Keep Your Money, I'll Take the White House Instead
This post submitted by Parker, an embedded blogger who is using a fake name.
In an attempt to influence Senator Obama on this issue, Bob Fertik, the founder of a so-called "progressive Web site," asked like-minded individuals to pledge money to an escrow account that would be contributed to the Obama campaign once he proved himself worthy of it. To date, this gentleman has received pledges totaling $101,375.
Mr. Fertik claims to still be an Obama supporter but a woman quoted in the article -- a woman named Martha Shade from Portland, Ore. who is photographed with "Impeach" and "Free Gaza" signs taped to her window -- says she is "disgusted" with Senator Obama and will be supporting the Green Party this fall.
In the grand scheme of things, $101,375 is a tiny amount of money. The decision by one woman to vote for the Green Party in a safe Democratic state is equally meaningless. But I knew that these people -- the ones who were lining up at the Obama rallies and sending him their pennies throughout this past winter and spring -- would abandon him when it mattered most.
When this thing started, I was a Clinton supporter. She was my candidate for a variety of reasons, but mostly because Obama annoyed the shit out of me. However, I knew that if Obama were the nominee, I would support him because his views were virtually identical to those of Senator Clinton.
I also realized that the Democratic nominee -- whomever that might be -- would be the only candidate on the ballot in November who would be able to get elected and actually make meaningful progress in any number of areas. Did Mr. Fertik and Ms. Shade think Obama was going to help the workers of America seize control over the means of production? Nationalize industry and decommission the military?
I don't think it's fair to compare Senator Obama -- or Senator McCain for those of you who lean right -- to your dream candidate or to any of those running on smaller parties. Both of these men have a 50/50 chance of governing the nation in several months time.
In order to get to that point, however, they need to appeal to a diverse country with 50 states and more than 300 million people. That doesn't mean that they have no core beliefs. It means that in order to get into office and accomplish the things they believe are important for this country, they need to be realistic. They will never be able to satisfy every desire of those on the extreme left or the extreme right.
That said, there are major differences between Barack Obama and John McCain. Obama would take the steps necessary to get out of Iraq within a year and a half. McCain has publicly stated that he would be okay with us staying there for 100 years. Obama would move us towards universal health care. McCain would do a little more than nothing in that area.
On gay and lesbian issues, Obama has said that he would sign legislation on hate crimes and employment non-discrimination, repeal don't ask-don't tell, support full civil unions, repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, and oppose a Constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. McCain's web site does not mention his position on a single gay or lesbian issue but, based on past votes and statements, it's safe to say that his gay and lesbian agenda would be the exact opposite of Obama's.
Why am I writing all of this? Because I want to make the point that elections matter. In 2000, George Bush beat Al Gore by 537 votes in Florida according to the official certified results. Ralph Nader received 97,421 votes in Florida that year. So, if only a fraction of those Nader voters realized the dramatic difference between the direction George Bush would take us versus where Al Gore would take us, the past eight years would likely have been quite different.
So, join the Green Party.
Be a Libertarian.
Maybe one day one of those parties or some other one that hasn't been formed yet will be popular enough to be one of the "big two" out there competing for the White House. Good luck. But, until that day comes, I would argue that anyone who actually cares about the issues they purport to care about owes it to themselves -- and all of us, really -- to make a choice between one of the two people who can actually win.
13 comments:
Third-party votes are the only option for sensible heads these days. The two majors are too entrenched in the system, and refuse to concede the fact that representative democracy as we know it is broken.
With the advent of the internet, true democracy is a tantalizing possibility. It's time to take the strings out of the puppet masters' hands and determine our own fate.
Or in other words... "The emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working classes themselves" - Roza Luksemburg
I agree with Cuffshark if and only if you live in DC or Maryland. If you live in VA, one MUST vote for Obama, IMO. A third party vote is a vote for McCain. I don't like either candidate, but I will take Obama any day of the week and twice on Sunday over McCain.
Let's abolish the electoral college and allow everyone's vote to count. It sucks that we DC residents don't really have a say about anything! We can help pick our mayor, but only if we're registered democrat.
Moving to the center/right doesn't make himself more palatable to the other side. It just reinforces the notion that the right has better ideas. He will be attacked by the opposition no matter what he says/does. If Obama appears to adopt Right-wing views for the sake of getting more votes, he will appear to be giving up on his values, renouncing his authenticity and believability, clouding his judgment, and raising questions about whether he can be trusted. He only hurts himself if he plays this game. It's one of the big reasons Hilary got burned. If he sticks to his ideals and continues to argue for them, he will succeed. Since his shift to enable government support of religion and strip a fundamental constitutional right, I no longer think he's got this in the bag. It will be a fight.
I think this post raises a really good point. I'm forever frustrated by people who third party vote because they're unable to read between the lines of the political actions that candidates often need to take in order to get elected. And I'm not saying that candidates should shift all their votes in order to make themselves electable, but I am saying that a lot of voters need to pull their stubborn / unreasonably radical heads out of their asses and wake up to the reality that is politics.
i completely understand why people feel this way about third parties, but honestly, if not now, when? this two option system (either right-wing, or centrist-with-constant-apologies-to-the-right) isn't good enough.
everyone saying "you HAVE to vote for the centrist because if you don't the dreaded conservative wins" leaves democrats feeling entitled to your vote. which is why they continue to be a bunch of waffley limp-dicks, which is why they lose.
