"But how will you win?" is a common question I've been hearing lately about the prospect of running as a third-party candidate, or even simply voting for third-party candidates. "Our members are a skeptical group that expects results", one representative of an organization told me (paraphrased) when I inquired about Green party support from the group, "and so you will need to convince our membership that you can win elections before we can endorse your candidates."
It is a frustrating response to hear when clearly, for decades now, the strategy of "changing" the two major parties to reflect the will of the people has produced only very small concessions and wins at best. While the inclusion of gay rights, for example, has been a huge win (and notice that win was largely in the courts and through citizen action, not from action of politicians in either party -- in fact, Obama and Clinton both famously were against gay marriage during the 2008 primaries), we have economically slid backward as both Democratic and Republican administrations continue their assault on working class Americans and the classic institutions that protected our human rights. Budgets are slashed, social programs are cut, regulations that protected us dismantled, all while the American people pick up the tab for the worldwide economic crash caused by those very same loosening of regulations. We now see decades of neoliberal policy culminating in the GOP's new tax plan that is obviously weighted toward the most wealthy at the expense of the poor, and it is very near passage. All of this is happening with a backdrop of constant war and involvement in the Middle East, with an ever-growing budget funding the military-industrial complex.
It is clear to me that not only is the status quo of the two parties no longer tenable, but the status quo of the "resistance" -- the idea that we can win over the establishment with a couple of hour-long marches and running progressives in the primaries under establishment rules -- is also no longer tenable. Progressives have for years been calling for change within the Democratic Party, and have failed as the party dragged those voices further and further right. For evidence, only look at past party leaders like Howard Dean, who once championed a progressive agenda including single payer, which now make arguments for further pro-corporate policy as they take massive donations from those very industries.
We have to change our tactics and strategy to make long-term progress and not just short-lived victories that are quickly crushed. And yet, I can't entirely blame the objections over third-party politics. In a sense, they are exactly right -- our electoral system has evolved to reinforce exactly this dilemma, to make it hard to break out of the establishment bubble. While it certainly can happen when people join together and demand it -- look at the DSA-backed independents and third-party members that won elections this year, as well as the Greens that won 44 new seats and counting, on top of past wins -- it is also foolish to say that there is not a significant road block. This road block is a multi-part road block, consisting of a legal system that discriminates against third parties, a media that ignores or even demonizes third parties, and the plain ol' "psychological inertia" of voters that are afraid of "wasting the vote" due to the intense long-term propaganda. The question isn't whether there is a road block (there is), but rather what to do about it.
Most of the objections over "winning" and "results" narrow down to objections over how easy (or hard) it is to convince people to vote third-party in a two-party duopoly. Our two-party duopoly is maintained by several factors, as I outlined in the previous paragraph, but one of the largest is the way we actually we vote. I heard over and over from voters, as I petitioned for signatures for Green candidates last summer, that if Greens ran more candidates they would be registered Green; the only reason they remained registered Democratic was to be able to vote in Pennsylvania's closed primaries. Important Pittsburgh positions like mayor are effectively determined in the primaries because the city is effectively a one-party Democratic town; if there is no Republican or Green or Libertarian challenger (and typically there isn't, in recent history) in the general, the Democratic primary winner is elected. Because of gerrymandering and our voting system, we have a city that is on paper "Democratic" by necessity, but many of its citizens are ready for an alternative. Democratic rule has not been effective at confronting many of Pittsburgh's problems. We still don't have a $15 living minimum wage, areas of the city are gentrifying out its citizens (while poorer districts are ignored by officials), parts of the city have lead pipes that the administration has been slow to combat (while even hiring consultants to make the argument of privatizing the public water supply, which is a very Republican thing to suggest), and many other problems.
While it's certainly possible for Greens to win elections if a majority stopped being afraid of voting third party (there's no law that stops Greens from winning in the general election, it's just the willpower of voters), there is a lot of mental resistance from voters for doing so, for fear of "splitting the vote". Some voters' concerns of "splitting the vote" are not entirely wrong, but I believe the concept focuses on the wrong aspect of the problem.
