 |
You Have Two Real Choices |
 |
Perhaps you are frustrated with the Democratic Party. Perhaps you see fewer and fewer differences between Democrats and Republicans. Perhaps you feel stuck between the Democratic rock and a hard place of political marginalization.
At the same time, you may feel that the Democrats are preferable to their opponents - just not enough to justify supporting them. You may feel too guilty to vote for a third party - and potentially hurt the Democrats - or to default on your civic duty by not voting at all.
I wouldn’t encourage you to vote for a third party. No matter how much you may hate the slogan, it remains true that voting for a third party in 08 will be “throwing away your vote.” Without serious structural change in America, no third party will emerge as a permanent and viable player in national politics. The best they can do, like Perot in 1992/1996, the Bull Moose Party in 1912, or George Wallace in 1968, is split the vote and give one of the two major parties a plurality instead of a majority.
And though I do think everyone should vote, I also think there are legitimate conflicts of conscience that excuse the choice not to vote. But if you don’t vote, it’s important that you still involve yourself in the political process.
So what choice does that leave you?
The way I see it, disillusioned progressives have two real choices:
1) You can campaign for an overhaul in the basic mechanics of how America votes. If current campaign finance laws and the winner-takes-all system entrench the two-party system, fight against them. Work for ranked-choice ballots. Work for a parliamentary system (though that would be such a huge change to our current system that I think it is impossible to achieve). Work to ensure candidates receive only public monies for their campaigns. Achieving such deep reforms at the national level would be impossible, I think, without achieving them at the local and state levels first. But a broad and well-organized grassroots movement operating simultaneously in many different locations across America could promote real structural change over a period of years - structural changes that would remove the monopoly of the two major parties over politics.
or
2) You can take matters into your own hands by providing social services directly to the people. Are children illiterate? Families homeless? Former convicts unable to find jobs? Organize to feed, clothe, shelter, educate, and employ the marginalized in our society - not as an apolitical social worker, but as an ideologically committed political activist. A grassroots movement that directly helps people and voices the political beliefs behind its aid programs could generate national support. Imagine if a third party had traveled down to New Orleans in the aftermath of Katrina and done its best to solve the problems there. How many votes would the Katrina Party get in 08? If the first option aims to slowly undermine the two party system by changing the conditions that support it, this option attempts to pull the entire rug (grassroots support) out from under it.
Many of us will vote Democrat in 2008. But much of the base is already fuming. When and if it comes time to re-evaluate our options, I suggest we begin with the two I outlined above. And if you have others, I’m all ears.
I pick option 1. It is really unfortunate that voting for a third party hurts the other parties, but that is a reality in our system. I believe that a Democrat would be better than a Republican most of the time, but honestly, Democratic leadership is often weak and inneffective. Voting for a third party doesn’t help. They have no chance of getting elected and my vote hurts my “best of the worst” choice. Election reform is needed so I can express my opinion without having to be strategic.
Black Panthers 2008.
I think there’s a third path (though it certainly overlaps with options #1 and #2), and that is actually living out our beliefs. As progressives, our biggest tool is integrating and channeling our political and social “disillusionment” into our professions and lifestyles. I think the greatest, most positive change will come when people do what they are best at and most passionate about professionally, and then turn their profession — whether it be medicine, carpentry, or blogging — into something more progressive from within. (And if sheer profits are what get you up in the morning, then challenge yourself to make your millions inventing something that will help people, and then pull a Bill Gates and use your excess cash to go with option #2.) Similarly, there are a million ways we can make our daily lives more socially and environmentally just, without expending any extra time or money. Grassroots needn’t necessarily mean picket signs and road barriers — in the spirit of “protesting in professional attire” it can mean joining the system in order to change it from within. Likewise, progressivism should be an ingrained lifestyle — not just a vote, an extracurricular activity, or a set of ideas limited to dinner parties and the blogosphere.
I think that living out our progressivism is vital. In terms of organized political participation, though, I think that the logical organized manifestations of one’s personal progressivism would fall into the category that option 1 is part of - ie, working for structural change. The ACLU is a good example of progressive professionals who attempt to attack problems at their root. And as you say, it overlaps with the second option as well. Really I think we’re just looking at the problem from two different angles.
On the hand, though, some people simply won’t be comfortable with the mentality of working within the system. Some would argue that while a progressive doctor or lawyer could make a big difference, a progressive defense department bureaucrat might get lost in the shuffle. So I think it varies from case to case - and some people have grievances that they want to air through direct street-level organization in what is perhaps a more vocal and public manner than workplace activism. Really I think all choices are acceptable except perhaps sitting on your couch bummed out over the two-party system.
I love ya’, Ish… Always have.
You are one of a very select few I’ve found willing to admit that choosing not to vote is an option, and I thank you for that. In fact, this is one of the first politically oriented texts I’ve read in a long while that actually lends consideration to the personal motivations of individuals within the political sphere. Just reading this short bit of text lifted some of the load from off my shoulders.
I’ve recently been trying to admit to myself that this system cannot be changed on the macro. I’ve known it on an intellectual level for some time now, but - as witnessed by the thinning of my stomach’s lining - I never truly let go.
Knowing where we are as a nation, as a society, and as a species - the only recourse left, at least for me - is to go communal; to work in the micro. The Federal can’t be saved. The State can’t be saved. The County, even, is likely past the point of no return. But maybe the city… the town… the village. Perhaps a sliver of hope remains for these.
Only if the village can be affected to meaningful, positive ends, can we have any hope for the county or the state, the country or the world. Neither President nor Congressman can stand against the forces moving American policies today. No election cycle is going to make this better. But ten people with the will to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, shelter the homeless, and give to the poor, just might make it better for their local mainstreet. They just may be able to clean the corruption from their township hall and their cities judicial bench.
Accepting limitations… I’ve never been good at that.