Won't vote for the Dem in 2004? Read this, or ignore it. :-)

[jpgray]

Here are my own opinions on this--feel free to accept them or discard them:

Kerry and Edwards represent marginal and slow turns away from disaster, but Bush reigns supreme as the radical authoritarian. While Kerry and Edwards are merely comfortable bourgeois territory, Bush and his ilk are the gateway to something much worse. Another term of Bush in office risks too much for me to turn up my nose at either Kerry or Edwards in the GE. I'd prefer Dennis, but either the people or the system won't accept him, and you don't change that by letting the Republicans dominate all three branches of government. They are already persecuting Green party leaders, consolidating the media, stealing elections, and trampling on civil liberties. Has this Republican stewardship of the system made it more or less difficult for people to elect the best candidates?

I'll grant you that a plan to fix the system by not liking it is within our means, but it hasn't been terribly effective thus far. :) Heading towards the iceberg, I should rather work to turn the ship away at even the slowest speed if I'm unable to turn it away rapidly. I don't think I would sit on my hands and refuse to turn the wheel at all, waiting for the sea, the ship or the iceberg to change into something more amiable.

The big fallacy of eschewing the nominee is the assertion that either Bush or Kerry/Edwards will just maintain the status quo. After making this argument, the same folks will tell you the country has moved to the right and has abandoned liberal principles. So here one has to ask some questions. Who were these perfect, no-compromise-necessary liberals we had running around? The ones who fought imperialist wars to make the world safe for Standard Oil, or were they the ones who interned the Japanese? When was the country a magical land where the status quo wasn't represented by the two intrenched political parties?

The answer is, of course, "never". I like to think I would have voted for FDR, for example, but if I wanted to vote without compromising my values, Norman Thomas probably would have been it, or later, Henry Wallace. You're probably never going to find a major presidential candidate who doesn't have some *major* flaws. But you can find one this year that's better than Bush if you want to.

But as always, no one is entitled to your vote, and casting one for a third party with liberal values is something no one should demonize you for.

[arwalden]

1. Bravo! Keep Fighting The Good Fight!!

Always look on the bright side of life!

-- Allen

[leyton]

2. I agree. A revolution won't happen overnight.

If we really want to set this country in the right direction, it will take several Democratic presidents, maybe a bit like how the GOP got Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Bush all in a row with a short four years of Carter. We can't change everything, but we can start shifting the debate to the left, and that happens by getting a Democrat into the White House who appeals to both sides of the aisle.

[lovedems]

6. This election will be won from the center. There isn't any doubt

in my mind about that.

[jonnyblitz]

3. yup, my reasoning also for THIS election.

only because Bush is so fucking horrendous....

[jpgray]

14. Yes, this is indeed a special case

And with that, good night folks. :hi:

[4morewars]

4. Well said JP

I especially enjoyed the iceberg analogy. I think we need a new way of doing things, a good start will be throwing these bums in prison, but I would settle for just throwing them out of washington.

[lovedems]

5. Yeah!

It is with attitudes like this that we shall overcome! The chimp will be defeated! I am with you all the way!

[mstrsplinter326]

7. Revolution, Democracy, Nader, Proportional Representation

A) Revolutions do happen overnight, sometimes faster
B) While I will vote democratic in 2004, one should never have to choose between the lesser of two evils. We aught to be choosing between the better of two goods. Like when the country had to choose between the Jeffersons and Adams of the world.
Your argument seems to want to take the wind out of both the push for change and more importantly the importance of third parties. Nader helped prod a sleeping giant, not that we all woke up, but many did. The Green Party is why you post so passionately now. Their significance cannot be undercut.
C) Just to pre-respond to haters, Nader didn't cost Gore the election you all did. You didn't respond when the Supreme Court gave the election away. You didn't join the Green's in trying to rid the nation of the 'selection committee' of sorts for the president (Electoral College). Both of those are already haunting you, but they should worry you even more. They will be problems again.
D) Proportional Representation is the future, Winner-take-all is the past.

[jpgray]

9. Nader has his own brand of hypocrisy going, I'm afraid

You can read all about in my thread which outlines my problems with Nader specifically, and not third parties or those who vote for them. If someone wishes to vote Green, it looks like Cobb will be the man. From what I have read about him, he sounds like a good man.

edit: And of course I agree that winner-take-all is one of our problems, but again--how do we fix it when the system or the people will not elect leftist candidates?

[mstrsplinter326]

12. Answer to the question

Q: "edit: And of course I agree that winner-take-all is one of our problems, but again--how do we fix it when the system or the people will not elect leftist candidates?"

A: Education. I know it's not easy, but that's no reason not to start.

Every one has hypocrisies. Jefferson owned slaves, yet was the champion of the poor.
Nonetheless, (no one should expect Nader to be president) all I'm saying is that I see a tendency to bash the issues raised by the Green Party simply because some feel that the 2000 debacle was his fault. It wasn't.

[jpgray]

13. The blame game really muddies the debate :-(

I don't blame Nader for 2000, and I don't blame those who voted for him. I will try to make the case for voting Dem in 2004, however.

As to your answer, educating the electorate requires organization and hard work. The reason it hasn't worked very well right now may have to do with the media, and it may have to do with voter apathy, and of course the two may be connected. The media sensationalize the news. Celebrity nonsense dominates. Discussion of how we are going to pay for social programs when the boomers come in, without lowering the defense budget or raising taxes, isn't as interesting as a bared breast.

Competing against that is difficult, but it could be done, perhaps. It would be easier however if the system were more amiable to open discussion of ideas (i.e. Green leaders weren't made to miss flights by way of the Secret Service). In my opinion, the only real way to fix the system is to elect people who will start making it more friendly to the kind of discourse you want to have. The Republicans are doing a good job of changing the system in just that way, unfortunately.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

8. Right on! Don't jump ship- set a new course!

great post.

[asjr]

10. The candidates must

make their platforms palatable to the independents and Republicans. That is the only way we can win. I know there are many Pubs out there who are sick of this administration.

[jpgray]

11. Races seem to be won by pandering to and pissing off the right groups

The 2004 Democratic nominee will have to do a very careful balancing act, and may well fall flat on his face--either by alienating the left by pandering to the center, or alienating the center by advocating leftist ideals, he has plenty of opportunity for failure. I hope they uphold more leftist ideals and at the same time win the GE :), but it will be interesting to watch. Unfortunately, what the candidate really believes in probably won't be known until he is in office, but the record and history of our choices should give a good apporximation.