So what is "splitting the vote"? The United States and Pennsylvania in particular use plurality voting, which means whoever wins the most (a plurality) of votes wins the election. On the surface this seems perfectly fair, most votes is the winner, but when more than two candidates are on the ballot, it can lead to tactical voting. Voters become afraid to support anyone but one of the two perceived front-runners, for concern that the vote split across many candidates lowers the amount needed to win. For example, a four-way election in which three candidates get 24% of the vote and the fourth gets 28% of the vote declares the fourth candidate as the winner. 28% was the plurality, but something is clearly wrong with a system that allows someone with such a small vote total to win the election and pretend to represent the people. You aren't very representative if the overwhelming majority (72%!) voted against you! 2016 actually showed this, where both Trump and Clinton received less than a majority (50%) of the vote. Most Americans actually opposed both candidates by a slight majority, and Trump won despite having less votes than Clinton because our Electoral College hurts our voting methods for president even more. In fact, the same happened in the GOP primaries, where Trump won early states with only 20% or so of the vote; 18 candidates meant a very small threshold was required to win. When every presidential election in recent history is nearly an even split, it's not hard to see how plurality voting leads to our current angry partisan situation. And really, can you blame voters? Roughly half of the country is angry they lost because effectively they had no impact on the results of the elections. Either you "win" with "your" party, or you lose with the exact opposite party you least wanted to see win, there's no middle ground. And the corporate media is more than happy to take advantage and over-hype these contests and frame the debate toward supporting "realistic" corporate-backed candidates, leading to further corruption in the system.
So one strategy for Greens may be to run Greens in gerrymandered districts where it is unlikely that the other major party will offer an alternative -- in this way, there is no "vote splitting". I think this can work, but requires us to recruit candidates in those districts to run, which can sometimes be difficult when so many are afraid to leave the two major parties. While there is a lot of progressive interest in running for office, the recent DSA victories seem to have many progressives confident that running in the Democratic primaries is sufficient; while I'm not confident they will be able to repeat the successes at the state and federal level, even if they do, we leave open the door for a corporate re-take-over of the party until we change the system upon which our politics is based. We as Greens clearly need better outreach to candidates to convince them of our approach and the necessity for the third party politics.
Alongside the electoral approach, which can educate the voters about issues such as our voting system even if our candidates do not win, we need to also build a coalition for activism. We must acknowledge that our voting system needs to change, not just for Greens and third parties, but even just to improve the major parties' primary process. Voters from across the political spectrum must work to give up on archaic voting methods and join the modern world if we wish to be a strong democracy. We need a better system that promotes real debate on issues, rather than gerrymandering and voting for the "lesser of two evils" simply to avoid "splitting the vote".
To build a coalition, we need plan. Our current voting system is bad, most realize this. But what do we replace it with?
An alternative to plurality voting is called ranked choice voting, where voters select not just one candidate (which leads to the tactical "lesser of two evils" voting, as above) but rank ALL of the choices in order from most preferred to least. If the most preferred candidate does not have enough votes to win in the first round of vote counting, those votes are transferred to their second choice candidate, and the votes are re-tallied. This method is much more fair because now there is no concern about "splitting the vote", you can vote your conscience knowing that if your favorite candidate cannot mathematically win, your vote is transferred to the next best option, and so on. This method obviously results in the candidate with the broadest consensus being the winner; even if the winner is not everyone's top choice, it elects candidates with broad appeal rather than those with narrow minority support (which we saw before in the case of Trump in the 2016 primaries, for example), so voters are generally much more agreeable to the results of this voting method.
When electing a legislature (Congress or a state assembly of representatives), we encounter the same problem. Voters are split into districts and told to vote for a single candidate. Again, many voters are reluctant to vote for a third or fourth choice for fear that the other major party candidate will win. Districts themselves are often "gerrymandered", drawn in such a way as to group together all of the votes for one major party or the other in a single district, with the effect that the aggregate winners across all districts do not actually reflect the interests of individual voters across the districts. We see this in Pennsylvania where despite a clear majority of voters voting for Democratic candidates statewide, Republicans control a majority of state representative seats. Gerrymandering "dilutes" Democratic votes by pushing them into a small number of districts where they have less impact overall (e.g., they can't elect very many representatives since there aren't many districts). To be fair, Democrats have done the same to Republicans in other states and other points in time; the two major parties constantly swing back and forth in power, abusing the re-districting process and plurality vote to gain majority control of government.
