HIGHKARATE:

This thread started a couple of days ago so I'm not sure if you'll see this, but just wanted to reply to your post. My comments follow yours. Thanks for being willing to dialogue about this issue; it's important for us on the left to discuss electoral strategy and try to learn what we can from each other.

"REDGREEN-

With all due respect I think you are oversimplifying what I and others on this site have been saying.

Although I appreciate your points and the thoughtfulness of them I don't think there is anyone on this site who opposes the building of third parties.

I think we are just making a tactical choice in swing states, and there are many of them, to vote for Obama."

There aren't many of them, especially with Obama having a significant lead overall. And my experience has been that a lot of Democratic voters, including many on this site, don't take the electoral college into account at all in their voting decisions. Even famous radical historian Howard Zinn didn't until a number of people pointed it out in reply to his recent Progressive article endorsing Obama. (He subsequently changed his mind and now supports Nader.) A lot of them also have little idea what Obama's record and issue positions actually are or how much common ground he has with McCain. (Not saying there aren't also differences between the two.) So even people who might like a third party are much more worried about the possibility that voting for Nader or McKinney will help McCain win than it makes sense to be.

"Can you imagine for instance, what a landslide victory would do for the country...
We would be getting closer to CRITICAL MASS and that would be a very big deal...."

Critical mass to do what? Although if there's an Obama landslide maybe that would lead to people being less scared of going third-party next time, I think it would have much more impact if, say, Nader got 5%, or 1 million people turned up in DC next year to protest the continuing wars, than if Obama gets 60%.

"Things could change rather quickly. Despite what people here are saying the movements and organizations in place are not going to stop with the election."

True. But it will only happen if people start to become more aware of the shortcomings of the Democrats as well as the Republicans and willing to criticize and hold accountable all politicians regardless of party.

"Everyone here on this site supports third parties and would vote for them in a second if they thought it made sense. I voted for Nader in 2000 and was glad to help the Greens get on the ballot but why is Nader running and taking away votes from the Greens and now they are in jeopardy of losing their status."

Well, that's a complicated story having to do with some serious shortcomings of the Greens in terms of how they select candidates which really turned Nader off. I can go into that some other time.

"The time to support and build third parties is in between elections and at the local levels. That is what I am talking about when I mentions tactics."

My opinion is that the time to build third parties is all the time and that running candidates at as many levels as possible is important.

"Maybe just maybe we have a chance to engage Dems. Maybe as Obama went right after the primaries he will go left after the election."

Not without a huge amount of public pressure. And I think that's not going to happen until those who presently support him accumulate a lot of experience of being disappointed with him not living up to their expectations. If the economy keeps going down the tubes, that will tend to wake people up as well.

"But until then progressives need to stick together. While many of the commenters on this site just want to complain I think that after the election, after a big collective sigh, if we can beat McCain/Palin then we can get together again and discuss what we are going to do."

Even though we all may call ourselves "progressives" or "leftists" or something to that effect, that doesn't mean we are going to agree on tactics or even ultimate goals. For example, some people see a social democracy along the lines of Sweden as the ultimate goal, to be achieved by gradual reforms. Others like myself, although we would greatly prefer this to what we have at present, think that the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism is ultimately necessary to achieve a truly democratic and just society. Fighting for and achieving reforms is important, but that's only a step along the way. In any case, I think we're in agreement that calm discussion of our differing points of view is much to be preferred to yelling!

skidog

We all knew that the end of the BUSH reign-of-ERROR would be BAAAD...BUT THIS...

I can't see how anyone can argue (now)that in '00 GORE=bUSH,WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY what is being argued by very well meaning PROGRESSIVES her at CD.No OBAMA does not WALK ON WATER.But McSAME IS a dinosar and hardcore FASCIST.Until(if ever)we have IRV a vote for a 3rd party(however well intentioned) is worst than useless,its a vote for more DARKNESS.

And for those of you who are not "sick" like the author, vote for peace, not war; for the common people (that's us), not Wall Street. War and Wall Street have two candidates--and what they will do is as predictable as it is destructive.

A healthy vote is a vote for peace and mutual help. That is a vote never wasted.
---------------------------------

I would rather vote for what I want and not get it, than vote for what I don't want and get that. -- Eugene V. Debs

Don’t anybody please blame McCain or Obama. We all agree that one is to some degree worse than the other, or as some believe, both are just as bad. One of them, however, would soon become your president, whether you want it or not. Also, Nader and the rest of the other good guys are fantastic, but neither of them would make it to the White House under the existing rules, unless you educate the entire American electorate. Anyone disagree with the above?

