Jim writes: >It's just not true that the position of all third-party advocates is >that one picks someone whom you actually support. There are other >reasons. >* A vote for a third party can be seen as part of a strategy to >pressure the two-party duopoly to lean in our direction. If the >political establishment gives a nut like Ross Perot the time of day, >it's because he set up a third party that won a bunch of votes. If a >left-wing third party got a lot of votes (something Anders is >working against, at least on pen-l), they'd have to start listening >to us a bit more. We might win some concessions, as with those that >Nixon granted in the face of mass movements. (They might also turn >to more sustained repression, as after World Wars I and II in the U.S. >and the Cointelpro, but that's a risk we have to take.) That seems entirely sensible to me. My problem is: 1) I don't see any third parties--at least on the West Coast--that have their shit together enough to create sustained pressure. If they did, I'd join them (and that's why I've joined local efforts through the Progressive Alliance in Alameda County, CA). I vote for third party candidates on the local level when I think they can either win or can create enough pressure that they effect the 2 parties. On the national level, I vote Democratic because I think the harm a Republican could do outweighs the impact a third party vote will have. For example, I think we would've been much worse off with Bush, because I think the grassroots far right would've taken much more advantage of Bush's failings than our side could have, because they're got a strong grassroots movement and we don't. If that ever changes, I'd think seriously about voting Third party for president. Until then, I'm putting my energies into groups like Californians for Justice, which I think have a much better chance of affecting the debate over the long run. 2) If the point of a third party is to move the debate, then it doesn't make any sense to vote for Nader. The last thing our side needs to have is a "Perot" who deals with class but not race--especially when Pat Buchannon is out there. If Nader doesn't have what it takes to provide some leadership on the issue of addressing racism in the U.S., then he should stay out of Presidential politics and stick to the fine single-issue work he's done on consumer issues. >* Advocacy of a third party is not the same as purism. It also >involves a certain amount of compromise. (I reject the dichotomy of >"pro-Clinton vs. pure.") (As Doug notes, it's weird to see someone >attack Nader in a purist way while defending Clinton. Purity >is a matter of degree.) I don't have any problem with compromise; that's what politics are all about. Any serious Third Party work is going to involve lots and lots of compromise. My problem is that some folks on our side savage Clinton for his numerous compromises (for which he ought to be savaged) but then are pretty silent when a third party Presidential candidate like Nader is completely gutless on an issue as central as racism. That, it seems to me, is a sign that our side still doesn't take racism seriously. Anders