For legislative bodies, the fix is known as proportional representation (PR), which is basically ranked choice when you need to pick more than one person. Rather than using districts, we let voters choose their preferred candidate(s) from a list of ALL candidates. For example, rather than Pittsburgh splitting itself into small wards, we let everyone in Pittsburgh vote from a list of candidates that may come from anywhere in the city. Voters rank their preferences, so we again lose any worry of "splitting the vote". As votes are tallied, we set a threshold that anyone reaching an agreed minimum number of votes wins a seat. This means the election is about getting the correct number of votes needed to be elected, rather than a percentage of the overall, which tends to have the effect that candidates focus more on winning votes rather than attacking opponents (too much attacking and you will likely scare off some of your own voters). As we count votes and determine winners, we transfer votes from losing candidates (that have no possibility of getting the required number of votes) onto other candidates, and keep recounting until we get the appropriate number of winners. In fact, we can even transfer votes from winning candidates onto second choice candidates, and therein lies the beauty of PR. As we transfer votes, we settle on the most popular candidates that were ranked the highest by the largest number of people, and thus settle on winners that reflect the majority of the voters, all while providing a small number of seats to minority groups (smaller groups still have a good chance at winning even just one seat, since they need only gather up the minimum number of votes to win, they don't need to necessary "beat" any other candidate). In this way, the final set of winners that make up the legislative body are diverse, the majority of them elected by the majority, while ensuring smaller groups have at least some say in the debate by being able to elect at least one person. This method is known as the single transferable vote (STV) since voters simply rank their preferences, and their votes are automatically transferred to the next highest candidate that needs the vote to win. Some countries use an alternative version of PR known as "party list" where voters vote for a party rather than an individual, but this is less desirable as it puts some control of elections and candidates in party hands rather than the people's hands. The STV PR method ensures a truly representative body that was elected by focusing on issues and winning votes rather than scaring voters with attack ads and "lesser evil" arguments. It also allows lesser known candidates a fair shot at getting the required minimum of votes, even against more well-known establishment candidates, since votes are automatically transferred as needed.
There's a lot of detail in here about exactly how to count the votes in an STV PR system, but hopefully this argument has at least shown why we should even be considering adopting such a system.
Greens already support PR in the Green platform. Locally, I think we need to run as many candidates as we can -- the more the better! Every campaign is an opportunity for voter outreach and education on the issues, and when we win, we can use what clout we win to push even more for PR from within government. However, that said, I think a successful campaign for PR will also take some activism from outside electoral politics.
Since the post is already fairly long, I'll pause here and plan a follow up post about the specifics of exactly how PR works, as well as some responses to common objections to PR, based on an interesting book I recently picked up. I'll also have some thoughts on how we can work toward PR in the Pittsburgh area and beyond using a combination of electoral politics and activism. Stay tuned!
Tuesday, November 28, 2017
Sunday, November 12, 2017
Be Careful Labeling 2017 Democratic Elections as "Wins"
Initial analysis of 2017 seems to show that many high profile races resulted in democratic socialist candidates winning, even in districts that previously voted for Trump or GOP in past elections. Here in PA and Pittsburgh in particular, we saw an independent candidate Mik Pappas win against an incumbent establishment Democrat (who held the office for 24 years!), as well as Our Revolution and DSA candidate Anita Prizio also winning a seat on the county council. But independents, progressives, socialists, and Greens won races across PA and the nation yesterday. Greens have been elected to more than 44 local offices just this year so far. More ran for office, with some like Jabari Brisport in New York City receiving some of the highest third party votes in decades. In fact, the Green "success rate" (percent of all Green candidates that won their races) was something like 27%, which is pretty impressive for a smaller third party that rejects corporate cash and relies solely on small individual donors in a strongly unfair electoral system.
This is a great start for progressives, and I think shows an upward trend for third party candidates. Imagine what we can do as the Greens grow with more volunteers and candidates! While we should definitely celebrate some early wins against the establishment, I think we also need to pause and be wary about how we interpret these events.
The media is already reporting this as a "blue wave" of Democrats and trying to co-opt the movement. Ex-Clinton campaign staff are already out saying Democrats are winning and that Bernie should be a Democrat or get out of the party because they don't need him. And to some degree, they're right: despite the strong showing from Green/DSA progressive candidates, many more corporatist right-wing Democrats have been elected solely on an anti-Trump agenda. As Draft Bernie points out, the media has been focusing on a few Democrats: Ralph Northam, a conservative that voted for George Bush in past elections, and Phil Murphy, a former Goldman-Sachs executive. As is typical, Democrats think that catering to conservatives and financial elite is OK since they'll get elected anyway just for not being Trump.
