It should be obvious to everyone that there is much more to the American political system than just what's written in the Constitution, which is merely a framework for basic ideals. It’s not just the populace or the president, the legislative or the judicial branches, the founding documents or 200 years of legal precedent, that define our government, but a combined whole which is greater than any of those parts. So when I say the two-party system is entrenched, I wasn't referring to the Constitution, but to the tangled mass of rules, regulations, and expectations that control our voting process. In fact, anyone who was registered in a third or independent party, like I was, and who tried to vote in the primaries this year, as I did, would have found out just how entrenched the two-party system is. In many states, independents are not able to participate in primaries. Obviously there is something wrong with that, but the way to address it is to engage on that level of government to create an empowered third party, not chop the head off the left by starting at the top. Third party candidates who run for president do little to build or secure a long-term base of support, but rather give the impression that they are impulsive or invisible entities who make their decision on a whim and don't represent an identifiable body of the American people. This is why many Americans think Greens or other third-party candidates are marginalized and self-serving, because their candidates and supporters don't show much presence in other levels of government and then emerge only for a national election. If you want to change that perception, then get out and get organizing. Or run for office yourself.
However, there are representatives in the Democratic party who have been elected and who have sustained an effort to advance progressive causes over years of service. Two great examples are in fact Dennis Kucinich and Carol Mosley Braun, both of whom were not "unelectable", which they well demonstrated by being elected to the House of Representatives and the Senate, respectively. The real reason that Kucinich and Mosley Braun dropped out of the race, or struggled to gain support, was more about financial problems than electability concerns. They simply couldn't raise enough money. If you want to change that, then donate to the campaigns you support, and vote for elected officials who support campaign finance reform. But understand that political change, not just in this country or period, but always, happens slowly and only because an informed populace persistently pursues it.
There was another candidate in this campaign, however, who did raise a lot of money, built what seemed like a solid grassroots organization, and garnered a lot of "free media" with his progressive message and innovative methods. Anybody remember him? Yeah, that's right, Howard Dean. Now, here's a candidate all us "leftist" should have loved. And boy did we. Loved him so much in fact that we put a bumper sticker on our cars or a button on our chests, and then sat on our asses at home while the really politically engaged people voted. Dean led in Iowa for month and lost. Kerry caught a big upswing after winning Iowa that boosted him in New Hampshire and the rest of the primaries. That's how primaries work. Dean basically got sold out by his brave new supporters, the optimistic young people who were "gonna change the country." The morning after the Iowa caucuses, Dean precinct captain, a bemused George Davey said, "I think if we could blame [Dean's loss] on anyone, blame it on the 18- to 25-year-olds, because they were nonexistent." Davey had hoped for 25 to 50 18-25 year-olds to show up at the caucus. Guess how many put the Game Boy down long enough to come? Just 1.
So while it's one thing to plaster our bumpers or our blogs with our windy political aspirations, it does come down to o
ne
s
imple thing: voting.
However, if you think your vote should somehow be your sacrosanct expression of your individual view, then you don't understand what a democracy is. A democracy is not about unique or extreme views, it is meant to create the law of the majority, which is the mean, the lowest common denominator that we can all agree to. Now, you may think this is not the best of all possible worlds. Great. Neither do I. So support and rally for another political system, like Anarcho-syndicalism. But understand that "supporting" doesn't mean spouting off to your friends, alone, at home. It means a life time of organizing, struggling, and very possibly getting whupped down by the people in power, only in the end to make a little progress. Again, that's the reality of political change. Martin Luther King didn't sit at home or in his congregation saying, if "I had my way...". He went out to the people and shared his vision, got arrested, beaten, maligned by the FBI, and finally murdered. But he opened a flood gate of change. That takes real courage, and I wish to god more of us had it. But it also means, in a democracy, convincing others of the clarity and righteousness of your position. You don't do that just by voting. Voting is the minimum, but it is also a requisite. We have to understand that when we vote, our "view" of how this country should be gets thrown in with the barmaids and the CEOs, the bigots and the white-haired old ladies. The checks and balances inherent in this system (and they are hard wired into the Constitution) are designed to prevent extremists, and that includes us, from telling everyone else what to do. And that I can actually live with. Besides, don't forget that those checks and balances do just that. Remember Clinton proposed universal health care and it got shot down in the house. If, by some anomaly, a third party candidate did somehow get elected to the Presidency, it would be naive to assume that everyone in the house and senate would merely fall at their feet and grant them their wishes.
The problem, as I tried to point out yesterday, is that too many of us on the left are naive and narcissistic enough to believe that our individualist views should be respected absolutely, and to me that is merely absolutism. Reactionary insistence that only your view is the justifiable one is fascism, whether on the right or the left. And too often, the really committed leftists fall into squabbling that allows an absolutist power structure to emerge, whether from the opposition or from within their own ranks. I gave some examples yesterday about how self-righteous leftists turn against each other and lose what momentum they had by hair-splitting and one-upping each other. Another good example is the Russian Communist Party's International Congresses, where the Leninists and the Trotskyites tore into each other with such fury and frequency, and guess who eventually came out on top, Stalin. I was not by any means suggesting that that we were "restricting our democratic freedom" when we make a mature, rational choice to find commonalities where differences would mean disaster, to join forces where our enemies would like nothing more than to divide us, and to balance our own views and needs with a feasible agenda that benefits the greater good. That's what political engagement is, the contract we make with society to curtail some of our individual aims when they come into conflict with what we know and understand would be better for us all. That is, in fact, what democratic, in the sense of collective, freedom really is.