You have only yourselves to blame. For decades you’ve been voting under this system of one-party-two-right-wing crowd plus the undemocratic electoral system without making any effort to change it. McCain and Obama are the products of this system, and neither should be blamed for what they are. Blame thyself.

How do major changes come about?

Let’s list some major changes for reference purposes.
• Slavery-A. Lincoln-W-R-NU (Emancipation proclamation 1654-1865
• Women’s right to vote-W. Wilson-D (Women’s Suffrage 1848-1920)
• New deal-F.D.R.-D (Social Security, FDIC, FHA, SEC 1933-1936)
• Bonus Army-H. Truman-D (G.I. Bill 1932-1944)
• Civil Rights-L.B.J.-D (Civil Rights Movement 1955-1968)
• Health care for the retired and/or disabled-L.B.J.-D (Medicare 1934-1965)

Were these changes enacted by our Government because they liked the ideas? Of course not, “We the People” insisted upon these changes.

Real representation is where I am headed with this.

Democracy, literally means ruled by the people. We however elect representatives to rule in our interest’s. The USA is a Republic not a Democracy.

Courtesy Wikipedia
“The Founding Fathers wanted republicanism because its principles guaranteed liberty, with opposing, limited powers offsetting one another. They thought change should occur slowly, as many were afraid that a "democracy"- by which they meant a direct democracy- would allow a majority of voters at any time to trample rights and liberties in the "heat of a moment". They believed the most formidable of these potential majorities was that of the poor against the rich. They thought democracy could take the form of mob rule that could be shaped on the spot by a demagogue. Therefore they devised a written Constitution which could only be amended by a super majority, preserved competing sovereignties in the constituent states, gave the control of the upper house (Senate) to the states, and created an Electoral College, comprising a small number of elites, to select the president. They set up a House of Representative to represent the people. In practice the electoral college soon gave way to control by political parties.”

Without our national interest and participation, “We the People” are effectively asleep at the wheel. When our national interest’s are only courted during elections, we collectively jeopardize “The Republic for which it stands”.

To execute “the people’s will” requires that we collectively reach a consensus and insist upon accountability from those we elect to represent us. Congress presently has an approval rating of roughly 20%, while 80% of the Nation thinks we are heading in the wrong direction. That’s 80%, which of course includes all parties and national points of view.
The USA ranks third in the gap between rich and poor, behind Mexico and Turkey (Source: Growing Unequal? OECD, 2008). I guess the Founding Fathers had nothing to worry about regarding Democracy and the poor rising against the rich?

I suggest that we redraw congressional districts to be populated with the widest variety of political parties. For you see, any district composed of voters from just one political party will often be disappointed with their representation despite electing a representative from their own political party. Monolithic type congressional districting promotes electing representatives free from a fear of being voted out of office coupled with the minimal motivation to actually represent their monolithic constituents. Which to me explains an 80% congressional disapproval rating regardless of affiliation.

The only way that “we the people” can win the fight, is by avoiding the fight. We must all work toward our common goals. That should go without saying, but how can we identify our common goals? Isn’t It through unity that we reveal our common goals? Tolerance, respect, acceptance and inclusion support unity don’t they? Isn't that what the “Major Changes” I listed initially were all about?

I believe that if congressional districts were redrawn to encompass voters from many political parties. Candidates would soon learn to promote unity in order to actually represent their constituency. Clearly, we must elect representatives that actually represent us. I also suspect that redistricting of this type will lower the bar for entry of any third and fourth party candidates into the political arena.

To exclude any segment of society, is to threaten all segments. Our failure to unify invites the possibility of each of us becoming “persona non grata” over time.

Our eyes can only see that which our mind’s can understand.

People with very similar political values obviously don't therefore atomatically agree on similar implementation tactics, let alone strategies.

Means differentials can easily exist even within one and the same person, to say nothing of how such differentials are prone to multiply between many people.

As a set of normative ends and implementative means, politics can be usefully reducible to truth-table-like formulae but, I think, only up to a point.

Since political theory is far more a qualitative science (like speculative philosophy) than it is an empirical science (like chemistry), its action limits can't be defined by the implementation formulae themselves, but only by a wider evaluative system of action analysis (after action is taken), existing outside of, and subsuming, the formulae - namely, by the bigger conceptual bracket of somehting like 'human motivational psychology' or the 'the study of transactional human nature,' or something of the sort. But clearly, mass psychology analysis is at present a pointlessly premature way to expend progressive political energy if the object of political theory is immediate political action.

