Your post and Jenny's are two great examples of what's good and bad about third party politics in the US.
Of course I think the electoral system is screwed up. In the U.S., we usually have only 2 real choices for parties. Unlike many other Western democracies, it's exceedingly difficult for third parties to gain more than a seat or two because the rules are rigged. And 2 choices isn't much choice. These rules are bad for lefties / communities of color / poor communities / working class people of all colors who have seen their communities get destroyed by the global economy. It's even bad for liberals, because it means that too often even their opinions don't get heard. The question is, what to do about it?
There are two obvious ways to go. One is the strategy that Jenny talked about. Recognize that most people don't have a martyr complex and aren't going to shoot themselves in the head by taking actions that re-elect people like Bush. Instead, ask people to support ballot initiatives. Or, you could ask them to support local third party candidates in races where Republicans winning isn't suicide -- or where you might even win. If you do that, you might actually win some elections and initiatives, including some initiatives that could start changing the rules of the game so you'd have a better chance next time.
And even more important, you've got a decent chance of convincing people to join your party and therefore gaining the grassroots power you need to win big time. As I said in my last post, if a Green activist showed up at my parents' door with a serious plan, they'd probably get money, they could get election rules initiatives signed, and they'd have a real shot at gaining two new members. Like Doug said, that's how people who've actually gained power have done it.
The other is to stand on "principle." Don't worry about trying to actually grow your party. Tell everyone that if they don't want to commit suicide, it's their fault -- which historically hasn't been a great way of convincing people to join you. The end result: you don't actually win or change anything, but at least you feel morally superior.
You also you get to do things like run against Paul Wellstone, who's about as principled and progressive as they come -- more so than many candidates that have run as Greens. And when there's a high-profile race like the CA governor's race, in which you've got a great candidate like Peter Cameo and a lot of liberals and lefties are disgusted with the Dems and think Arnold's going to win anyways (and that Arnold's winning might be a fun way to screw up the Right) -- in short, when there are as many people tempted to vote third party in a major race that you could possibly hope for -- you get a truly pathetic number of people to vote for your party. But hey, at least you have your "principles."
Bayard Rustin said it best:
''Necessarily there will be compromise. But the difference between expediency and morality in politics is the difference between selling out a principle and making smaller concessions to win larger ones. The leader who shrinks from this task reveals not his purity but his lack of political sense.''
Anders Schneiderman
>>> billbartlett at dodo.com.au 11/11/03 06:02PM >>>
At 10:48 AM -0500 11/11/03, Anders Schneiderman wrote:
>Let's say a Green party activist knocks on my parent's door in
Upstate
>NY. My parents are Dems who aren't far-left but aren't happy with
the
>Dem party. They share a decent amount of values in common with most
>Greens. Imagine two different conversations:
>
>* The Green activist tells my parents that they're trying to collect
>signatures for an IRV ballot (let's pretend for the moment you can do
>initiatives in NY even if you can't). The activist explains that if
IRV
>passes, in the future my parents can send those Democrats who are too
>beholdened to corporations a message
A message? If you just want to get a message to someone then its much less trouble to write them a quick e-mail or give them a call on the 'phone. They'll ignore it of course, because they can, but you'll save your strength.
> and build the possibility of a real
>alternative -- and that next time they could vote their conscience
>without helping Rightwing Republicans get into office & destroy
>everything they care about.
There's be another reason why they can't vote in line with their convictions next time. There's always some excuse.
> And while they're at it, would my parents
>like to give money to a political fund that's funding a grassroots
>campaign for IRV in 15 battleground states so that the Dems and the
>mainstream media have a reason to start paying attention? If my
parents
>had heard about this campaign from other friends who'd been visited
by
>activists, if the campaign was being discussed at the liberal church
my
>mom attends, and if the activist had their act together -- in short,
if
>the Greens were running a decent grassroots campaign -- I'm pretty
sure
>my parents would sign the iniative and write a check. They might
even
>join the Green party in an election or two, if only to give the Dems
a
>scare.
>
>* The Green activist tells my parents that they're running Nader or
some
>other candidate and ask for support. When asked, why are you doing
>something that might help Bush get reelected, they get a schpiel
about
>needing to make the Dems bleed. My mom, who is one of the nicest
people
>I know, thinks for a second about smacking the activist upside the
head
>with a poker from the fireplace, then tells them to get lost and
never
>come back (my dad rants about the encounter & the general stupidity
of
>the Left for several days, and I get to listen to this story every
>single f**** Christmas for the next 3 years). The Green Party and
Nader
>have now earned two enemies for life.
Hard core Democrats aren't going to like it. But of course it isn't the Greens who are making the Democrats bleed, its actually the electoral system (which the Democrats don't even want to talk about.) I note that you don't want to talk about it either.
You demand that a potential candidate refrain from even standing for election. Your stated reason is to corral voters into voting for your preferred candidate whose position is anathema to them. You say this is necessary, because that is how the electoral system (which you support because it favours you) works.
Bleed. But remember the wounds are entirely self-inflicted. People are entitled to offer up an alternative in an election, that's what elections are nominally all about. Voters are entitled to vote for the candidate of their choice. Your strategy is to keep the system rigged so that voters are confronted with this dilemma, hoping this will force them to keep voting for you. Fine, tell that to green voters and see if they don't tell you to get lost and never come back. Their strategy is at least principled.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas ___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk