Jeff Melton: All The Democrats, All The Time

[messiah]

All The Democrats, All The Time
A reply to
{Let's End the Two-Party Duopoly
by Katrina vanden Heuvel
The Nation
03/02/2004 @ 10:38pm}

By Jeff Melton - Green Party Activist}
Not copyrighted

Are we supposed to care what Katrina vanden Heuvel thinks? I, for
one, am a whole lot more interested in what ordinary working people
think, or can be persuaded to think.

I have fond memories of The Nation from back in the 80s when I first
became radicalized, and they had people whose politics I mostly
respected writing for them like I.F. Stone and Alexander Cockburn.
Even then, in pre-Solidarity days organization to which I belong], I could see the limits of their brand
of radical reformism, but they were open to a wide spectrum of
opinion,some of it recognizably if not always overtly socialist. But,
from their longstanding toleration of Christopher Hitchens' rightward
turn to their cheerleading for the US bombing of Yugoslavia to their
increasing hostility to any electoral politics outside the orbit of
the Democratic Party (ask Joel Kovel about that!), they gradually
turned rightward after that. I think it's safe to call The Nation the
flagship journal of limousine liberalism these days. (Don't read it
any more, but it seemed that way the last time I did.)

In fact, despite their posturing as critics of the Democrats, The
Nation and other advocates of lesser-evilism perform a valuable
service for the capitalist class by frightening and browbeating so
many frustrated liberals/leftists into remaining loyal to the
Democratic Party, in a way that's persuasive to these folks precisely
/because/ they acknowledge at least a few of the Democrats' flaws
(while ludicrously exaggerating their differences from the Republicans
and glossing over the similarities).

Anyway, although of course I (and Nader) agree with vanden Heuvel's
advocacy of electoral reforms, there's a whole lot that's disingenous
or just downright stupid in this article. First, I have yet to hear a
speech or read a general political statement by Nader where he doesn't
plug IRV and other electoral reforms. He has prominently advocated
IRV,PR, etc., for a long time. And he constantly reminds every
audience to which he speaks that, despite the absence of badly-needed
electoral reforms, left-leaning voters already /do/ have a choice to
vote for someone other than Tweedledum and Tweedledee, that the
Democrats do not own anybody's vote.

In contrast, the only mention on Howard Dean's Web site of IRV is talk
of "establishing a commission to consider" the idea. And this is the
"left wing" of the "electable" Democrats here. It is so typically
naive of folks at The Nation to act as if more than a tiny fraction of
Democrats have any interest in significant electoral reform. It is
also interesting that they simultaneously try to make sure, by
browbeating people into continuing to support any old Democrats no
matter what their politics, that there is little chance of Democrats'
election chances being "spoiled" even without IRV or PR!

And how does vanden Heuvel know that "the overwhelming mass of
progressive voters" are on the ABB bandwagon? Judging from the poll
numbers and the number of people involved in the Green Party or
Nader's campaign, this is just horseshit, albeit horseshit designed to
get Nation readers to jump on board the ABB Express. As usual, the 100
million or so eligible adults who don't vote (and therefore by
definition aren't part of the quadrennial Democratic hysteria over the
prospect of a Republican Presidency) are ignored.

As for "demanding" that the Democratic Presidential candidate support
electoral reforms while simultaneously not running a left candidate
against him and guaranteeing him our vote -- how exactly is that
supposed to work? This is truly a novel meaning of the word "demand."

As for whether "Nader's perceived role as a spoiler is likely to
attract far more attention than the valuable issues he raises," gee, I
bet The Nation won't have a thing to do with whether the former gets
more attention than the latter. And I bet they'll be sure to remind us
that the fact that Bush is in the White House now is due to a
fraudulent election. Well, maybe not, considering that the last line
of vanden Heuvel's article conjures up nightmare images of Nader's
candidacy possibly helping "/reelect/ the most reactionary government
in our lifetime." Earth to Katrina, Bush was never elected in the
first place. And last time I checked, Kerry supported most of Bush's
reactionary policies. Since Kerry /is/ part of the present government
and /was/ elected, vanden Heuvel may be right in a way she didn't intend.

And one can question the sincerity of her commitment to the heightened
democracy she describes in various nations with IRV or PR. She tells
us (I can hear Joseph Heller turning over in his grave) that Americans
/can't/ vote for third-party candidates until we get electoral reforms
that the vast majority of major-party candidates, to whom we are
supposed to guarantee our votes, oppose! To convince us that we
"can't," vanden Heuvel and her minions at The Nation, like their
cohorts in the rest of the pro-Democratic Party press, try to frighten
us with incessant exaggerations of the minimal differences between
Tweedledee and Tweedledumb, and warnings that third-party voters are
"risking" something that ha s /never/ happened in US history! That's
right, check the record books, there is /not one occasion,/ unless you
count 2000,when the votes tallied by a left-leaning third-party
candidate have been sufficient to alter the outcome of an election.

The fact is that, although obviously electoral reforms like IRV and PR
would make choosing radical third-party candidates easier and more
likely, left-leaning voters /already have/ the choice to vote for a
candidate they like rather than Tweedledee, despite the best efforts
of Democratic (and Republican) politicians and their supporters to
restrict or discourage voters from exercising that choice. Ironically,
one of the best weapons we working people have in fighting for
electoral reform is to thumb our noses at Katrina V. and the rest of
the screaming Nader/Green-bashers and /make/ that choice, spoiler
"risk" be damned. Maybe to some this will seem like hyperbole, but I
see voting for radical third-party candidates as a safe and legal act
of civil disobedience, a way of sending the plutocrats an unmistakably
clear message that we don't accept /either /Tweedledum or Tweedledee.
If the threat of "spoiling" became /real/ instead of being just
another Democratic Party scare tactic, we'd be a lot more likely to
get electoral reform. Of course, we revolutionaries know that acts of
rebellion aren't ultimately likely to get us very far if they're
confined to the voting booth, but that's one place working people can
start, and maybe that's why the vanguard of liberalism is so scared of
Ralph Nader and the Greens.