Jill Stein is yet another third party candidate who may be an
option for those unhappy with their choices in the two party system.
Platform
Stein’s platform looks solid upon initial investigation. She hits a lot of the right notes, and listening to her rhetorically, she seems to be trying hard to win over disaffected Sanders supporters like myself. She criticizes the two party system and economic reform seems to be at the top of her agenda. She is also very anti war and has a libertarian social agenda. She looks good upon initial inspection.
Problems arise as one looks deeper
Stein sounds good ideologically and rhetorically, but many of her positions begin to crumble when they are looked at in detail. To be fair, this is true of Sanders as well, although to a lesser extent (the funding mechanisms for his education and healthcare proposals are questionable, for reference). However, while Sanders at least tries to come up with ways to fund his ideas, Stein just throws out crazy proposals like candy. For example, in her recent Reddit AMA she pushed for the forgiveness of student loan debt via quantitative easing. Asking people about this, it appears this idea would increase the money supply permanently and cause inflation. It isn’t a workable proposal. It’s not even close. On foreign policy, she pushed for closing a significant portion of US bases and significantly cutting our military budget. Don’t get me wrong. We can afford to trim the military. However, I get the impression Stein wants to take a hack saw to it. It is one thing to oppose further involvement while keeping a presence to us safe, but significant cuts on the level we are talking about may put the US and the world’s stability at risk. It is irresponsible.
It get worse. Looking at her science positions, she is completely crazy. To be fair, Sanders can be cringey himself looking at his anti nuclear and anti gmo perspectives, but Stein appears to appeal to a lot of left wing quackery. She opposes nuclear power, which is, in my opinion, one of the safer forms of energy. She criticizes GMOs and the medical industry. She opposes mandatory vaccination, which I see as a matter of public health.
Is she worth voting for?
That being said, Stein may speak well on economic and social issues, but many of her ideas in practice are cringe worthy and unworkable. While Sanders has these problems too to an extent, he keeps it to a level minor enough that I believe they can be overlooked, as good ideas with imperfect implementations can be worked on and improved in the details. However, sometimes what Stein proposes is just so extreme and unworkable that there is no way they can be properly implemented as they are being proposed at all, even on a conceptual level. If Stein were a serious candidate, I probably would not support her.
However, one thing that should be noted is that, as a third party candidate, Stein will never actually be in a position of power. The purpose of voting for her would not be to elect her. It would be to send a message to the two party system that things have to change. Stein’s ideas may not be practical, but they sound good and get people questioning and talking, especially on economics and the flaws of the political system as it exists. If a significant portion of the left voting base supported Stein, it would send a message to the democrats that they should move to the left and adopt aspects of her platform into their own in the future. This could force the democrats to run more Sanders-like candidates in the future and recognize that they cannot win unless they appeal to progressives. In my book, that is mission accomplished.
Platform
Stein’s platform looks solid upon initial investigation. She hits a lot of the right notes, and listening to her rhetorically, she seems to be trying hard to win over disaffected Sanders supporters like myself. She criticizes the two party system and economic reform seems to be at the top of her agenda. She is also very anti war and has a libertarian social agenda. She looks good upon initial inspection.
Problems arise as one looks deeper
Stein sounds good ideologically and rhetorically, but many of her positions begin to crumble when they are looked at in detail. To be fair, this is true of Sanders as well, although to a lesser extent (the funding mechanisms for his education and healthcare proposals are questionable, for reference). However, while Sanders at least tries to come up with ways to fund his ideas, Stein just throws out crazy proposals like candy. For example, in her recent Reddit AMA she pushed for the forgiveness of student loan debt via quantitative easing. Asking people about this, it appears this idea would increase the money supply permanently and cause inflation. It isn’t a workable proposal. It’s not even close. On foreign policy, she pushed for closing a significant portion of US bases and significantly cutting our military budget. Don’t get me wrong. We can afford to trim the military. However, I get the impression Stein wants to take a hack saw to it. It is one thing to oppose further involvement while keeping a presence to us safe, but significant cuts on the level we are talking about may put the US and the world’s stability at risk. It is irresponsible.
It get worse. Looking at her science positions, she is completely crazy. To be fair, Sanders can be cringey himself looking at his anti nuclear and anti gmo perspectives, but Stein appears to appeal to a lot of left wing quackery. She opposes nuclear power, which is, in my opinion, one of the safer forms of energy. She criticizes GMOs and the medical industry. She opposes mandatory vaccination, which I see as a matter of public health.
Is she worth voting for?
That being said, Stein may speak well on economic and social issues, but many of her ideas in practice are cringe worthy and unworkable. While Sanders has these problems too to an extent, he keeps it to a level minor enough that I believe they can be overlooked, as good ideas with imperfect implementations can be worked on and improved in the details. However, sometimes what Stein proposes is just so extreme and unworkable that there is no way they can be properly implemented as they are being proposed at all, even on a conceptual level. If Stein were a serious candidate, I probably would not support her.
However, one thing that should be noted is that, as a third party candidate, Stein will never actually be in a position of power. The purpose of voting for her would not be to elect her. It would be to send a message to the two party system that things have to change. Stein’s ideas may not be practical, but they sound good and get people questioning and talking, especially on economics and the flaws of the political system as it exists. If a significant portion of the left voting base supported Stein, it would send a message to the democrats that they should move to the left and adopt aspects of her platform into their own in the future. This could force the democrats to run more Sanders-like candidates in the future and recognize that they cannot win unless they appeal to progressives. In my book, that is mission accomplished.
No comments:
Post a Comment