Topic: Presidential Campaign 2008
After Hillary, Voting With Conscience and Pride Time for Americans to find the courage and vote against the two-party plutocracy.by Joel S. Hirschhorn
(Centrist Liberal Libertarian)
Friday, May 9, 2008
This general election more than most will test the courage of voters to avoid lesser-evil strategic voting that has propped up our two-party plutocracy. People with intelligence and conscience must resist peer pressure and the temptation to vote against John McCain by voting for Barack Obama.
Of course, a McCain presidency that pursues much of the same policies and values of the totally inept and morally bankrupt Bush administration is something to loathe. But lesser-evil voting sustains our corrupt political system.
Many say they are voting for Barack Obama in a most enthusiastic and positive way. For me, this does not work. I see no compelling evidence in Obama's history that he has what it takes to be a true, solid reformer. All I see is a young, inexperienced terrific talker that has used slick rhetoric to sell himself. With intellectual and ideological elitism and an aura of superiority and academic smugness, he has successfully fooled millions of people who are so disillusioned with our corrupt political system that they have let themselves be manipulated by poetic promises of change. In reality, he is just another super-ambitious, lying mainstream politician that has taken considerable money and support from all sorts of corporate and other special interests.
Indeed, despite all the hoopla about huge numbers of small contributors to he has also relied on exactly the same kind of big, wealthy supporters as the other candidates. As the Washington Post noted in the article Big Donors Among Obama's Grass Roots: "Seventy-nine 'bundlers,' five of them billionaires, have tapped their personal networks to raise at least $200,000 each. They have helped the campaign recruit more than 27,000 donors to write checks for $2,300, the maximum allowed. Donors who have given more than $200 account for about half of Obama's total haul, which stands at nearly $240 million. ...The list includes partners from 18 top law firms, 21 Wall Street executives and power brokers from Fortune 500 companies."
Sure, Obama says that small contributors will have access, but Obama's bundlers help make up a more loosely defined "national finance committee," whose members are made to feel part of the campaign's inner workings through weekly conference calls and quarterly meetings at which they quiz the candidate or his strategists. Not exactly what $20 contributors get.
I remain troubled that Michelle Obama's salary at University of Chicago Hospitals when her husband won the US Senate seat was $121,000. Within weeks of his swearing in, her salary went to over $320,000. The following year Obama did an earmark request for $1 million for her employer.
Todd Spivak of the Houston Press has documented how Obama accomplished next to nothing in his first six years in the Illinois legislature. But then Democrat Emil Jones Jr. an African American with thirty years in the legislature became head of the senate and explicitly decided to make the young Obama a US senator. He did this by making Obama a sponsor of 26 bills that became law. This gave Obama exactly what he needed to portray himself as a highly successful legislator. Has Obama repaid Jones? Yes. He has provided tens of millions in earmarks for Jones' district. As to such actions, Jones famously said: "Some call it pork; I call it steak."
Also, Obama's judgments about people he has used to advance his career have been appalling. These include a former domestic terrorist, a radical hate-selling pastor and a federally indicted Chicago wheeler-dealer. While he talks about bringing diverse interests together, he has never done that to any significant degree as a senator or candidate. Voters have been divided along race lines whether or not it was planned. If he was not black he would not be getting over 90 percent of the African-American vote, without which he would not have beaten Clinton. There is no valid reason for making someone president because of his race.
Make no mistake; I was never for Clinton either. And I never appreciated why anyone should prefer her because of her sex. Call me an idealist, but the only candidate for president worth voting for should have nothing to do with their color, gender or religion.
What are better options for voters?
One choice is to boycott the presidential election altogether and not be a co-conspirator in the criminal conspiracy that our two-party political system has become. This requires facing the ugly reality that voting for Democrats or Republicans will never deliver the root, systemic reforms our failing democracy requires.
Better yet, if you feel compelled to vote, then vote for Ralph Nader. He has a distinguished record over many decades of working solely in the public interest without succumbing to corporate and other special interests seeking political favors. If honesty, integrity, intellectuality, independence, courageous policy positions and true political reforms matter to you, then Nader merits your support. This man of principles deserves your principled vote.
Here are some Nader positions that Obama and McCain do NOT support but that our nation sorely needs: a single payer universal health care system, aggressive crackdown on corporate welfare and crime, impeachment of Bush and Cheney, ending corporate personhood, adopting a carbon pollution tax, opening up ballot access. And Nader is a genuine supporter of the national peace movement to end the US occupation of Iraq. Note that Obama supported the reelection of Iraq war supporter Joe Lieberman. Unlike Obama, Nader is against government subsidies for turning corn into ethanol.
"We need a Jeffersonian revolution," says Nader. "If it doesn't happen, our democracy will continue to weaken and things will get worse. Right now, we have a two-party electoral dictatorship with each party looking for the highest corporate bidder." Amen.
I have been voting for Nader, the most legitimate populist and progressive, whenever he has been on my ballot. This wisdom by I.F. Stone keeps me committed to him: "The only kinds of fights worth fighting are those you are going to lose, because somebody has to fight them and lose and lose and lose until someday, somebody who believes as you do wins. In order for somebody to win an important, major fight 100 years hence, a lot of other people have got to be willing - for the sheer fun and joy of it - to go right ahead and fight, knowing you're going to lose. You mustn't feel like a martyr. You've got to enjoy it."
The fight is not about electing Nader president, but overthrowing the two-party plutocracy that is killing the middle class and fostering rising economic inequality. Should you have any negative thoughts about Nader because of the 2000 election, the facts refute blaming him for the Bush victory, including more than 200,000 registered Democrats in Florida that voted for Bush (compared to 97,000 votes for Nader, only 25 percent of which would have voted for Gore) and over half of the registered Democrats that did not vote at all because Gore ran a terrible campaign.