And so, leftists, here we stand once again, poised at a moment where we can choose to stand together with our collective energies, or allow dogma and mis-information to divide us. That’s what is making me so angry about Nader's campaign. Anyone who is actually familiar with Senator Kerry's voting record and viewpoints would see that he represents not only many of the progressive ideals we hold dear, but a
lso ha
s the
skills and appeal it takes to get elected in this country. I urge you once again to review, or view for the first time, his stand on gay marriage: he supports giving states the right to create civil unions; or his environmental policies: he's against drilling in ANWAR (but that's just a token for anyone who says it, because it’s really just a symbolic "pristine" paradise with an equally symbolic amount of crude. The more important decisions come up over the course of Kerry's 30 years in political life, when he has supported increasing gas taxes, against practically EVERYBODY's wishes, developing alternative energy sources like ethanol, and going after polluters.) He's for abortion rights, against the death penalty, against renewing the patriot act
and against cutting veteran's benefits. Budgets and health care proposals are always fudged in campaigns, I don't see how it could be any other way when projecting so far ahead, but the ethic is there to back the rhetoric. If you have any doubts, go to his senate home page and look at his voting record (which not all senators make so readily available on their sites.) It's kerry.senate.gov
and his record is under a menu called legislation. Before anyone denounces a candidate based on what they think they know, they should be familiar with their public record. That’s our most basic responsibility as voters.
As for the (supposed lack of) differences between George Bush and John Kerry, I will once again extend an invitation to meet you in the alley. Also, I think, (as another blogger points out in a most excellent rant
) that's a tired argument left over from 2000 when Gore, who was a centrist center Democrat, and Bush, who was playing himself off at the time as a centrist, moderate, "compassionate" conservative, did seem to have a lot of similarities. But this time around it's very different. I don't need to remind anyone what George Bush's “compassion” looks like. Let's just say that when Nixon's prosecuting attorney (John Dean, whose new book is "Worse than Watergate") says Bush is the worst, most secretive, undemocratic president we've ever had, then it seems practically irrational to compare Bush to any other president before him, Democrat or Republican. He's violated the best tenants of both parties by curtailing civil liberties, running huge deficits, etc. You know the drill. But if you know the drill, everything he's done, how can anyone with a straight face say that Al Gore would have been just the same, or that a Kerry administration would have the gall to do what the Cheney/Wolfowitz/Rumsfeld/Perle monster machine has cooked up?
I don't think people will still be saying that Bush was just like Gore would have been thirty years from now either. And it’s not just because of things like the Patriot Act, or banning partial birth abortions, or even a Constitutional amendment against gay marriage. All those things can be undone. But some decisions will ripple on for years to come. For example, remember that Presidents have the power to make LIFETIME appointments to our highest courts, which are the real lawmakers in this country, not the politicians. If you don't understand the power of judicial appointments, then you're missing a whole dimension of influence that determines policy for decades to come, if not permanently. The Supreme Court, which is precariously divided as it is, is not the only bench in Bush's sights, but also the circuit courts that control major portions of the country and determine which cases make it to the Supreme Court and which don’t. Bush's court appointments, as you all well know, have been some of the most conservative in decades. Given another fours years, he may make appointments that we'll never recover from that will set judicial precedent and direct policy in dangerous directions. Can you imagine saying
that abou
t Gore?
n
The Bush administration is like nothing before or hopefully after it. But, hmmmm, there are some people who *do* seem the same this time around, in fact, it's Kerry and Nader. They've been friends for over thirty years and recently met to work out a strategy for defeating Bush
(although Nader still refuses to drop out and give his endorsement to the more viable candidate.)
I'm not alone in feeling that Nader’s decision to run this fall is not in the best interests of our country. As a case in point, people on the right are practically cheering him on
. If Nader actually wanted to build progressive support, then he wouldn't be making such a bull-headed move (or breaking with the Green Party, his best chance for long-term organizing.) And to say he didn't hurt Gore in 2000 is also not true. I mean, (oh god I never thought I'd say this,) even Pat Buchanan had the decency not to run in states where the race was close. But Nader plowed ahead. Since he's declared his intention to run, progressive icons no less than Michael Moore, (who supported him in 2000), Howard Dean, and the editors of The Nation have all begged him not to do it, and have encouraged liberals not to vote this term for third-party candidates. Now is the time for liberals to unite our energies despite minor differences, or else by our short-sightedness we will hand Bush a second term. Even Howard Dean has said "Those who truly want America's leaders to stand up to the corporate special interests and build a better country for working people should recognize that, in 2004, a vote for Ralph Nader is, plain and simple, a vote to re-elect George W. Bush. I hope that Ralph Nader will withdraw his candidacy in the best interests of the country we hope to become."
If a third party is what we want, then we need to dig in and do it, but not by starting from the top down, and certainly not at a time when our democracy is in danger. Nader is obviously one of the most crucial proponents for progressive change in this country, and he's been an influence on me ever since I was a little girl, when he'd already been hard at work for thirty years. Nader is a great leader, and he should continue to lead us. But he should lead us to a victory, not another embarrassing rout. It's not coercion to say that voting for anyone other than Kerry will be a decision all Americans could come to regret, it's a fact. As far as I'm concerned there is only one party now, and there is only one logical choice for citizens who value their rights and the ideals we believe in: vote Democrat in November.
And if you don't believe me, ask The Nation:
or Howard Dean
