|
Edited on Sat Oct-06-07 07:43 PM by jpgray
There are mitigating factors in their failure (tiny, almost non-majority in Senate; disunity in their delegation; etc.), but the failure remains, even on the most crucial issues. Iran, Iraq, investigation follow-through, etc. There has been no glimpse of the strongest available legislative tools being used by our majority, on even those crucial issues, the Democratic positions on which Americans mostly support. And no matter how forgiving you are to the Democrats, that must be seen in part as a massive failure of leadership.
So some Democrats (not all), including the leadership, have failed to give progressives any good reason to vote for them. They've failed in their responsibility, so what is our responsibility? As voters we have a responsibility not just to our own consciences and hatred for the system, but to the country as a whole. Should we punish the Democrats at the risk of empowering the GOP? Should we hold our noses and support the lesser evil, implicitly supporting some very bad behavior? What are the risks and benefits of each method? Or is there a middle ground out there more sensible than either option? Let's take the two most obvious options one at a time. Today let's discuss punishing the Democrats.
Punishing the Democrats
Risks:
The lesser evil in this case is the only realistic check on the greatest evil, the GOP. When any progressive votes for a third party candidate who cannot win or refuses to vote at all, this indirectly aids the GOP. Further, protest votes of that kind do not amount to even a tiny blip on the media's radar. As we've seen with Nader or even a more substantial vote-getter like Perot, third party votes are viewed as an unimportant curiosity--the reasons and beliefs that cause those votes are never fully examined, and therefore do not influence debate. Democrats have lost an election due to a split progressive vote many, many times, and never do they move left to chase after those lost votes--they instead look at the GOP's success and move right.
The media in their deregulated state are even more ingratiating than usual to the party that will cut them a break, and the GOP have sold out so far that the DLC's mostly-sold-out technique is basically worthless. In this hostile media climate, progressive issues and candidate views on such will never get a hearing. Why is so much political coverage based on subjective image or "character" issues these days? Because it's an easy way to hide enormous bias. Look at the coverage of Gore, look at the coverage of Kerry, look at the coverage of Kucinich. None are attacked on the issues, they are attacked based on illusory character smears.
So essentially the two risks of protest votes are: they indirectly enable the GOP, and they do not stimulate any sort of move left. They get no traction in the media, and are studiously ignored (stupidly ignored!) by politicians. But before you say "Americans just want a progressive candidate," remember they've had several. If you take a look at Kucinich, Nader, etc.--all these were true progressive candidates out there fighting the good fight. They were either easily ignored or easily destroyed, and Americans did not vote for them in any significant numbers, despite polls that show continually that their stances on the issues are immensely popular. Thank the media for that.
Benefits:
You will go home with a good conscience, and you are voting your heart. The Democratic failure to properly mitigate the GOP's damage receives a just punishment--abandonment of the party responsible at the ballot box. You are not directly enabling -any- bad politicians. Your vote will to some extent empower a progressive third party.
NB: Please, if you disagree with one of the above arguments, give some reason for why you believe they are wrong. I am very interested in hearing alternative ideas and the justifications for them. Note that I do not want to outlaw criticism or propose loyalty oaths, but simply want to get the fairest assessment possible of the risks and benefits of different voting strategies in '08. I can't do that by myself, and I need the views and criticism of others. Congress has failed in its responsibilities, what are ours, and how best can we fulfill them?
|