History tells us that non-winger third party movements at the national level help our enemies. Ralph Nader helped select Bush in 2000, and John Anderson took 7 million votes when Reagan was elected in 1980. (By the same token, that loon Perot helped elect Clinton.)
Alternatively, if you want Bush's theory of the unitary executive upheld by the Supreme Court, and forced pregancy imposed on women, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, then by all means plan to split the Democratic vote. (This has nothing to do with whether you identify as a Democrat, or not; it's purely pragmatic.)
On the local level, however....
Isn't building an alternative third party apparatus, and getting on the ballot, easier to do--though not easy--than dynamiting Versailles on the Potomac? And isn't building such a party from the ground up the best way to shove the Overton window left, in electoral politics? Either by threatening the Dems, or gutting them? Becuase I'm seeing the Dems as wanting not to restore Constitutional government, but to take over Bush's unitary executive, and make it kinder and gentler.
Just asking. Anyhow, this is how I'm going to start splitting my ticket. Two, three, many Vermonts...
- lambert's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Front page
Comments
Only greens around these parts
are the ones growing atop turnips, beets, mustard and lettuce and the like.
Building a party from scratch is incredibly difficult. Even building one from the rubble of a previously-collapsed one (viz, Whig-->Republicans) is so extraordinarly hard that it took the collapse of the existing political order to bring it about.
It is worth studying the campaign of 1856 in this regard, much more than 1860, the likes of which we are not likely to ever see again. (Lincoln "won" with what may have been the smallest percentage of total votes cast in a four party field. His name wasn't even on the ballot in most of the states of what would shortly become the Confederacy. Try to imagine a scenario like this arising today.)
In '56 though, the Republicans ran John C. Fremont. Missouri based (weakness there: no "Westerner" had ever won the presidency), famous as the "Pathfinder" for his explorations of the far West, rich, vivacious, politically connected wife (Jesse Benton Fremont, daughter of Sen. Thomas Benton), and staunchly anti-expansion-of-slavery-into-the-territories, which was as radical a position on the subject as one was allowed to take in those days.
And he got squished like a bug. By Buchanan, for gossakes. Who very seldom gets credit for being our first gay president*, largely because nobody really considers having him as a standard-bearer to be an asset of any sort. And who, since we're on the subject of Bad Presidents, also allegedly said on his deathbed that "history would vindicate" him.
(*Wiki is a little wimpy on this point, noting that while "there were rumors" about his relationship with housemate Rufus King, the letters between the two were burned after their deaths and nothing can be proved. Feh.)
Anyway, having wandered all over hell and gone as usual, point being that I would take even the "state" out of your Vote Green campaign until you see (or create, eh?) cross-community organization such as communication, websites, meatspace meetups, FUNDRAISING and all the other grubby, dirty, boring basics that go into the non-inspirational-speechmaking parts of making an actual party.
Vote Green locally if you like, or Socialist for that matter. But at the state level, at this stage of the game anyway, the only thing you will accomplish, depending on state legislature rules on the matter, is to throw control of the house to the Rs. Those that allow Federal-congressional type rules where a minor party/independent sort can "caucus with" the Dems would not have this problem, but it's worth looking into before crossing any Rubicons.
as soon as dems start doing
as soon as dems start doing what they say they're gonna do, i'll consider slowing down on promoting a third (or fourth) party. and, for the Love of God and all that is holy, President Gore WAS elected. dems didn't protest in the streets (just as rove knew they wouldn't). and they simply took it from you. the whole "blame independents because dems don't have the balls to stand up against repigs" argument is rather tired. if dems had the courage of their convictions (which is SUPPOSEDLY what WE (we, being independents) elected them for in '06, WE would be much more likely not to wander off toward someone we believe will actually make a change. i'm not saying dems and pigs are the same, just that voting for someone with a "D" beside their name doesn't seem to be changing anything. so, why don't more dems come over to a party for, by and of the people? our ideals would "provide for the common defense" and "promote the general welfare" much more quickly than waiting for dems to do what they SAID they would when WE elected them. Peace