WISHIN' AND HOPIN'

My friend Michela voiced some concerns about my September 15 post entitled I DON’T REALLY CARE, DO YOU?  You can check that post for context and other comments, but my response is (typically) too long to be a simple reply to a comment, so I’ve created a new post for it.  One important note.  When I talk about third party progressives, I’m talking about the Green Party, even though Michela didn’t mention a specific third-party.  Apart from specific references to Green leadership, though, the points I’m trying to make would apply to any third-party.  Finally, to make it easy to tell where Michela’s comments end and mine begin, I’ve retyped hers in ALL CAPS.  If you read that as yelling, blame me, not her.

“I LOVE READING YOUR OPINIONS, WHICH ARE INFORMATIVE AND ENTERTAINING, AND OFTEN INSPIRE ME TO ARTICULATE MY OWN OPINIONS. I WANTED TO PUSH BACK A LITTLE AGAINST THE BLAME OF 3RD PARTY VOTERS, EVEN THOUGH, I DO IN FACT TEND TO AGREE WITH YOUR REASONING WHEN VOTING. THERE’S AN INCONSISTENCY IN YOUR ARGUMENT.  YOU SAY 3RD PARTY VOTERS AREN’T WILLING TO PUT IN THE WORK TO CREATE A LEGITIMATE PARTY. FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE “PUTTING IN THE WORK” IS VOICING THEIR OPINION WITH THEIR VOTE. NOT EVERYONE HAS TIME FOR MEETINGS AND RAISING MONEY AND RECRUITING MEMBERS, AND I DON’T THINK THEY ARE MORALLY REQUIRED TO DO THOSE THINGS IN ORDER TO SHOW UP TO THE POLLS AND VOTE FOR THEIR CANDIDATE/THEIR PARTY.”

Fair enough.  But there’s a difference between “not everyone has time” and no one has time. What have Jill Stein and Ajamu Baraka been doing since Trump was inaugurated?  What about Ralph Nader?  (I checked his Wikipedia page.  He’s not even a Green anymore.)  Like it or not, building a political party with enough electoral clout to influence public policy requires a massive infrastructure investment.  Somebody is going to have to go to meetings, raise money, and recruit members.  Who’s going to do that for the Greens?  Rank and file Democrats and Republicans can just show up and vote every two or four years.  They’ve already got a major party.  Greens don’t have that luxury.

“BUT THEN YOU ALSO BLAME THEM IF THEY DO PUT IN THE WORK, WHICH UNDOUBTEDLY SOME OF THEM ARE.”  

I suppose it’s true that some Greens are putting in the work.  To the extent that’s true – and I’ll take your word for it – my next question would be whether they’re working effectively, or instead are devoting their time and effort to projects that will ultimately harm the causes they claim to support.  And I am absolutely convinced that helping to elect Republican presidents harms the causes Greens claim to support.  The Green Party has a strong environmental platform.  I’ve heard progressive voices say that we’re running out of time – that we’ve got maybe ten or twelve years to make a serious dent in global warming, or it will be too late.  But I get the impression that some progressives would rather give Donald Trump a second term than vote for Joe Biden.  I’m waiting for those folks to show me how they plan to save the planet by giving Republicans four more years to destroy it.

“AND YOU DON’T ACTUALLY WANT THEM CONVINCING ANYONE TO JOIN THEIR PARTY, AS YOU’VE MADE CLEAR.” 

Not exactly.  There’s a difference between joining the Green Party (fine with me), and voting for Ralph Nader or Jill Stein (not fine with me).  My main objection to the Greens (and Libertarians as well) is not that they recruit and advocate for their party’s positions, but that their primary focus always winds up being the presidency.  I say, vote for as many down-ballot Green candidates you want.  State and local elections are where Greens could make a difference, and also lay the foundation for success in national elections.  

Or build your party your way and show me that I’m wrong.  But if the path to building your party means helping to re-elect Donald Trump, I’ll take a hard pass.

“IT’S ALMOST AS IF YOU BELIEVE THEY SHOULD BE DOING THE WORK UNDERGROUND, AND THEN SOMEHOW SUDDENLY EMERGE ONCE THEY ARE A FULLY FORMED PARTY, READY TO TRULY COMPETE.  BUT OF COURSE THAT’S NOT REALISTIC. TO CREATE ANOTHER VIABLE OPTION, IT WILL HAVE TO BE IN BABY STEPS.”  That’s not what I meant, and I apologize for my lack of clarity.  People who believe in a progressive third party should be loud and proud.  Make your case, and try to win converts.  I like much of the Greens’ vision.  But if they want to be a political party, Greens need more than a vision.  A vision without a strategy is just a daydream.  If anyone wants to convert me, they’ll have to show me some evidence that they’ve figured out a realistic path to electoral success, even if it’s slow.  I don’t see that with Greens. 

“AND THAT WILL INCLUDE HAVING A CANDIDATE ON THE BALLOT, AND TRYING TO GET AS MANY PEOPLE TO VOTE FOR THEM AS POSSIBLE, EVEN IF THEY WON’T WIN—THIS TIME.” 

The Greens have fielded candidates in the last six presidential elections.  Their high-water mark was in 2000, when they pulled 2.7% of the vote (and helped elect George W. Bush).  In 2016, both major parties nominated candidates with considerable baggage.  The Greens weren’t going to win, but it should have been a golden opportunity to build party membership.  Instead, Jill Stein only managed to win 1.1% of the vote (which still helped elect Donald Trump).  How many election cycles will it take until they conclude that maybe what they’ve been doing isn’t working?  

No one asked me, but I’ll offer some free advice for progressives who don’t like what the Democratic Party is offering.  They could emulate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.  Join the Democratic Party and reform it.  Who has done more for progressive causes lately – AOC or Jill Stein? 

But emulating Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez would require a lot of time and effort.  If time and effort are in short supply, or if the thought of being a Democrat is too much to bear, then my alternate suggestion is to join the Green Party and reform it.  Anyone who had the Green Party’s best interests at heart would try to convince them to stop making unforced errors. 

First, they should drop silly talking points like there’s no meaningful difference between the two major parties.  That goes beyond permissible hyperbole.  It’s demonstrably false, and any rational voter knows it.  If Greens want to argue that they’re a better alternative to Trump than Democrats, fine.  Defend that proposition.  But don’t insult voters’ intelligence. 

Next, returning to an earlier theme, persuade the Greens to let go of their presidential ambitions for a couple of cycles and focus on electing candidates at the state and local levels.  There’s plenty of good work for progressives to do in such positions; those elections are often less heavily contested, not to mention much less expensive; and if Green county assessors, city council members, and dogcatchers do a good job, they’ll win converts.  And that’s consistent with the “start small and build incrementally” approach.

And finally, if and when they do get around to mounting their next presidential campaign, for crying out loud, insist that they recruit a credible candidate.  Nothing says “we’re not really serious” than nominating dilettantes like Ralph Nader and Jill Stein. 

I appreciate being pushed to clarify my thinking.  I’ll have more to say soon on the structural impediments to the rise of new American political parties.