 The choices
of the principled progressive voter in the November US elections are
looking more and more dismal.
I've been reading the damning
reports on Ralph Nader's egomania, which has now led to a falling
out with the US Green Party. Nader's attempt to get on the ballot in
all fifty states has attracted a cynical coalition of nihilistic
leftists and split-the-left-vote rightists. Unlike some of his moving
speeches in the 1990s, Nader's recent diatribes seem spiked with
bitterness, spurious argument and ludicrous idealism. Depite his
plaints to the contrary, there is almost no doubt that in a
first-past-the-post electoral system, the few people who will be
inspired to come out to the polls just to vote for Nader (who otherwise
would not vote at all, and who might cast votes for other progressives
while they're at it) are miniscule compared to the number that might
vote for Nader instead of Kerry, and risk a repeat of the 2000
disaster. Or for that matter, a repeat of what happened in Canada last
week, where the two progressive choices outside Quebec, the NDP and the
Greens, split the vote and between them got 20% of the votes but only
6% of the seats, in the lowest-turnout federal election in over a
century.
Meanwhile the US Greens aren't looking any better. They were bitterly
divided on whether to 'endorse' Nader again in 2004, even though
he's running as an Independent whether or not he gets their
endorsation, and even though he refused to attend the nominating
convention. The alternative was to nominate instead David Cobb who
pledged to run only in states where either Bush or Kerry has a large
lead in the polls. They opted to nominate Cobb, but now it appears he
is planning on running, like Nader, in as many states as possible,
including swing states, so there are now two progressive candidates who
could siphon off anti-Bush votes from Kerry. The US Green Party
websites (there are several, which is confusing), are a mess -- badly
laid out, self-contradictory and full of broken links, and unlike the
situation in 2000 where the Platform was a work of art, the party looks
strictly amateur this year.
And after some promising early missives, the Kerry campaign is looking
more and more right-of-centre, to the point of being almost
indistinguishable in substance from Bush's. Progressives looking for a
clear endorsement of the Kyoto Accord, a repudiation of NAFTA and other
pro-corporatist legislation, immediate cancellation of the despicable
Patriot Act, serious political campaign finance reform, an end to the
grossly undemocratic and disenfranchising scourge of gerrymandering,
the introduction of proportional representation and instant runoff
voting, or a plan for a swift military exit from Iraq and Afghanistan,
will look in vain on the Kerry
website, that is instead filled with platitudes and vague homilies.
Progressives have said the Democrats are just as beholden to rich
corporate and military imperialist interests as the Republicans, and
there is nothing in Kerry's messages so far to deflect such criticism.
Such a squandering of the opportunity to unite and rid America of the
worst president in its history and present voters with an unmistakable
choice and contrast in 2004 is inexcusable. To hope and expect Bush to
defeat himself by sheer incompetence may be a viable election strategy,
but it is a cowardly one, and an insult to the electorate, which
deserves assurances of immediate and unequivocable rollbacks of this
miscreant president's ideological and criminal agenda of the past four
years, and decisive constitutional actions to prevent their recurrence.
It is almost as if Nader, the Greens, and the Democrats are daring progressives to stay home on
election night.
It is foolish and naive for progressives to ignore the realities of the
current political system and to run candidates who cannot possibly win
or even get reasonable press and public attention for their causes by
running. Nader and the Greens should be furiously lobbying electable
progressives in the Democratic and Republican parties (yes, there are a
few progressive Republicans) to vocally support and work towards
specific legislation and regulations that will improve the social and
environmental welfare of America and the world, defeat corporatism, and
improve the political and electoral system. The power isn't all in the
presidency. Focusing so much time and attention on futile attempts to
get individuals elected diverts energies from broadly-supported
programs to being about legitimate, urgently needed and sustainable
progressive reforms to the social, political, economc, regulatory,
judicial, financial and tax systems of America.
The only responsible approach for progressives to take now, and in
November, is to fight at the grassroots level for better legislation,
and enforcement of legislation, that advances the progressive cause,
and to vote for the most progressive candidate in each contest, from
the presidential race on down, who
has a reasonable chance of winning. Instead of running Quixotic
campaigns, Nader and the Greens should be providing progressive voters
with comprehensive, well-documented lists of recommended candidates in
every race in the country, and then, when a disproportionate number of
those candidates win, getting those candidates to return the favour by
supporting progressive legislation and enforcement of it.
Dennis Kucinich was the only candidate with a clear progressive voice
during
the 2004 campaign. Progressives need to give him their total support,
and
work hard to keep him and his ideas in the limelight. The idea that he
is unelectable is nonsense -- he is far more moderate in his views than
Bush, and while his views are threatening to the corporatist
establishment, that establishment has no more power than the grassroots
of American politics. He is certainly more likely to be elected than an
independent or fringe party candidate in a system rigged to favour just
two parties. Kucinich can reform the system from the inside, and there
are important precedents for this in American history. Rallying around
Kucinich, giving him a continuing voice in the IndyMedia, encouraging
him to be the spokesman for
the progressive movement, makes far more sense than wasting a precious
vote on a candidate with no chance of winning, and no significant
influence in the halls of power.
|
MADE IN CANADA
trust your
instincts 