We need to watch these newly elected officials, because we've seen this behavior before. Remember a "blue wave" swept Obama into his first term with a majority in Congress, which Democrats then squandered and made sure very little of the progressive agenda was actually accomplished. In fact, some of Obama and the Democratic Congress's first acts were to extend the Bush tax cuts for the rich, expand war in the Middle East, and pass a right-wing health insurance plan that relies on for-profit insurance to deliver care (Obama quickly dropped his earlier proposals for a public option once elected). And in fact he was willing to cut social security and other programs to get a deal, and pushed on that idea throughout his presidency. None of that is progressive at all, and it's really par for the course with Democrats. They (at best) sound progressive on the campaign trail, but as soon as elected, the donors pull the strings to get what they want. The needs of the people come last, every time.
It's even harder to believe that Democrats will change much from this election when you consider these progressives are being swept into a larger party that is still set up to squelch progressive voices. DNC chair Tom Perez is fresh off of kicking progressives out of leadership roles in the party and is still out repeating Clinton campaign talking points. Donna Brazile's truth-speaking about the stolen Democratic primary is now being called Russian propaganda, among other things. Most disappointingly perhaps, even Bernie Sanders has dialed back his expectations for the Democratic Party, with a recent email to supporters saying he wanted the DNC to "reduce" the number of super-delegates in the party, rather than previous calls to eliminate the undemocratic super-delegates all-together. The local candidates that won office today are only a few small voices within a giant political machine that is continuing to do as much as it can to crush those progressive voices, and I worry those local candidates will quickly find themselves frustrated by party leadership.
While we celebrate some local wins, let's also be careful not to get too excited about the overall Democratic Party victories as a sign of progressives winning. While progressives certainly had some encouraging victories, they haven't taken the party yet, and Democratic leadership thinks 2018 will be an easy win because of Trump; not only do I think that is a dangerous attitude to have (as we saw in the losses of 2016), but the 2017 elections reaffirm Democratic beliefs that there's no need to change the party because they still win votes by default by simply not being Republicans. I think progressives are really shooting themselves in the foot when they donate their time and energy into the Democratic party by running as Democratic candidates. Exactly as we're seeing, even when progressives win, the Democratic Party machine simply uses it as an excuse to support its agenda and attack insurgent progressives even more. You're emboldening your enemy the more you try to play nice with them and think you need to follow their rules. Martin Luther King, Jr.,'s non-violence movement wasn't to work with the oppressors within the system, it was to peacefully build a new coalition outside of the system that would force the needed cultural changes.
Power never gives up power for free. You generally can't appeal to power's "sense of fairness", because it has none. Democrats will not give up their power, their rich donors, their corporate influence in the party until forced to do so. They will continue to attack progressives and rig elections because it has worked in the past for them. Democrats have to lose big time and see their voter base dry up before they will make changes; only when the voters leave and Democrats are no longer a "sure thing" will the donor money dry up too, and it will take hitting their bottom line before they get the message. Whether you believe we need a whole new party or believe Democrats can be reformed, both strategies I think require a strong Green Party challenger to the Democrats to win some high profile elections and force Democrats to re-think their position in politics.
I'm looking forward to the opportunity for the Green Party and progressive movement in general in 2018. I hope you'll join the Greens too and help us run more candidates and expand our movement.
This is a great start for progressives, and I think shows an upward trend for third party candidates. Imagine what we can do as the Greens grow with more volunteers and candidates! While we should definitely celebrate some early wins against the establishment, I think we also need to pause and be wary about how we interpret these events.
The media is already reporting this as a "blue wave" of Democrats and trying to co-opt the movement. Ex-Clinton campaign staff are already out saying Democrats are winning and that Bernie should be a Democrat or get out of the party because they don't need him. And to some degree, they're right: despite the strong showing from Green/DSA progressive candidates, many more corporatist right-wing Democrats have been elected solely on an anti-Trump agenda. As Draft Bernie points out, the media has been focusing on a few Democrats: Ralph Northam, a conservative that voted for George Bush in past elections, and Phil Murphy, a former Goldman-Sachs executive. As is typical, Democrats think that catering to conservatives and financial elite is OK since they'll get elected anyway just for not being Trump.
We need to watch these newly elected officials, because we've seen this behavior before. Remember a "blue wave" swept Obama into his first term with a majority in Congress, which Democrats then squandered and made sure very little of the progressive agenda was actually accomplished. In fact, some of Obama and the Democratic Congress's first acts were to extend the Bush tax cuts for the rich, expand war in the Middle East, and pass a right-wing health insurance plan that relies on for-profit insurance to deliver care (Obama quickly dropped his earlier proposals for a public option once elected). And in fact he was willing to cut social security and other programs to get a deal, and pushed on that idea throughout his presidency. None of that is progressive at all, and it's really par for the course with Democrats. They (at best) sound progressive on the campaign trail, but as soon as elected, the donors pull the strings to get what they want. The needs of the people come last, every time.
