<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 5.50.4134.600" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=3>>Membership in a political party is the <I>best</I>
indicator of what a person intends to do in political life. Lee, Walters
and other >some such, by their consistent membership in this political
organization, clearly intend to pursue a career of impotent political
>posturing. They know their (no doubt sincerely held) political agenda
will <I>never, ever </I>in a million years be attained in and >through the
Democratic Party. But, so long as the overall political climate does not
radically shift (i.e., shift sharply to the >left), they and the conservative
majority of the Democratic Party they must inevitably work with
organizationally, will rest in >mutual contentment with their niche
role.<BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Actually, I don't disagree with this point- people
who RUN for office are marginalizing themselves in a lot of ways.
But we aren't talking about spending 24/7 as an elected official. We are
talking about what people do with one hour of their time every two years, namely
deciding how to vote to get the marginal gains folks get from the electoral
game. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>And folks who run for office on the Green ticket or
the Labor Party ticket are just as marginalized. Anything they accomplish
symbolically could have been accomplished just as well in a non-electoral
manner, probably better. And if they win office, they'll end up playing
the same game as the progressive Dems. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I'm not making a big case for the revolutionary
gains from voting Democratic. All I'm arguing is there is no revolutionary
gain from voting alternatives and there are non-revolutionary losses in the
marginal reforms progressive Dems are able to pass on occasion..</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Folks keep attacking the limits of Dem politics and
I can only nod my head. But no one on this list has ever made a convincing
argument for getting any revolutionary gains from third party voting.
Hell, the only person that has an argument I respect as intelligible is ChuckO
who argues against voting altogether- at least its intellectually consistent and
has some sense on its side, even if I disagree with it. But all the
posturing for the revolutionary potential of voting Green just seems
silly. There is no historical basis for its success and all you need do is
look at the Greens in power in Germany to see that there is no international
basis for vaunting its revolutionary potential.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>So why should anyone take voting Green seriously as
a revolutionary act of any kind? And if you can't justify it, then why
shouldn't people vote Dem for the marginal gains in reform we do
get?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>It's not enough to keep bashing the Dems; you need
to justify the potential success of the alternative. Folks do infinite amounts
of the former and almost none of the latter.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>-- Nathan Newman</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV></BODY></HTML>