“But I love Bernie! He’s the first politician I’ve ever…”
I did not cry, when Bernie endorsed Hillary. I had worked for him, donated money, time, letters to the Editor, but when he endorsed Hillary, I agreed with him. To me, he wasn’t giving up; he wasn’t selling out; he was acting strategically. He saw that he could not win the nomination, although he had come tantalizingly close, and had mobilized a significant segment of the potential Democratic Party’s constituency.
Yes, obstacles were put there by the DNC and state Democratic parties; there was a conscious attempt by some in the DNC to diminish Bernie’s appeal in any way they could. But it’s probable Bernie still would not have won even without these sub rosa efforts. He couldn’t mobilize Black, Asian and Latino voters, or even Whites with less than a college education: the latter are Trump’s special constituency. He knew that. He’d tried, with BlackLivesMatter, and with other outreach efforts.
So, Bernie wasn’t selling out; he was acting strategically: when he stopped campaigning, did not endorse, but negotiated with Hillary. They both compromised; that’s the nature of politics that works. After he’d gotten what he could get—for all of us—he endorsed her.
Bernie has also stated over and over again, that Trump must be stopped, and he’ll do everything in his power to prevent his election. Why?
It’s not because he’s sold out; it’s because he’s gotten considerable concessions from Hillary, and they hold a lot of views in common to begin with, like their view of Supreme Court nominations. What he’s modeling is what you do in strategic voting.
The difference between strategic voting and ideological voting is in what each accomplishes. More narrowly, issues voting means you vote only for particular policies. The extreme example is the anti-abortion voter, who will only vote for a candidate who is explicitly anti-abortion, the more obdurate the better. If feelings are intense enough, issue voting may actually result in legislation and policy, but usually it’s never enough for the true believer—on whatever issue—and it only has impact on that issue.
Broader than issue voting is ideological voting. This is voting for a candidate who best exemplifies the voter’s ideological preferences, even if the candidate has no chance of winning office, and therefore no chance of putting that ideology into legislation and actual practice.
Ideological voting best describes the Bernie voter who gravitates to the Green Party’s Jill Stein, or the libertarian Republican supporter of Rand Paul, who supports Gary Johnson.
In a winner-take-all electoral system, which is what the US has had since its founding, and what our neighbor, Canada, to the North has as well, both issue and ideological voting can have paradoxical effects. In a winner-take-all political system, a plurality (not a majority), wins the election. In Canada’s case, for two separate elections, voters on the left split their votes between the New Democratic Party, the Liberal Party, and Parti Quebecois. While the left was in a clear majority, it lost, heavily, to Steven Harper, Conservative, who was funded by the oil industry in Alberta. So, all Canada’s support for combatting climate change was thrown out the window; government encouraged Tar Sands oil production, while social programs were radically defunded: the electoral structure permitted a minority to elect a large majority in Parliament. After two terms, the Conservatives were thrown out by a more unified left, behind the moderately leftward Liberal party. They had discovered how horrible it was to have a radical right-wing government.
The same thing can happen here. If the race between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump is close (still a real possibility), ideological votes for Stein and Johnson could be the deciding factor: not in one of the latter winning, (there’s no chance of that) but in the triumph of the Democrat or Republican candidate who loses the fewest votes to the third party candidate to his or her left or right.
In other words, if Jill Stein were able to attract a larger slice of former Bernie voters than Gary Johnson gained from disaffected Republican voters, it would become increasingly difficult for Democrats to win.
I suspect that Johnson also attracts issue-voting millennials, with his legalize marijuana position; many of these were former Bernie voters. His polling at twice the level of Stein, may in part be because of this, so he takes votes away from both Trump and Hillary.
The paradoxical effect of Bernie Sanders mobilizing young, left-wing voters, increasing the size of the left-leaning constituency (from left of center to far left) could permit Trump to win, if too many of these newly mobilized voters end up voting for Stein or Johnson: a minority, voting for Trump, could prevail over a left of center majority that is split into two or three parts.
Now, think of the consequences: instead of Bernie in the Senate being joined by a President and Congress that supports much of his agenda, and is likely to be responsive to pressure brought to bear by groups like Our Revolution and BlackLivesMatter, instead, Trump would be President.
Would Trump and the triumphant Republicans give credence to any left-wing group? Of course not. Bernie endorsed Hillary for a reason: her election would be the best chance to carry out much of his (and our) agenda in the next four years. With a Republican White House and Congress, we would get a Supreme Court that overthrew Roe v Wade and permitted even more voter suppression; the US would be ramping up of coal mining and oil drilling, not mitigating global warming; there would be an increase in racist policies at all levels, and rejection of virtually every policy that Bernie and his supporters advocated: instead of a public option for healthcare, you’d have a return to the monopoly-controlled market and rejection of even the minimal reform represented by Obamacare.