It's even harder to believe that Democrats will change much from this election when you consider these progressives are being swept into a larger party that is still set up to squelch progressive voices. DNC chair Tom Perez is fresh off of kicking progressives out of leadership roles in the party and is still out repeating Clinton campaign talking points. Donna Brazile's truth-speaking about the stolen Democratic primary is now being called Russian propaganda, among other things. Most disappointingly perhaps, even Bernie Sanders has dialed back his expectations for the Democratic Party, with a recent email to supporters saying he wanted the DNC to "reduce" the number of super-delegates in the party, rather than previous calls to eliminate the undemocratic super-delegates all-together. The local candidates that won office today are only a few small voices within a giant political machine that is continuing to do as much as it can to crush those progressive voices, and I worry those local candidates will quickly find themselves frustrated by party leadership.
While we celebrate some local wins, let's also be careful not to get too excited about the overall Democratic Party victories as a sign of progressives winning. While progressives certainly had some encouraging victories, they haven't taken the party yet, and Democratic leadership thinks 2018 will be an easy win because of Trump; not only do I think that is a dangerous attitude to have (as we saw in the losses of 2016), but the 2017 elections reaffirm Democratic beliefs that there's no need to change the party because they still win votes by default by simply not being Republicans. I think progressives are really shooting themselves in the foot when they donate their time and energy into the Democratic party by running as Democratic candidates. Exactly as we're seeing, even when progressives win, the Democratic Party machine simply uses it as an excuse to support its agenda and attack insurgent progressives even more. You're emboldening your enemy the more you try to play nice with them and think you need to follow their rules. Martin Luther King, Jr.,'s non-violence movement wasn't to work with the oppressors within the system, it was to peacefully build a new coalition outside of the system that would force the needed cultural changes.
Power never gives up power for free. You generally can't appeal to power's "sense of fairness", because it has none. Democrats will not give up their power, their rich donors, their corporate influence in the party until forced to do so. They will continue to attack progressives and rig elections because it has worked in the past for them. Democrats have to lose big time and see their voter base dry up before they will make changes; only when the voters leave and Democrats are no longer a "sure thing" will the donor money dry up too, and it will take hitting their bottom line before they get the message. Whether you believe we need a whole new party or believe Democrats can be reformed, both strategies I think require a strong Green Party challenger to the Democrats to win some high profile elections and force Democrats to re-think their position in politics.
I'm looking forward to the opportunity for the Green Party and progressive movement in general in 2018. I hope you'll join the Greens too and help us run more candidates and expand our movement.
Sunday, November 5, 2017
DNC Revelations
There have been some interesting revelations this past week regarding the Democratic Party. ... sort of.
In reality, Donna Brazile's allegations regarding DNC corruption & the Clinton campaign's takeover of the party are nothing new to Bernie Sanders fans. I even wrote a blog post last year arguing Bernie should join the Greens after suspicious voting problems surfaced in the primaries. There were reports more than a year ago of voter purges (recently confirmed by the NYC board of elections). Now, Brazile is confirming that the DNC did in fact have a bias toward Clinton -- because Clinton campaign and the DNC signed a contract allowing the campaign to effectively control all DNC decisions!
It feels to me a bit like posturing. Perhaps Brazile and some of her allies want to have the "tell all" in order to either get their 15 minutes of limelight as they retire. But I lean toward thinking that Brazile and others know that the DNC is on a bad path, voters are angry, and they don't want to receive the full blame. Brazile is probably hopeful she can retain her cushy job in the DNC by being the "whistleblower", for example; I have not seen any story so far mention that she was recently appointed to the DNC's rules committee, meaning she is one of the members that sets the rules for the 2020 primaries. As far as I know she has't resigned from the post, and it would now look super suspicious if Tom Perez fired her after these allegations came out, so she probably feels fairly "safe" in her position of power within the party now. Voters are angry, fundraising is way down, the party is doing terribly, and she doesn't want the blame, she wants to sneak in as a "well I never supported the corruption, I'm the whistleblower!". Don't fall for it, she hasn't changed and magically become more progressive, she's fighting to save her source of income.
So that said, what is the next step from this revelation?
I think many will likely use this as an opportunity to "rally the troops" to take over the DNC with more progressives. That is, Justice Democrats or similar organizations will say "we have the corporate DNC on the ropes, support us and we'll win and take over the party!". DON'T LISTEN TO THEM. This doesn't change anything, it just further exposes how fundamentally corrupt the DNC organization is and how they will never change.
