perhaps by acheiving solid results on these issues, the Green party can grow in popularity and power to the point where they can attack the corporate influence issue. It’s like for many Green Party supporters, their primary objective is to become a legitimate party - not to promote the issues the party stands for. It seems to me that the Green Party will become legitimate through having it’s members acheive results on specific progressive issues.
The New Paltz mayor performing same-sex marriages comes to mind. His actions succeeded (I think) in pushing the nation in the right direction. Here’s someone whose third party membership was an asset to his independence - his actions would not be possible if he was a Democrat. He will attract people to the Green party through his success, not through his failures. If he were to endorse a Democrat on a certain issue or election, he would likely empower that Democrat. His success makes him a powerful partner in potential coalitions.
There are, for example, significant differences between the Republicans and Democrats on environmental issues. If the Greens formed a coalition with the Democrats, and as part of the deal the Democrats would be required to take an even more progressive position on environmental issues, then the Green/Democrat coalition might succeed in pushing environmental issues further than the two parties would be able to do separately. Such an acheivement, even if very modest, would empower the Greens much more than another tragic Green and Democratic defeat in the Presidential campaign.
You can’t always shoot for the moon. Sometimes you’ve got to build up your power carefully and patiently. I suggest getting a bunch of Greens into Congress first, then putting up a candidate for President. Not the other way around.
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at March 25, 2004 04:55 PMI agree with the fact that we need a president who will:
* Inequalities of wealth and income are limited
* Poverty is almost non-existent
* Health Care is universal
* Taxation is progressive
* Minorities women and Gays are full members of our society
* Unions are powerful and democratic
* University populations vastly out number the prison population
* Foreign policy is humanitarian and Democratic
* The defense budget is geared towards defense (and thus reduced)
* The environment is strongly protected
* Economic activities are based on sustaining the resource base
* Trade agreements between countries is fair and subordinate to sovereign laws
* Political campaigns are publicly financed
* The election system is based on proportional representation
* The media promotes open and wide ranging political debate
but right now the issue is between Bush and Kerry. I have been very unhappy with the way Bush has handled America so far, and i can see the abb (anyone but bush) posittion, but Kerry has a VERY good record, he doesn’t slack off, and to be frank, he has a brain, not just that the other’s around do. Kerry, unlike Bush has had real experince in the political world, not just hearing about it from “daddy”. He sounds like a very good new president, and anyone undicided should vote for him, not just because he is someone other than Bush. It would be great to have a perfect America, to be united, to have strength and beleif in all we are, but at the present, that is not possible. I beleive Kerry can get us out of the hole Bush has dug, and bring us closer to a better tomarrow.
I’m not saying your CAN’T vote for Nader, but if you do and that is the margin by which Bush wins, then I WILL blame Nader supporters. That just makes sense.
Posted by: Anthony at March 25, 2004 06:17 PM“Seeds have to be given a chance to sprout in nature. We call it spring time.”
This is how Ralph Nader explained the meaning of his bid for presidency as an independent on NBC News’ Meet the Press on February 22nd, 2004. A day later, he officially announced his candidacy. He has an admirable track record as a public citizen, a coherent and progressive agenda, and millions of potential supporters to entrust him with the job.
http://NaderSpring.org aims to facilitate the clarification, advancement, and expansion of Nader’s ideas, solutions, and efforts during this new election period. It also hopes to be a source of motivation and resilience for a new dawn, a new season, in which seeds of democracy, justice, peace, and sustainability can grow into sprouts, following a long and cold Winter favored and imposed by immense institutional forces. This would literally and figuratively mean Spring [see side bar “Spring means…”], and fortunately Spring is already around the corner.
How to use this community? Upon registration, you will be able to submit all kinds of news, opinions, weblinks, files, and other resources related to the Nader campaign. You can also comment on contributions made by others.
Visit http://NaderSpring.org to keep track of all recent Nader-related audio/video, op-eds, poll numbers, etc. + submit your own stories, opinion pieces, or comments.
Posted by: Sana Ne at March 27, 2004 11:04 AMNader’s not planting seeds, he’s trying to transplant a single gigantic old tree. If he were planting seeds he’d at least try to run as a Green again, but even better he’d help the Green party win in community, town, city, county, and state elections. That would be planting seeds.
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at March 29, 2004 01:40 PMThe lesser of two weevils is still a weevil.
Kerry isn’t opposed to the Iraq war, he just wishes he coulda done it better.
But will he stop it? No, he wants to extend it.
But what about the Patriot Act? Surely he’d let that fascist, unconstitutional document sunset??
No, he’s not so sure on that either. And so it goes with every issue of major importance.
America has no real choice with the two “majors”, except to unseat them. Although I will say that the current Emperor, with his campaign of deception to get us the War in Error,
the lies and propaganda of his cabal that they wound up believing themselves; so that American soldiers are killed needlessly and official torturers are coddled; has earned a definite “thumbs down”.
So if you want Nader and socialism, vote for Nader and socialism.
If you want your freedom as an American back, and a responsible government, vote Libertarian, or Constitution Party.
Posted by: James Parker at May 3, 2004 07:06 PM
