On Fri, 21 Jul 2000, Doug Henwood wrote:
> Let me see if I understand this. The day after the election. Dem
> strategists convene. Scenario 1: Republicans win by 3 points. Exit
> polls and focus groups show that former Dem voters stayed home or
> voted Repub because candidate was a liberal wuss (e.g. McGovern).
> Conclusion: move right. Scenario 2: Reps win by 3 points. Exit polls
> and focus groups show that former Dem voters stayed home or voted for
> principled, mostly progressive, almost excessively virtuous Third
> Party candidate because Dem candiate was a center-right guy with a
> reputation for sleaze and insincerity. Conclusion: move right?
I didn't say (and you know haven't argued) that voting for Nader will lead to the Dems moving right; I said it won't make any particular difference. Any reasonable reader of the polls knows that non-voters are more left than regular voters. Like most progressives, I believe a more progressive message by the Dems would activate those non-voters. So on that basis non-voters send a strong message to move left to Dem candidates, counterbalanced by the lure of "moderate" and "independent" voters.
I suppose there is a narrow argument that elite liberals, who do vote, are able to exercise a specific message of discontent through a Nader vote, slightly different from the larger group of nonvoter discontent. That makes sense in a very strategic attempt to effect the Dem choices next time, although the strategy can go the other way, with candidates moving to the center and just foregoing the unreliable tail.
The basic fact of politics in a majority-takes-all system is that the extremes cannot and never can exercise the same effect on electoral decisions of candidates as voters in the middle. The left does not want to "be taken for granted" but as long as the "swing voters" don't agree with our issues, we rightly can be taken for granted-- that's the name of the game when the alternative is even worse for you. Voting for third party in certain cases is a game of chicken that can work, but like most games of chicken the usual outcome is disaster for both sides playing.
So how to get out of this prisoners dilemma? Convince a majority of folks to take our issues seriously and make those issues the issues not of the left fringe of the party but of the swing voters. That is the work activists do every day promoting key issues, talking to folks at the grassroots, holding rallies, doing mailings, organizing unions, building community organizations, strengthening networks that reach out to vast numbers of folks.
Trying to get 5% or 10% of the vote by a minor candidate is just a useless attempt at a shortcut to that tougher day-to-day organizing. And 5% or 10% of the vote is no substitute to building a political movement that can get 51% or better yet 60% or 70% support for our issues and our projected leaders. Trying to wield power from that kind of marginal minority position is both ineffective and ultimately anti-democratic.
Even your description above is all about trying to influence the decisions of the elite - are they going to move right or left based on our actions. I don't care about influencing the elite; I care about influencing the vast populations of the country. If we organize and build our issues, then we can force the elite to follow as a consequence.
As I said, the best case for a third party candidacy is to raise issues and influence the population, but my problem still holds. That goal can be done just as effectively in a primary campaign, as Jackson showed in 1984 and 1988 and others have shown over the years.
So where was Nader in the primaries where he could have united progressives, rather than divide them as now?
-- Nathan Newman