Go to www.votenader.org to learn more and join this patriotic effort to spark a Second American Revolution. Enjoy yourself. Feel proud.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 37 thumbs so far
2008 Joel S. Hirschhorn, all rights reserved.
Published: Friday, May 9, 2008
Last modified: Friday, May 9, 2008
The views expressed in this
article are those of Joel S. Hirschhorn only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Joel S. Hirschhorn is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Centrism is why we have a two-party system. Let's face it Ralph Nader like Ron Paul is viewed as a kook by the mainstream. A two party system keeps us safe from total socialism, total freedom loss, and total tyrany. Now this may not seem important to you, but let's view an example of why a two party system is better than a mulitple party system.
First off In Texas Gov. Rick Perry won reellection with 38% of the vote. How did this happen? He had 4 other candidates running against him. Why did he have 4 other candidates running against him? Because he had the almost mandatory Democrat opponenent plus Kinky Friedman, A loser libertarian cadidate named James Werner, and a Republican running as an independent named Carole Keeton Strayhorn. Here is how it turned out:
Rick Perry (Incombent R): 39.3%
Curtis Bell (D): 29.8%
Strayhorn(I-R): 18.1%
Friedman(I): 12.4%
Werner (L): 1.8%
So as you can see Rick Perry is not the majority governor of every Texan. Lincoln had won the presidency due to 4 different Democrats running against one another. Had they had a single candidate, there is no doubt that slavery would not have been banned.
This is why Centrism works. It literally is populism. When America's voters overwhelmingly favor the legalization of Marijuana on a consistant basis, only then will we see it legalized.
Why do you say "After Hillary..."? Did you just decide on Nader after Hillary did not win the Democratic nomination. Are you a clintonista hoping to defeat Obama in the fall so that the field will be clear for Hillary in 2012?
Great column! Sort of related to the quote you have at the end is a quote from Ralph Nader: "Don't ever let anybody tell you things will never happen about things that should happen."
Lloyd, I'm not sure I agree with your analysis. I understand your point about centrism. It's not a leftist world or a rightist world. It's a world that has to accomodate all viewpoints. And the genius of the American system (until 2001) was that the pendulum never swung so far to the right or left that we had to endure communism or fascism.
But two party control doesn't protect us from an historical train wreck. I would put it in the context of the long battle between labor and capital. The power behind capital has figured out that without civic vigilance it can co-opt both parties. I would also say that it has achieved this by using television and media to lull a comfortable populace into ceding control of the government and economy to them. You can call that conspiracy theory if you want, that's just how I see it.
Also the presence of third parties has upset the perfect balance between the two main parties again and again in our history. It isn't always an expression of the will of the people but it is the way it has always been. And sometimes, as with the case of Lincoln and the end of slavery, the country moves forward because of it.
How best do you represent centrism then? A healthy two-party system is not run like an industry. Today, we have a duopoly of parties who buy up credible ideas from third parties to ensure they continue to gain support from special interests and certain elite donors. The current two-party system has lasted for nearly a 150 years (by the time it's 2010). Since then, the parties have grown stagnant and no longer represent the people's interests. Catch-all platforms make both parties vastly identical. The only difference is how you want to go out: through war, or socialism. Even these issues will converge.
Sometimes positive change DOES come from minority voices, especially when it's legitimate. (Which, by the way, Lincoln's victory for the Republicans hardly was.) People themselves do not know what they want. That is to suggest, they don't know more than the fact that they don't want to pay 5 bucks for gasoline. Herein lies the mandate politicians use to tailor harmful legislation.
Four or five parties may be a little too much, but a third party would definitely add to the mix. This way, the platforms are differientated, so the popular mandate is CLEAR, one third of the system is always being rotated, the other two reinvigorated, and there's a constant deadlock and check. Three is a significant number for a reason.
I agree with you on this, Joel. Although I'm not going for Nader-I've no use for the progressive agenda. I'm likely going to vote for the Libertarian candidate-if it is a sane person(a rather large "if") If not, I'll write my own name in...I don't believe in the things that any of the big three are selling, why vote for them.
To Lloyd, I'm no Lincoln fan, but your use of the end of slavery(something Lincoln did not, and did not want to, do)as a flail agianst mutiple parties(or no parties)is....well, weird...unless you are suggesting that multiple parties caused the War of Northern Agression?
Voting for a presiential candidate is the least of what we do politically. Figuring out the best use of our one vote is important. But not as important as expressing ideas and getting out and shifting power on the ground. That's what labor unions used to do. Before Taft-Hartley there was actually a contest of power between average people and the money in control. We rode the wave of that empowerment through the sixties, the golden age of the American middle-class. Now because of television we barely have a concept of contesting control of our lives.
Amassing votes for a single idea can still work, but it's clear we're up against great odds. I would take single-payer healthcare as the best example. It is the only real solution for a problem that most of us face. (It's a seperate debate to justify this.) But it means confronting the power of the insurance industry and Wall Street itself. But all of the main sources of information and public discourse are controlled by these very monied interests.
If we want to see whether democracy is alive in this country this is where to start. Can enough people (and this would include many in the business community) understand their own self-interest and demand a solution to over-ride the vast power of the propoganda media?
No presidential candidate will come along and hand us the right policy on a platter. It has to come from the bottom up and force the ruling elite to implement it. This seems difficult but feasiable. Issues not candidates.
Unfortunately our own constitution presents one problem for getting a third party candidate into the White house. In a three way race it is quite possible that no candidate will get a majority of the electoral vote. In that case the president is to be selected by the House of Representatives. So what are the odds that a House dominated by Democrats and Republicans will vote for a third party candidate?
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
2008 Joel S. Hirschhorn, all rights reserved.