From a FaceBook discussion---
[Please note: I have posted what this is part of a discussion to below at the very bottom]
Alan L. Maki
I will be more blunt: A third party getting 5% of the vote could very well punish Obama and the Democrats and that would be a very good start. I think we have to tell the Democrats in no uncertain terms: No peace, no votes; No real health care reform, no votes; No jobs, no votes.
The way to create and pay for jobs: The way to create jobs is by implementing huge universal social programs aimed at solving the problems of the American people. Two such programs that solve problems and create many jobs would be a National Public Health Care System (10-million jobs) and a National Public Child Care Program (3-million jobs) all paid for by ending the wars and taxing the hell out of the rich.
I like the way Michael puts this in term of getting enough votes to have the power to negotiate for the things we want.
For instance, with 5% of the votes in the polls we have every right--- and a responsibility--- to tell Obama and the Democrats, "You don't want to lose this election then end these wars and we will run our candidates strategically."
One of the big problems I have had with Nader's campaigns is that he failed to explicitly state he was punishing the Democrats.
Working class voters have a very strong sense of justice and they resent the Democrats promising one thing to get elected then not delivering once elected.
When it comes time for working people to vote they understand the importance of their votes in a way Democrats arrogantly seldom appreciate and if working people have real deep concerns over specific issues as a result of the issues being placed properly "in the public square," they are going to do one of several things with there votes:
1. Stay home because they are fed up with promised not fulfilled.
2. Vote for most of the Democrats while withholding their votes from a targeted Democrat who they view as the biggest hypocrite ignoring their problems.
3. Hold their noses and vote for the Democrats because they don't want Republicans to win.
4. Cast their votes for an alternative party who they view as being able to do something to win in the voting booth what cannot be won at the bargaining table (for whatever reason).
I have noted how socialist Minnesota Governor Floyd Olson negotiated in the electoral arena for socialized health care. In the same way socialist Eugene Debs attempted to turn his votes into votes for peace and while sitting behind prison bars for his peace activities, he drew almost 1,000,000 votes. There are many other examples of liberal, progressive and socialist. Progressive Henry Wallace very effectively campaigned to keep a New Deal agenda before the American people while fighting the warmongers and red-baiters in both parties and very likely saved us from fascism here in this country.
We have to keep in mind that the only reason we run candidates is to create a better life for people.
Floyd Olson, Minnesota's very nationally popular socialist governor wielded his influence very effectively in this way with Franklin Roosevelt and made it very clear why he intended to run against Roosevelt which would have likely resulted in Roosevelt losing the election; his stated purpose for running: Roosevelt was going too slow with reforms and the reforms weren't enough to help the number of people requiring help. As a result, Roosevelt told Francis Perkins, "Get your socialist friend down here to Washington so we can see what we can do for him."
Unfortunately, Olson, quite literally, had to get up out of his deathbed to meet with Roosevelt and he tried to NEGOTIATE to keep a national public health care system (socialized health care)as part of the package of New Deal reforms. Roosevelt knew Olson was a walking dead-man so he only made a half-hearted attempt to twist the arms of southern Dixiecrats and what we call "Blue Dogs" today and Frances Perkin's legislation for socialized health care never made it.
Had Olson lived and had the first national convention to organize the Farmer-Labor Party nationally been convened as planned in Chicago, we would most likely have socialized health care in this country today.
From what I have read, it was thought that Olson would have received about 5% to 7% of the vote--- and Roosevelt was willing to negotiate with Olson.
For working people, "winning" has different meanings defined by what working people require for better lives and what they have the muscle to negotiate for.
It is unfortunate that labor "leaders" do not understand there is power in working class votes in order to negotiate in the electoral arena what they cannot win at the bargaining table.
************************************************************
The discussion:
Michaël McGee
A NEW STRATEGY FOR AN INDEPENDENT 3rd PARTY ?
Alain is 100% correct in underlining that we desperately need an Independent 3rd Party alternative to the 2 Corporate War Parties.
But, in order to build that 3rd Party, we need to develop a NEW STRATEGY. We also need to broadly UNITE disgruntled Progressives, Greens and Independents around a political platform that proposes intelligent, workable solutions to people's most urgent problems.
I find it incredible that we are experiencing the Great Recession of the 21st Century, and we have not yet been capable of building that Independent 3rd Party.
- 25% of America's children live in poverty !
- 1 in 7 Americans are on Food Stamps,
- 1 million Americans were evicted from their homes last year and
over 1,000 people LIVE UNDERGROUND in the Flood Tunnels of Las Vegas !!
- The 2 Corporate War Parties are bleeding America dry with their 3 costly, never ending Wars...
In these shocking conditions, not only is there a boulevard in front of us to create an Independent 3rd Party BEFORE the 2012 Presidential Elections, but it would be criminal if we didn't !
If we want to organize all of the people who feel discouraged and helpless, we need to develop an innovative and realistic ELECTORAL STRATEGY capable of mobilizing 5 to 10% or more in the pre-election polls.
With a mere 5% of potential voters we can actually decide which of the 2 Parties will win the Presidential Elections.
In Europe or in Canada, serious 3rd Parties know how to NEGOTIATE that kind of political weight.
That could be the political leverage we need to stop the War spending, to impose a group of 3rd Party Congressmen and women in the House and Senate, to negotiate several Cabinet positions in the future Federal Government, etc...
Are Americans too stupid to engage in COALITION POLITICS in order to modify the BALANCE OF POWER in America's political landscape ?
The same old loosing, unrealistic, "winner-take-all" 3rd Party Strategies from past Presidential Elections are certainly not going to mobilize very many people.
We need a New Strategy to ORGANIZE, MOBILIZE and NEGOTIATE Political Power. If people feel that their vote will actually have an impact in the real world, and not merely be an abstract political statement, then they'll be much more motivated to engage in political activity.
- 23 Million young people voted Obama in 2008.
- Only 9 Million voted Obama in 2010.
- 14 Million young people stayed home...
That should give us some idea of the political potential of an Independent 3rd Party. Let's get to work. EN AVANT !!!
Myles Hoenig
Michael with the umlout makes good points but had a serious flaw in the thinking; perhaps it was an oversight. He said a mere 5% could decide which of the 2 parties would win.
The purpose of an independent, 3rd party is not to decide the race for the other, but to do all one can to win it themselves. Sure, not likely in our political culture for now, but we shouldn't be thinking in those terms, even if those terms are the reality. We can change reality by thinking outside of the 2 party box.
To Elizabeth: How is Obama truly better than some of the fringe candidates? He's mainstream Wall Street and every evil associated with it; along with so many other evils. OK, he might not outlaw kissing in public or doing away with the Dept of Ed but his policies with Ed are horrible as it is. (I'm a veteran public school teacher) His policies on Ed (among nearly every other policy) is an extension of and usually worse than Bush's.
No comments:
Post a Comment