The DNC chair is still a corporatist. He appointed corporate lobbyists to most positions of power and purged the progressives. They still back corporate-funded candidates over grassroots-funded progressives. They still have superdelegates to control who wins the party nomination. Party primaries are still done under party rules, meaning they don't legally have to uphold any sort of fair nomination process for any level of office -- and Brazile and others involved in this scandal are working right now to set the primary and debate rules for 2020! Do you think they'll make rules that favor a progressive winning? (Look at the DNC's recent resolution that specifically said Bernie and other independents should join the Democratic party -- they know he won't, but they will use it say he isn't qualified to run for office in 2020, mark my words) And they're working harder than ever to shift their platform to the right and court more right-wing voters and, in particular, rich donors. With the GOP self-destructing under Trump, they want to step in and basically be the "new" right-wing party.
A few Democrat officials will be thrown under the bus, fired from their jobs as a sacrifice to "save" the party in its current form, but make no mistake: the corporate influence is not gone. Just because the influence has potentially turned against Clinton doesn't mean it decided to give up and go home. Power gives up nothing when it doesn't have to. This just means the power and influence has decided Clinton is a liability, and is looking at other candidates and leaders for future elections, and you can bet those new leaders won't be progressive. Oh they might appoint a mild progressive to some ceremonial position with no power (as they did to Keith Ellison), but there is no way corporate donors will let a real progressive that threatens their influence on the party into any position of power within the party.
These allegations show how deep the corruption runs. Those that run the DNC let Clinton basically have the party so they could make more money from her. They filled up the DNC budget with "consultants" that got big paychecks that didn't pay off when Clinton lost an election that should have been easily winnable. That's why this is coming out. Not because they're changing strategy, but simply that they're changing the face of the party.
We cannot fight corporate Democrats on their terms. When we play their game and run in Democratic primaries, we lose, often in that election but even if a progressive sometimes wins, we lose the long game. They can suppress primaries, as we've seen. They can work against progressives. And in the off chance a progressive wins a race, they can use the party machinery to crush dissent and make the progressives "compromise" or smear them. Even with progressives within the Democratic party, they're fighting a corporate platform trying to blend into the party instead of proudly pushing for a true left-wing agenda with a party that supports them.
We must fight on OUR terms. We do that with a two-pronged approach:
1. Join the Green Party. Don't compromise on ideals. Greens have a strongly progressive platform, much more progressive than even Bernie Sanders. Greens are more accurately referred to as "eco-socialist". We must not settle for compromise with Democrats; we must take our agenda straight to the Americans people and convince them of the need for a strongly socialist platform. We must not let Democrats unilaterally set what the "moderate" or "centrist" or "compromise" viewpoint is; who appointed them in charge of defining those terms, defining what Americans want? I think most Americans actually want a Green agenda if they only knew what it was! I think the Green platform *is* the centrist, *is* the compromise agenda. The Democrats are a largely right-wing platform, moving further and further away from Americans' ideals every year, and it's time to start treating it that way. Joining the Green Party, supporting Green candidates, and running for office as a Green gets you a platform to talk about a real progressive eco-socialist agenda instead. You can proudly speak your mind knowing the party is behind you, rather than angry.
2. Many objections to Greens boil down to "the system is rigged against them, so we have to run as a Democrat". Think about that for a second: the system is so rigged that no other candidates even have a chance, and yet you think Democratic primaries are not rigged and can be won by the opposition? Those two statements are fundamentally opposed, and I encourage you to reflect on that strategy and ask if primary opponents will really work better long run than running in general election.
I personally believe that, while there is definitely corruption within the major parties and their processes such as their primaries, our election and justice system on the whole still work reasonably well. Most Americans have a sense of fairness and do not share the attitude of party leaders. Most elections (even primaries) went smoothly, it was only some districts that had problems. While court is complex and costly and needs reform, it does still work, and was the preferred method of getting justice for activists such as Martin Luther King, Jr.
So I say we run candidates as much as possible. When corruption and problems surface, we attack them in court. We can win court battles to make a more fair system. Jill Stein, the 2016 Green presidential nominee, already did this in Pennsylvania: her lawsuit last year got a state law struck down that required any candidates not in the two major parties to go through extra hoops to get on the ballot that Republicans and Democrats didn't have to do. For example, Greens would need thousands of signatures to be on the ballot, but Republicans and Democrats only would need 500. How is that fair? It wasn't, and a court struck down that law. We won, which is why we're seeing more Greens this year running for office, and I hope to see even more in future years.