A vote for McCain is a vote for McCain.
A vote for Obama is a vote for Obama.
A vote for third party is a vote for tyranny's end.
Adam and Cuffshark,
I want to agree with you...but, I wonder if beginning this process on a smaller scale in largely democratic districts is a better option. Get these people into the House by organizing locally from district to district. Then, their popularity will grow and then they can make a move for the white house once there is sufficient support.
Your way of thinking caused Bush to be in the White House in 2000. I hope that my idea accomplishes your goal while simultaneously doing it in a way that doesn't make matters worse.
Thoughts?
ben - i respect the fact that you might disagree with obama on fisa and the faith-based initiative, but let's not mislead people about what those issues are all about. the fisa bill will allow intelligence agencies to wiretap terrorist suspects on a temporary basis when there is not enough time to get a court order. the fath-based program that obama discussed at a recent event is about giving money to churches or religous groups that feed the homeless, do drug treatment, etc without proselytizing. hyperbole is not helpful.
cuffshark - i get that you don't think the democrats and obama aren't far enough to the left for you, but can you tell us all how helping john mccain get elected would help emencipate workers or end tyranny or whatever it is that you want to do?
I think there is a lot to be done before there will be a viable three- (or more!-) party system.
Currently, in the House, there are no Independents, and in the Senate there are two. Most recently, Jesse Venture of Minnesota and Angus King of Maine were third party governors in their states. This is only to say that there is not a lot of wide-spread knowledge or support of third-party candidates.
Even so, introducing a third-party candidate at a local level would be difficult because the primary system requires that entire slates of candidates are voted on at a time, which means that if there is a third-party candidate in the primary, but you really want to vote for the school board representative because the primary is the only election that counts for that race, you're going to have to vote for in a main party primary.
There have been large shifts in national parties before (most of them, of course, before 1860), but those typically reflected a groundswell of support behind a cause or candidate that the party as it stood was not meeting.
So the question is not, how do we get people to vote for third-party presidential candidates, but rather, how do we create a climate in which local third-party politicians are viable candidates which will in turn make that third-party a viable third party rather than a fringe group that gets under 5% of the vote?
Since the objective of casting a vote is to voice one's opinion, elections work best when people actually DO voice their opinions by casting earnest votes.
The suggestion that a vote for, say, Candidate 3, is actually a vote for the Republican candidate, or that (for example) Ralph Nader "stole" votes that rightly belonged to the Democrat candidate, is incorrect (and insulting) for two main reasons:
1. A vote for Candidate 3 is actually a vote for Candidate 3. When a citizen votes for someone, it's because (butterfly ballots notwithstanding), that citizen intended to vote for that precise person. That's a citizen's contribution to the democratic process. It's the way a citizen can assert the tiny fractional amount of power she has as a citizen. And whether Candidate X or anyone else wins or loses does not change the fact that the function of the election -- polling the people -- was served. Valid, truly democratic elections depend on citizens casting earnest votes;
2. That anyone feels themselves to be entitled to votes from anyone is downright arrogant. It reminds me a lot of blackjack players who get angry when someone else at the table takes a card that 'should have been mine.' ... It's not supposed to be your card (or your vote) until you actually receive it! And in the case of elections, you earn votes by persuading people that they SHOULD vote for you. To pursuade people that they SHOULD vote for you because otherwise the other guy will win is a really lame argument. Can't every candidate make that same argument?
Cuffshark's enlightened approach embraces the principles of effective representative democracy. The idea that we should vote for a candidate that does not withstand our scrutiny actually CONTRADICTS the principles of effective representative democracy.
A lot of elections would have turned out a lot differently if people had voted based on principles instead of fear.
zmeriwe, i think your argument for third party voting is quite enlightened. i hear you, but the reality is that none of the third parties in existance today are popular enough to compete for the presidency. and elections have consequences. if mccain wins because the green party runs up big numbers in a swing state, he'll get to appoint three conservative supreme court justices. how is that making the kind of progress you and cuffshark seem to want?
what if we had the same presidential election system as france, where a number of candidates run in an initial round and the top two run in a second round? if your candidate did not make it to the second round, would you not vote? in 2002, most french voters (communists, socialists, centrists, conservatives) came together to vote for jacques chirac - not because they liked him all that much but because the choice was between him and a racist, far-right candidate who got into the runoff unexpectedly. are you saying that if you had supported the socialists in the initial round, you would have sat the second one out and allowed le pen to win? that makes no sense to me.
Thanks for your comments and compliment Parker. :-)
Luckily our system lends itself more readily to true democracy than that of France. So what I would do in that situation is different than I would (and will) do in this one.
BTW, I'm probably not at all on board with cuffshark's political agenda. But that's OK; we can disagree on politics while still both deserving to have our voices heard. I would consider my viewpoint much more in line with Libertarian than Liberal. But to me, the specific person who ends up holding the office isn't as important as how they got there. To me, it is more important that an election's outcome represent the collective will of the people than it is to achieve any specific outcome. I would not want my favorite candidate to hold office if I were in the minority by wanting him there. In a sense, fair elections are intricately linked to free speech.
I think the main reason that there are only two viable Presidential candidates is that so many people THINK and say that there are only two viable Presidential candidates.
When people begin to think and say otherwise (as I am now) the reality changes instantly, and many more viable candidates -- who were viable all along, and participating all along -- appear. Our laws already accommodate this possibility.
Post a Comment