[WB-Discuss] Jill Stein

[Edmund R. MacKenty]

Aram Falsafi writes:
>I disagree with MacK, Jai, and especially with Jill on this one. Sure we can
>cover our asses by making sure that after this election we will be able to say
>"we didn't do it" (especially if Kerry loses). But then what? How long are we
>going to say that we will only run candidates as long as it doesn't hurt the
>Dems? Are we a third party, or an appendage of the Democratic Party? If we are
>such kingmakers, how come the only thing they have to say to us is "don't you
>dare run a candidate."

I'm not saying that we have to bow to the Dems, all I was doing was
articulating some goals and tossing out a plan that tries to accomplish
them.  If we're going to get anywhere, we can't just discuss the "why" of
things all the time; we have to define exactly what our goals are and then
make a plan for getting to them.  Maybe the goals I put out are the wrong
ones, but can we start discussing what the right ones might be?

>We need to take on this "spoiler" argument eventually, and transfer the
>burden onto those who control electoral laws, and challenge them to change
>the laws to remove the spoiler effect. Unless we're willing to remain a
>party that gets 3-5% of the vote indefinitely, in which case what is the
>point? And the longer we play into the hands of the Democratic Party hacks
>who make this argument, the harder it will be to counter it.

I agree, but just how are we going to take on the "spoiler" argument?  We
can challenge the major parties all we want, but you know what?  They can
just ignore us.  So what if it's illogical and unfair that election laws
are stacked against any third party?  They're not going to change them just
because we point that out, no matter how publicly we do so.  They'll only
change the rules if we force them to change them, and we can only do that
by wielding real political power.

There's no way they're going to give us any power; we have to take it
ourselves.  And the way to do that in our democracy is to find out why
people are dissatisfied with the major parties and/or aren't voting, and to
structure our party to win those votes.  (The other way is to spend
millions of dollars on media buys to repeat some message over and over
again until it becomes "truth".  Doesn't matter what the message is or even
if it's a blatant lie, as long as you say it often enough.  But I'm not
going there.)  My idea of putting Mr. Kerry on our ballot is designed to
take power: we give those people who are holding their nose to vote for
Kerry a way to do so while making it very clear that they are voting for
the lesser of two evils.  But in doing that, they give our party political
clout.  That's hardly playing into their hands.

With some actual voter share, we can go to the Dems and force them to deal
with us.  Begin the process of changing those laws.  It doesn't matter if
we help elect a Dem right now because it's going to take a few election
cycles to get anywhere.  Better to grab some power now while we can then
to play nice and hope voters like us.  Heck, we can't even reach most of
them.

And we shouldn't focus just on the Dems.  We can't let the major parties
keep pushing us over to the far left, where they can call us "extremists"
regardless of our true position.  We have to appeal to as many voters as we
can.  I think we should just step off the whole "political spectrum" thing
entirely, which is why I brought up the right-wing environmentalists
before.  Any party that can appeal to the left and right is assumed to
appeal to the middle too, so our apparent appeal is much broader.

>Personally, my believe is that the Dems would rather lose an election or
>two than open space for third parties that would take away their god-given
>right to every progressive's vote. But let's call them on this one.

I don't agree with that, I don't think they're thinking about third parties
as much as they are trying to figure out what Gingrich, DeLay and Rove have
done to them.  They're on the ropes, and have been for a while.  They've
been unable to convince people that these aggressive Republicans are wrong,
and they're paying for it.

I don't much care what we end up doing, as long as we know why we're doing
it, where it gets us, and how.  That is, we need a plan to reach specific
goals in a way that's consistent with our values.  I'll list the goals I
suggested again.  Could someone please propose some better ones?

a) help to build our party
b) don't help Mr. Bush
c) clearly distinguish us from Mr. Nader

The last is what says we should take on  "spoiler" smear.
	- MacK.
-----
Edmund R. MacKenty

The only difference between a rut and a grave is the depth.