While the presidential elections are high profile and so the most complex and corrupted (and so need a lot of work!), we're seeing a lot of progress at the local and state level. So we need to be running more candidates at those levels, and filing lawsuits as necessary to continue to pave the way for future elections. Those campaigns, even when they don't win, help educate voters and the general public about these sorts of issues, so it's even more critical to run for office -- hopefully you win, but even if you don't, it's a very important voter education task that needs done anyway.
Now I'm saying Green here as it is the largest party that I feel shares my values, but we see others popping up that may also work. Socialist Alternative, Progressive Independent Party, "Draft Bernie" (not sure if they made a better name yet, People's Party?). Choose whatever party best interests you. I encourage you to join the Greens because we're growing and I think have the most momentum, but do what makes sense for you and your area. Let's also get all of these parties together to talk how we can form a coalition.
Third parties are the only way to truly break the spell of corporate rigged elections and capitalism. If we want fair elections, grassroots democracy, and a more socialist economy, we MUST fight in a new party, because the two major ones will always be against us. Fighting from within puts us at a disadvantage. While fighting as a third party is also difficult and uphill, victories we gain will be long-lasting victories that change the national discussion on our own terms, which is really what our ultimate goal is. It is worth the fight. I hope you'll join us.
In reality, Donna Brazile's allegations regarding DNC corruption & the Clinton campaign's takeover of the party are nothing new to Bernie Sanders fans. I even wrote a blog post last year arguing Bernie should join the Greens after suspicious voting problems surfaced in the primaries. There were reports more than a year ago of voter purges (recently confirmed by the NYC board of elections). Now, Brazile is confirming that the DNC did in fact have a bias toward Clinton -- because Clinton campaign and the DNC signed a contract allowing the campaign to effectively control all DNC decisions!
It feels to me a bit like posturing. Perhaps Brazile and some of her allies want to have the "tell all" in order to either get their 15 minutes of limelight as they retire. But I lean toward thinking that Brazile and others know that the DNC is on a bad path, voters are angry, and they don't want to receive the full blame. Brazile is probably hopeful she can retain her cushy job in the DNC by being the "whistleblower", for example; I have not seen any story so far mention that she was recently appointed to the DNC's rules committee, meaning she is one of the members that sets the rules for the 2020 primaries. As far as I know she has't resigned from the post, and it would now look super suspicious if Tom Perez fired her after these allegations came out, so she probably feels fairly "safe" in her position of power within the party now. Voters are angry, fundraising is way down, the party is doing terribly, and she doesn't want the blame, she wants to sneak in as a "well I never supported the corruption, I'm the whistleblower!". Don't fall for it, she hasn't changed and magically become more progressive, she's fighting to save her source of income.
So that said, what is the next step from this revelation?
I think many will likely use this as an opportunity to "rally the troops" to take over the DNC with more progressives. That is, Justice Democrats or similar organizations will say "we have the corporate DNC on the ropes, support us and we'll win and take over the party!". DON'T LISTEN TO THEM. This doesn't change anything, it just further exposes how fundamentally corrupt the DNC organization is and how they will never change.
The DNC chair is still a corporatist. He appointed corporate lobbyists to most positions of power and purged the progressives. They still back corporate-funded candidates over grassroots-funded progressives. They still have superdelegates to control who wins the party nomination. Party primaries are still done under party rules, meaning they don't legally have to uphold any sort of fair nomination process for any level of office -- and Brazile and others involved in this scandal are working right now to set the primary and debate rules for 2020! Do you think they'll make rules that favor a progressive winning? (Look at the DNC's recent resolution that specifically said Bernie and other independents should join the Democratic party -- they know he won't, but they will use it say he isn't qualified to run for office in 2020, mark my words) And they're working harder than ever to shift their platform to the right and court more right-wing voters and, in particular, rich donors. With the GOP self-destructing under Trump, they want to step in and basically be the "new" right-wing party.
A few Democrat officials will be thrown under the bus, fired from their jobs as a sacrifice to "save" the party in its current form, but make no mistake: the corporate influence is not gone. Just because the influence has potentially turned against Clinton doesn't mean it decided to give up and go home. Power gives up nothing when it doesn't have to. This just means the power and influence has decided Clinton is a liability, and is looking at other candidates and leaders for future elections, and you can bet those new leaders won't be progressive. Oh they might appoint a mild progressive to some ceremonial position with no power (as they did to Keith Ellison), but there is no way corporate donors will let a real progressive that threatens their influence on the party into any position of power within the party.
