I DON'T REALLY CARE, DO YOU?

The 1960 presidential campaign was the first one I paid any attention to.  I was 13 at the time, and was visiting relatives in Northern California during the Democratic convention. We watched on TV as John F. Kennedy won the nomination.  That fall, my social studies class held mock presidential debates.  My fellow 8th graders and I tried in vain to articulate the difference between the respective positions of Kennedy and Nixon on Quemoy and Matsu. 

What’s that, you say?  You don’t remember Quemoy and Matsu?  Well, they did an amazing job, and were being recognized more and more – until the election was over, and everyone forgot about them.

They were (and are) islands in the Taiwan Strait.  The People’s Republic of China (Red China, as everyone called it back then) and the Republic of China (Taiwan) both claimed ownership.  Kennedy and Nixon both supported Taiwan’s claims, of course.  The only question was which candidate hated Red China more. 

The Kennedy-Nixon debate in 1960 was the first presidential debate to be televised.  Afterwards, polling indicated that those who watched the debates on TV thought Kennedy won, while those who listened on the radio gave the nod to Nixon.  It’s now an article of faith among journalists that Kennedy “won” the debate because he was more telegenic.  I’ll post a link to the transcript of that 1960 debate below, but don’t read it unless you want to be depressed.  It will remind you that there was a time, in what seems like a mythical past, when even a Republican presidential candidate could articulate his views in complete sentences.  Without insulting his opponent. 

Ah well.  Forgive the ramblings of an old man. 

My point is that it’s useful to keep Quemoy and Matsu in mind as the 2020 presidential campaign hits its stride.  Democratic health care policy is a good example of a 21st century Quemoy/Matsu issue.  The press thrives on a narrative of conflict and controversy, but compared to Trump and the Republicans, the difference between the positions of the major Democratic candidates is minimal.  Ditto for proposals about climate change and gun control and whatever else. 

You can take this to the bank:  The worst Democratic proposal will be better than the best Republican proposal. 

But wait, you may be thinking.  I have other options.  What about the Greens and Libertarians?  Don’t they have some good ideas?  Why, yes.  Yes, they do.  But the only way any of their ideas will ever be implemented is if they’re adopted by the Democratic or Republican Party. 

Remember how, in 2016, Greens, Libertarians, and progressive non-voters who hated Hillary Clinton argued that there was no real difference between the two major parties, and that the best-case scenario would be to burn it all down and start over?  Well, they got what they wanted.  Donald Trump is burning it all down.  How’s the starting over going?

Building a credible political party requires sustained effort – going to meetings, circulating petitions, recruiting members, raising money, and running for office. How many of those disaffected progressives have done any of that since November 8, 2016?  My guess is, virtually none of them. 

Is that too harsh?  OK, tell me what those Greens, Libertarians, and progressive non-voters have accomplished since 2016.  Which policies have they implemented?  Which candidates have they elected? 

But wait, you may be thinking.  What about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Presley, and Rashida Tlaib.  Well, what about them?  They’re serious politicians, ready and willing to work hard for the policies they support.  In other words, they’re Democrats – not Greens, Libertarians, or virtue-signaling dropouts.  They are, in other words, precisely the opposite of the hipster puritans who surface every four years to insist that no credible candidate is worthy of their vote. 

And what has all this purity accomplished?  They celebrated the beginning of the 21st century by effectively submarining the candidacy of Al Gore, helping to elect George W. Bush in 2000.  Voting for Ralph Nader got them an endless war in the Middle East, as well as a subprime mortgage crisis and a global recession. 

Did that prompt them to re-evaluate their strategy?  Of course not.  Being a hipster puritan means never having to say you’re sorry.  The next chance they got – in 2016 – they took a look at Donald Trump and opted to join the Russo-Republican attack on Hillary Clinton.

Is a puzzlement.  Luckily, we have tools to analyze the situation.  Cicero, the Roman statesman, asked, “cui bono?”  Who benefits?  Follow the money, or the power, to find your answer.  Centuries later, a Franciscan friar proposed a principle that came to be known as Occam’s Razor – given a choice between two or more plausible explanations, the simplest one is to be preferred. 

I can think of a few relatively simple explanations for the behavior of progressives whose election day behavior – voting third party or not voting at all – helps elect candidates whose views are antithetical to theirs. 

One possibility is that they’re just not very smart.  Their self-regard blinds them to the downside of their actions.  They live in a “2 + 2 = 5” world, and they’re stuck there.

A second possibility is that they’re just lazy.  Creating an effective political movement takes hard work.  It’s easier to announce proudly that none of the candidates with an actual chance to win is worthy of their vote.  Then they can spend the next four years blaming everyone except themselves for the consequences of their actions. 

Of course, it’s possible to be lazy and stupid at the same time. 

My third possibility is a bit of a stretch.  It’s cynical at best, and a conspiracy theory at worst.  But it’s not outside the realm of possibility that some Nader voters were actually sympathetic to Bush in 2000, or that some Stein/Johnson voters were secretly pulling for Trump in 2016. 

If that sounds far-fetched, try this thought experiment.  If Nader voters in 2000 wanted to help George W. Bush without actually appearing to support him, what would they have done differently?  In 2016, if Jill Stein and Gary Johnson voters wanted to help Donald Trump without actually appearing to support him, what would they have done differently? 

Cui bono?  Who benefited from Nader votes in 2000, or from Stein/Johnson votes in 2016?  Spoiler alert:  Republicans, both times.  The party of the rich, the party of white nationalism, the party of the patriarchy.  Way to go, progressives!

Fast forward to 2019.  We’re in the process of finding a Democrat to run against Donald Trump in 2020 (assuming, for the sake of the argument, that Trump lasts that long).  There are lots of candidates.  Probably you like some of them more than others.  Me too.

My prediction, though, is that the same people who gravitated to Nader in 2000 and to Stein or Johnson in 2016 will find a reason not to vote for the Democratic nominee in 2020.  And that will be true whether the Democratic nominee is Joe Biden or Elizabeth Warren. 

If one of them tries to talk you into voting Green or Libertarian, remember Cicero’s question.  Cui bono?  Who would benefit if you voted for a third party, or didn’t vote at all?  Not the Greens or Libertarians, who aren’t serious about achieving national success.  Their strategy is to snooze for three years and poke their heads up every fourth year to recruit the next wave of hipster puritans. 

Nope.  Rationalize your vote how you will.  But our next president will be either the Democratic or Republican nominee.  If you vote for anyone besides the Democrat, you’re helping the Republican.

The Kennedy-Nixon TV debate transcript:  https://www.debates.org/voter-education/debate-transcripts/september-26-1960-debate-transcript/