Assignment 1. Substitute "progressive" for "conservative" in the following paragraph:
Since corporatism simply is how much of our economy works, to some extent we have no choice but to play ball with it. However, there is clearly a risk that by playing the game, we may end up endorsing it. The co-optative powers of corporatism are awesome. Therefore, we need to form a disciplined strategy of fighting corporatism when it can be fought, but seeking the most conservative possible outcome within it when it cannot.
- Robert Locke
2. Consider the upcoming Presidential election, which will include:
one candidate, corporatist platform, Christian fundamentalist, warmongering, universally reviled everywhere, increasingly doubted at home
one candidate, corporatist platform, Christian "liberal," not necessarily warmongering, universally preferred everywhere, barely noticeable at home
one candidate, pro-democracy/public-advocate platform, politically non-religious, non-warmongering, universally preferred everywhere (to incumbent), browbeaten at home
3. Multiple Choice:
Of the options presented, which best characterizes your priorities
I) in the next 6-8 months:
a> building a successful third-party movement
b> forestalling global thermonuclear annihilation
II) in the next 6-10 years:
a> continuing to vote for jackasses
b> building a successful third-party movement
6 comments:
"In examinations the foolish ask questions that the wise cannot answer." (Oscar Wilde) Just teasing....somewhat. ;)
I notice you didn't answer the question of how you are going to get a third party candidate in if he splits the liberal vote down the center. Now if you had 4 major parties, so that one split the liberal vote and the other split the conservative vote, then at least there would be balance in the split.
If you had a parliamentarian system, it wouldn't matter that you split the vote, because you could work on a coalition government. That's why third parties work in parliamentarian systems.
Unfortunately, we don't have a parliamentarian system in the US, and the longer we split the vote between the Democrats and the Greens, the more Republicans will be in office. They already control all three branches of the government. And the Republicans, who gain from this split are not likely to change the laws that benefit them to turn the US into a parliamentarian system.
Furthermore, since the left is effectively now two parties--the Greens and the Democrats, it's a zero sum gain--if one gains, the other loses, but it's the same people either way!!!!!!
In other words, a political party is nothing but a hollow structure which gains its credibility not by its name, but by who participates. It is no more and no less than whoever chooses to use it.
So there is absolutely no reason that the Greens could not take over the Democratic party and mold it to their purposes if they wanted and by doing so avoid this split. And in fact, some Greens are doing exactly that. A lot of the members of the Progressuve Populist Caucus here in Texas were Greens in the last election, who figured out that they did nothing but split the vote. So why do you need a third party?
If it's a matter of a populist revolution, then just get people involved in taking back the parties that have power to change the laws. Then change the laws once you can.
What you need is a Green caucus within the Democratic Party that aims to get people elected who will change the laws to promote a multiparty system. Then at least you have the chance of getting someone elected!!! Cause the benefactors of a liberal split are not going to change the laws, and neither the Democrats nor the Greens can get elected as long as they split the liberal vote.
OK, Sheryl, get off your soap box.
Did I misunderstand your point? I was just re-reading your questions, and I
thought maybe you were making the opposite point of how I initially interpretted it--that the timing is not right to vote for Nader.
Sorry if I got emotional. It's just that the politics of the last 4 years has affected my life very directly. I hate George W. Bush with an unparallelled passion, and nothing, and I mean nothing, should stand in the way of getting that man out of office.
No talking during the test.
When's recess?
Since I just had dinner with *someone* in the upper eschelons of the green party, and I was informed by him that the real radicals were still voting Green in the general election, at least in states that were going to go with Kerry anyway, and therefore I am not a real radical and neither are the leftys I know who are supporting Kerry, I very much appreciate your astute multiple choice questions on the matter.
I'm not sure how the Green party can adapt their long term strategy to the current crisis Bush has incited. I'm sure they have dialouged about it a lot. I dont know how they could maintain their "build a third party even if there is a temporary sacrifice, go for the long term goal..." type of strategy and still say "this time we need to avoid thermonuclear anhillation, so sell out this time but get back on the bandwagon next time." I think they are kind of in a hard position. If their strategy was to build a third party at any level of sacrifice in terms of loosing presidential elections to Republicans until the green party superceeds the democratic party, I don't feel like thats a very flexable or pragmatic strategy. Personally, I think any party that is to superceed the Dems, in the US at least, cannot be called the "Green Party."
At this point, unfortunately, Green is a word that connotes yuppie health food store products with a 300% mark up in price, to most Americans. It is symbolic of niche marketing. I just dont think it can work.
I have always voted green in every election before this, by the way.
If the greens start winning state elections, or even large city elections, then running a presidential candidate would be more realistic. Until then, I dont think this is a good time to split the radicals from the liberals in the democratic party. And "real radicals" have myriad ways to earn their stripes outside of electoral politics. Every election has different factors involved, and in this one at least, I feel sure that one can "Vote Their Concience" and vote for Kerry, even if he is capitalist scum.
-Katie
This is not to be confrontational, but I kind of have a problem with Kerry being referred to as "capitalist scum," and let me tell you why.
Kerry was by no means the best of the democratic candidates; we all know this.
I participated in the local San Antonio Dean group, and I would have greatly preferred Moseley Braun or even John Edwards over John Kerry.
However, my friends Rachel and David Van Os decided to host debate parties at their home for all the democratic debates this past year, and I agreed to do the research to keep them abreast of when each debate would occur.
To be honest, I didn't know what I was getting myself into. For several months these democratic candidates were having televised debates almost EVERY week (sometimes twice a week), and often in the same week they would also have participated in one or more forums or town halls across this country.
I felt like I was being patriotic just sitting through that many debates, but relative to actually participating in something, how much energy does it require to passively watch things from the sidelines?
Assuming we didn't miss any, they had had SIXTEEN debates by February 26th!!! I found at least another 13 forums (which are equally long) online that got into the C-Span archives and elsewhere. I know of many more forums and town halls beyond that which were not televised.
Then there is Bush, who has shown us that debates and forums and town halls are not essential to winning elections if you are truely "capitalist scum."
As I said before, Kerry clearly was not the best of a good slate of candidates, but I don't think anyone could fairly question any of the candidates commitment to populism or democracy. And I think that alone elevates them to a level of patriotism that people like you and me will probably never achieve.
This weekend I watched Senator Edwards and Congressman Kucinich give speeches at the Texas State Democratic convention. Even though Kucinich has not offocially folded, he basically started his speech by saying how great it was going to be when Kerry was in the White House. I think for these men to back Kerry not only shows an inner strength in their own character, but it also shows the level of respect and empathy all the candidates gained from their work towards a genuine democracy. I don't think anyone could participate in that many debates and forums who did not care about this country and the self governance of its people. OK, I'll get off my soap box again.
Post a Comment