Strategic voting for a Bernie supporter, instead, would be: to vote for Democrats, however flawed they may be, because this would accomplish two things: it would prevent what could amount to a Fascist takeover, much like the minority Nazis taking over the German government in the face of a divided left and center, and it would increase pressure for the kinds of changes we (Berniers) all want.
Besides: if you love Bernie, strategic voting is clearly what he advocates, even despite the corruption of the Democratic Party by the likes of Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Further Bernie activists can do what Kelleigh McKenzie, co-founder of Ulster4Bernie, is attempting in Ulster County: to gain election to the NY State Democratic Committee, so she can help bend the party in a progressive direction. She appears to say: if you don’t like the Democratic Party, work on changing it.
That’s strategic thinking.
Wednesday, August 31, 2016
Friday, August 19, 2016
Protest Voting is White Privilege
It’s White Privilege to vote for Jill, because you can’t have Bernie. Why? Because, Trump’s win wouldn’t affect you so immediately, as it would a poor, black woman, who couldn’t afford a now illegal, safe abortion, and in desperation would go to a butcher and die in an alley.
You say: Hillary’s just as bad?
That was the argument Nader used to attract Democratic malcontents away from Gore in 2000. Despite Nader’s ‘Not a Dime’s Worth of Difference,’ if Gore had been elected, we would NOT have had the Iraq War, our reaction to 911 would NOT have led to torture and the surveillance state. We might not have had the 2008 collapse. And we would NOW have a plan in place to mitigate or reverse global warming.
Whether Nader threw the election to Bush, Bush’s victory over Gore, who received more votes, changed the political dynamic in the US until at least 2006: strengthening the Republicans, so the Left, probably still a majority, was shoved aside. Bush’s ascendancy also strengthened the Republicans’ right wing, hence the emergence of the obstructionist Tea Party, after Obama Democrats asserted their majority in 2008-2010. The Tea Party wing of the GOP has played a major role in Obama’s inability to push through most of his progressive agenda.
Compare the 2016 Party Platforms of the Democrats and of the Republicans. You will see radical differences. Neither are ideal, but the Democratic platform was written in part by Bernie’s appointees; the Republican platform was written by Tony Perkins, the head of the right-wing, anti-gay Christian group, The Family Research Council.
The overriding philosophies of the two party platforms couldn’t be more different: government as a tool to respond to people’s needs, versus government should do as little as possible in the economy, and as much as possible to reverse social change: the “free market” will solve almost all economic problems, except security: internal as well as Defense, although both can be privatized much further, like more for-profit prisons. But government, according to Trump’s platform, can, maybe even must, intrude into your bedroom.
Democratic Platform
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/papers_pdf/117717.pdf
Republican Platform
https://prod-static-ngop-pbl.s3.amazonaws.com/media/documents/DRAFT_12_FINAL[1]-ben_1468872234.pdf
Gender and white privilege: voting for Jill will not protect my LGBTQ adult children, certainly not if Jill’s vote tips the balance as Nader’s may have done for Bush.
Voting for Jill won’t protect the African American man or woman who is guilty only of walking or driving while black. Because half a vote (in effect) for Trump, makes it that more likely that all their protections will be destroyed, and no reform will be possible. Trump’s appointment of Breitbart’s head to chief honcho of his campaign will only exacerbate his extremism. The man’s a racist, supported by racists.
And we’re not talking just about 4 years. A Trump Supreme Court would cement an extreme right-wing, pro-corporate, pro-authoritarian, anti-abortion majority of Justices that would last for the next generation. It might even enable a Trumpian dicatorship, if only for 8 or so years.
Hillary is definitely not a racist, although she’s a white lady, who may not always have a clue about the lives of African-Americans, or other people marginalized or oppressed. But she wants to understand, like her famous ‘listening tour’ of upstate NY, in her run for the Senate and then her attempts to help.
It is White Privilege that allows you to think that your ‘conscience’ can’t permit you to vote for someone “flawed” like Hillary. You’re closing your eyes to what her defeat would mean to the Hispanic and Muslim communities and to all undocumented. Trump has promised mass deportations, a wall and an absolute ban.
Hillary may not be perfect: she is hawkish, but she’s not a racist, a would-be dictator,or a proto-Fascist, (Trump argues that the United States should have seized Iraq’s oil assets after the 2003 invasion and deployed American troops, presumably indefinitely, to protect them: NY Times 8/18 Mussolini acted like that, and Hitler, too.). Do you want someone with an itchy trigger finger controlling the nuclear trigger?
