[lbo-talk] Bush expected to announce candidacy any day now

Jon Johanning jjohanning at igc.org
Tue Feb 17 19:04:44 PST 2004


The Nader/GP supporters in this thread have passionately declared their desire to overthrow the system. That's fine; but I haven't seen anything to indicate that Nader or the GP is actually interested in doing such a thing. (A few Greens, yes.) From what I can see, they are slightly more radical than the left wing of the Dems. If one were rather unkind, one could turn the GP supporters' argument in this direction: is there really a dime's, or a quarter's worth of difference between the GP and the DP, except that the latter has a lot more power due to its connections with the rulers of the system? The GP may not have those connections, but the disadvantage is that they don't have any power, of the system-overthrowing kind. That's the dilemma.

Anyway, I found some excerpts on TomPaine.com of an interesting book on the possibilities and impossibilities of third-party politics in the U.S., _Spoiling for a Fight: Third Party Politics in America_ by Micah Sifry (http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/5357). For example, he says:

"An honest appraisal of the future of third parties in America must start by admitting that the path ahead is still strewn with obstacles. Though we need more choices, it isn't clear that we will get them. Money dominates elections as always in all but the few states with 'Clean Money/Clean Elections' full public financing systems for candidates. Winner-take-all elections force most candidates into a 'spoiler' role, causing many potential supporters to fear 'wasting' their vote. The mainstream media haven't changed their tendency to marginalize all third-party candidacies, regardless of the candidates' actual chances. And in most states the rules written by the major parties hinder other parties' access to the ballot and make it harder for people to simply find their candidates on the actual ballot.

"More subtly, anyone trying to create a political alternative is swimming against a powerful cultural tide of declining expectations about politics itself. Why bother with a new party if you think nothing good can be achieved through politics, that wealthy special interests will win out no matter what, or that career politicians will sell out to protect their own incumbency regardless of which party they belong to? The victories of a few independent candidates are certainly suggestive of the potential for efforts outside the two-party box. But they are not the same thing as creating a durable third party. A political party, defined as an ongoing, self-conscious organization of individual voters and officeholders with a common identity and ideas that seeks to win and exercise power, is a rare thing. Building one -- even at the local level where most of the real work of politics happens -- takes endurance and social solidarity."

He also has what looks to me like a good discussion of the whole Perot phenomenon, as well as the Greens.

Jon Johanning // jjohanning at igc.org __________________________________ A sympathetic Scot summed it all up very neatly in the remark, 'You should make a point of trying every experience once, excepting incest and folk-dancing.' -- Sir Arnold Bax



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list