These allegations show how deep the corruption runs. Those that run the DNC let Clinton basically have the party so they could make more money from her. They filled up the DNC budget with "consultants" that got big paychecks that didn't pay off when Clinton lost an election that should have been easily winnable. That's why this is coming out. Not because they're changing strategy, but simply that they're changing the face of the party.
We cannot fight corporate Democrats on their terms. When we play their game and run in Democratic primaries, we lose, often in that election but even if a progressive sometimes wins, we lose the long game. They can suppress primaries, as we've seen. They can work against progressives. And in the off chance a progressive wins a race, they can use the party machinery to crush dissent and make the progressives "compromise" or smear them. Even with progressives within the Democratic party, they're fighting a corporate platform trying to blend into the party instead of proudly pushing for a true left-wing agenda with a party that supports them.
We must fight on OUR terms. We do that with a two-pronged approach:
1. Join the Green Party. Don't compromise on ideals. Greens have a strongly progressive platform, much more progressive than even Bernie Sanders. Greens are more accurately referred to as "eco-socialist". We must not settle for compromise with Democrats; we must take our agenda straight to the Americans people and convince them of the need for a strongly socialist platform. We must not let Democrats unilaterally set what the "moderate" or "centrist" or "compromise" viewpoint is; who appointed them in charge of defining those terms, defining what Americans want? I think most Americans actually want a Green agenda if they only knew what it was! I think the Green platform *is* the centrist, *is* the compromise agenda. The Democrats are a largely right-wing platform, moving further and further away from Americans' ideals every year, and it's time to start treating it that way. Joining the Green Party, supporting Green candidates, and running for office as a Green gets you a platform to talk about a real progressive eco-socialist agenda instead. You can proudly speak your mind knowing the party is behind you, rather than angry.
2. Many objections to Greens boil down to "the system is rigged against them, so we have to run as a Democrat". Think about that for a second: the system is so rigged that no other candidates even have a chance, and yet you think Democratic primaries are not rigged and can be won by the opposition? Those two statements are fundamentally opposed, and I encourage you to reflect on that strategy and ask if primary opponents will really work better long run than running in general election.
I personally believe that, while there is definitely corruption within the major parties and their processes such as their primaries, our election and justice system on the whole still work reasonably well. Most Americans have a sense of fairness and do not share the attitude of party leaders. Most elections (even primaries) went smoothly, it was only some districts that had problems. While court is complex and costly and needs reform, it does still work, and was the preferred method of getting justice for activists such as Martin Luther King, Jr.
So I say we run candidates as much as possible. When corruption and problems surface, we attack them in court. We can win court battles to make a more fair system. Jill Stein, the 2016 Green presidential nominee, already did this in Pennsylvania: her lawsuit last year got a state law struck down that required any candidates not in the two major parties to go through extra hoops to get on the ballot that Republicans and Democrats didn't have to do. For example, Greens would need thousands of signatures to be on the ballot, but Republicans and Democrats only would need 500. How is that fair? It wasn't, and a court struck down that law. We won, which is why we're seeing more Greens this year running for office, and I hope to see even more in future years.
While the presidential elections are high profile and so the most complex and corrupted (and so need a lot of work!), we're seeing a lot of progress at the local and state level. So we need to be running more candidates at those levels, and filing lawsuits as necessary to continue to pave the way for future elections. Those campaigns, even when they don't win, help educate voters and the general public about these sorts of issues, so it's even more critical to run for office -- hopefully you win, but even if you don't, it's a very important voter education task that needs done anyway.
Now I'm saying Green here as it is the largest party that I feel shares my values, but we see others popping up that may also work. Socialist Alternative, Progressive Independent Party, "Draft Bernie" (not sure if they made a better name yet, People's Party?). Choose whatever party best interests you. I encourage you to join the Greens because we're growing and I think have the most momentum, but do what makes sense for you and your area. Let's also get all of these parties together to talk how we can form a coalition.
Third parties are the only way to truly break the spell of corporate rigged elections and capitalism. If we want fair elections, grassroots democracy, and a more socialist economy, we MUST fight in a new party, because the two major ones will always be against us. Fighting from within puts us at a disadvantage. While fighting as a third party is also difficult and uphill, victories we gain will be long-lasting victories that change the national discussion on our own terms, which is really what our ultimate goal is. It is worth the fight. I hope you'll join us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)