Hillary is on the left to wishy-washy center, but not the right, and she has proven to be responsive to leftwing pressure (hence her changing positions). She was supposedly more leftish than Bill, when they first entered the national stage.
If you look at Hillary’s record, instead of believing right-wing propaganda, you will see that she has tried to help a lot of people, people of all different kinds, and she’s adopted a large part of Bernie’s agenda.
However, a vote in this election is not really about Hillary or Trump—or Bernie, as he said himself—it’s about what people need, and it is about what people can lose, big-time.
A vote for Jill might just tip the balance, so all could lose, just as with Brexit. The Brits have learned: votes like that can’t be undone.
You say: Hillary’s just as bad?
That was the argument Nader used to attract Democratic malcontents away from Gore in 2000. Despite Nader’s ‘Not a Dime’s Worth of Difference,’ if Gore had been elected, we would NOT have had the Iraq War, our reaction to 911 would NOT have led to torture and the surveillance state. We might not have had the 2008 collapse. And we would NOW have a plan in place to mitigate or reverse global warming.
Whether Nader threw the election to Bush, Bush’s victory over Gore, who received more votes, changed the political dynamic in the US until at least 2006: strengthening the Republicans, so the Left, probably still a majority, was shoved aside. Bush’s ascendancy also strengthened the Republicans’ right wing, hence the emergence of the obstructionist Tea Party, after Obama Democrats asserted their majority in 2008-2010. The Tea Party wing of the GOP has played a major role in Obama’s inability to push through most of his progressive agenda.
Compare the 2016 Party Platforms of the Democrats and of the Republicans. You will see radical differences. Neither are ideal, but the Democratic platform was written in part by Bernie’s appointees; the Republican platform was written by Tony Perkins, the head of the right-wing, anti-gay Christian group, The Family Research Council.
The overriding philosophies of the two party platforms couldn’t be more different: government as a tool to respond to people’s needs, versus government should do as little as possible in the economy, and as much as possible to reverse social change: the “free market” will solve almost all economic problems, except security: internal as well as Defense, although both can be privatized much further, like more for-profit prisons. But government, according to Trump’s platform, can, maybe even must, intrude into your bedroom.
Democratic Platform
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/papers_pdf/117717.pdf
Republican Platform
https://prod-static-ngop-pbl.s3.amazonaws.com/media/documents/DRAFT_12_FINAL[1]-ben_1468872234.pdf
Gender and white privilege: voting for Jill will not protect my LGBTQ adult children, certainly not if Jill’s vote tips the balance as Nader’s may have done for Bush.
Voting for Jill won’t protect the African American man or woman who is guilty only of walking or driving while black. Because half a vote (in effect) for Trump, makes it that more likely that all their protections will be destroyed, and no reform will be possible. Trump’s appointment of Breitbart’s head to chief honcho of his campaign will only exacerbate his extremism. The man’s a racist, supported by racists.
And we’re not talking just about 4 years. A Trump Supreme Court would cement an extreme right-wing, pro-corporate, pro-authoritarian, anti-abortion majority of Justices that would last for the next generation. It might even enable a Trumpian dicatorship, if only for 8 or so years.
Hillary is definitely not a racist, although she’s a white lady, who may not always have a clue about the lives of African-Americans, or other people marginalized or oppressed. But she wants to understand, like her famous ‘listening tour’ of upstate NY, in her run for the Senate and then her attempts to help.
It is White Privilege that allows you to think that your ‘conscience’ can’t permit you to vote for someone “flawed” like Hillary. You’re closing your eyes to what her defeat would mean to the Hispanic and Muslim communities and to all undocumented. Trump has promised mass deportations, a wall and an absolute ban.
Hillary may not be perfect: she is hawkish, but she’s not a racist, a would-be dictator,or a proto-Fascist, (Trump argues that the United States should have seized Iraq’s oil assets after the 2003 invasion and deployed American troops, presumably indefinitely, to protect them: NY Times 8/18 Mussolini acted like that, and Hitler, too.). Do you want someone with an itchy trigger finger controlling the nuclear trigger?
Hillary is on the left to wishy-washy center, but not the right, and she has proven to be responsive to leftwing pressure (hence her changing positions). She was supposedly more leftish than Bill, when they first entered the national stage.
If you look at Hillary’s record, instead of believing right-wing propaganda, you will see that she has tried to help a lot of people, people of all different kinds, and she’s adopted a large part of Bernie’s agenda.
However, a vote in this election is not really about Hillary or Trump—or Bernie, as he said himself—it’s about what people need, and it is about what people can lose, big-time.
A vote for Jill might just tip the balance, so all could lose, just as with Brexit. The Brits have learned: votes like that can’t be undone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)