We've seen it for almost 2 years now. "There's so much at stake!", "vote blue no matter who!", "we can't allow Trump to become president!", "the reality is you live in a two party system and Clinton is better than Trump!" And, as you know, I'm sick and tired of this crap. I support third parties. I am unapologetic about this. While I don't like everything about third party candidates either, I will happily support them given the alternatives.
Here's the thing, voting third party is about sending a message. It's about saying, "hey, major parties, you need to shape up and I refuse to support you any more." If done in great enough numbers, where it threatens electoral victories, it can be a powerful tool in forcing the parties to reconsider their priorities and accommodate disaffected voting blocks.
Voting for Clinton in the current circumstances if you don't like her, is, quite frankly, like being a battered spouse who goes back to their abuser because they are desperate. That's the best way to put it. You know she's bad for you, you know she treats you like crap, and you know that this will not get better, but you go back to her anyway because if you don't you'll be left out in the cold. And you know what? The abuser knows this, the abuser counts on this. They know you'll be back. They know you can't survive without them. They know they can treat you like crap and get away with it. They're counting on this. Hillary, going into this election, counted on the fact that she can use you and abuse you and treat you like crap, and you'll be back because Trump. Going back just validates this abusive mindset, and keeps us stuck in the tyranny of this two party system.
Look, I know the prospect of Trump for president is scary. And quite frankly, I think Clinton would be better outcome for the next four years. My ideal election situation is Clinton winning very narrowly (say, 2000 levels narrowly) with a very significant 3rd party support on both sides. However, if we want to break away from this abusive relationship, we need to be prepared to vote against Hillary and support a candidate like Stein, or even Johnson if you're a right winger, someone who is relatively honest and nonabusive toward their constituents, even if it means throwing an election or two. In the short term, yes, the results may be a disaster, we might end up with a candidate we really dont like in office. However, think of it like ripping a band aid off all at once. We need stick to our guns and rip that band aid off in one fall swoop so that we can begin the healing process more easily. By supporting Clinton, we're ripping it off one hair at a time, which is less painful short term, but more so long term.
What message will we send Clinton if we support her? That she can treat us like crap and we'll still vote for her, that's what. And while people talk about pressuring her after she gets in office, how? She got there with our help, she doesn't need us further except to win reelection. We have little power to leverage and threaten us, especially considering how, in 2020, the republican candidate isn't going to be much better. Cruz vs. Clinton, 2020, calling it now. Or maybe Rubio or Ryan vs Clinton. Will that be any better than Trump? Not really. While the republicans will be less unhinged, they'll still be scary. And people will once again be faced with a choice of big scary republican or Clinton. They really are gonna pull this game on us every 4 years unless we tell them to stop, and we tell them to stop by refusing to play. It might be painful, but that pain is coming anyway. Clinton isn't great and the republicans will eventually win again. The democrats can't hold out forever. They will lose one of these days, because they don't have a vision to win over peoples' hearts and minds and make more permanent victories possible. Once again, we might as well just pull the band aid off. It sends a stronger message and tells them that they need to change.
Spot on. I agree with your analysis that Stein is possibly a bit too radical for most Sanders supporters, but compared to Clinton, she is really the lesser of four evils.
ReplyDeleteThe other thing is, one of the reasons why the Green party has gotten so radicalized is that the Democratic party made Ralph Nader public enemy #1, and has made a point of destroying the Green party their modus operandi. If the Green party had a _fraction_ of the resources the Democrats did, they too would appear like policy wonks by consulting economists for hours before giving a policy speech. I don't think Stein has daily access to Richard Wolff, for example, and he probably doesn't want to endure the attacks of the entire media.
That's a good point. And if Stein were to have hypothetically won, she could have likely taken her core ideals and got together with some experts and made them happen. It might not have necessarily been in the form promised, but hey, it has to beat what the GOP and democrats are willing to do...
ReplyDelete