So, I think that when progressives holding reliably-similar values ardently, chronically disagree about implementation tactics and strategy, that that particular debate ought to finally give way to conservation of [respective] human energies.
The stricter formulists [in this case, those who insist on working outside the duopoly], should simply proceed with their own implementation agenda, and so too, likewise, for the lesser formulists [in this case, the work-within-the-corrupt-system Obama supporters.]

After a point, the endless yes/no debate become more ego-driven than instructive and inspired, revealing that too many of us care more for talking about action than for sharing and comparing the results of direct political actions we've actually taken.
Interestingly, the classical Greeks thought that theory largely divorced from action was a form of sin. And if you take the Christian meaning of sin ['missing the mark'] - the Old Greeks once again prove wise in their generation.

I am a voter from California...a place that SEEMS a bastion of liberalism and progressivness when compared to...insert name of favorite red-state, bible-belt area of your choice...but the reality is...EVEN if ALL progressives in the nation voted for ONE of the third party candidates it is not enough to win a national election.

That is not reason enough not to do so, but if one is worried about the amount of damage that can be done by whoever CAN get into office, then one might feel the need make a devil's bargain and choose the one likely to kill fewer, damage less, shred less of the Constitution, and look less of an idiotic, arrogant fool to the rest of the world in the process.

So, yes, when choosing between ways to get to shore from the sinking Titanic...I will take lifeboat slightly to the left helmed by the kinder, gentler thug rather than swim through freezing waters with the Progressive of our dreams.

We need to end this internecine warfare between factions of the left and start with the basics of what we ALL wish to accomplish. Where we disagree, we ALL need to be respectful and keep in mind that each does the BEST they can do with the information they've been given, and makes choices based on how the world looks and feels from where they stand.

NO ONE here will be voting to kill Afghan people or to ensure a McPalin presidency...no matter what your opinion is, no matter what your experience tells you about what another's choice will accomplish, bear in mind that we do all want to help bring about a better world for ourselves, our families, each other and the rest of the planet's occupants.

Some believe with all their hearts that voting Nader is a way out of lesser evilism (or as John JUdge puts it "the evil of two lessers").
Some can't shake the hope, however slim, that an Obama election will mean something fundamental has changed for the better in our slave-built, murderous, occupationist nation.

I know that BOTH sides are part of the whole that is the Left...whichever side we are on, we will have to deal with the rest...and our survival will depend on us being able to work together to change things around here.

"Hope has two beautiful daughters. Their names are anger and courage; anger at the way things are, and courage to see that they do not remain the way they are."

Enthusiasm is now the key to getting out our vote. We need to make sure that our enthusiasm for Obama and change is infectious. An enthusiasm that lasts all the way to his inauguration

Now is the time: Tell your friends to tell their friends to tell their friends to tell their friends….

ya know those buttons at traffic lights that are there so pedestrians can push and turn the light so they can walk across but really dont work? I call that a "feel important button" Just like US elections. They are just held to make you feel important but just dont really work!

Indeed, the time has come. However it's not for the election of another politician. The time has come for The People to take action and events into our own hands.

Charlie Jackson
Texans for Peace
http://www.texansforpeace.org

mx321,

We are not all passionate. We are many of us deadheads yielding to a diffident course of bringing down the United States in any way possible-- mostly people who call themselves "patriots" and support John McCain, or who are voting for third parties this time thus also helping McCain.

There's one big newspaper here in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, which just yesterday endorsed McCain. It supported Bush in 2004 and 2000 also. The Journal maybe has ten great people working for it. But its top echelon of administrators and editors? Self-hating retarded persons, unable to grasp a lofty thought of any kind, such as the idea that the election of Barack Obama would be the most defining moment in the history of American identity.

Slavery in the New World much predates The Declaration of Independence. The great improvement of both this country's self and world images that would accompany Obama's election is beyond truly undereducated Americans like the people who run The Winston-Salem Journal.

That they hate themselves is just my speculative theory, but that they hate the United States is absolutely clear. Like John McCain, they do not wish the best for this country. If McCain rather than Obama is elected, we will have less health care, less education, less money and more war.

Man I skipped over a lot of posts -- so much anger!

/slaps self ... People have a right to be angry.

I am certainly tired of all the people with presumably the SAME VALUES, such as the majority on this site, arguing with such venom.

I'll be honest and most likely flamed for it. I voted early, voted for Obama. And to my surprise, I'm not ashamed of it.

[I would have voted for Kucinich in the primaries if he'd lasted long enough to get to Arizona (I would have re-registered as a Dem to do it, too). I voted for Nader in 2000.]

My rationale is this: Even if every progressive person voted for Nader or McKinney, and they got elected, that third party person would find it incredibly difficult to get a damn thing done at all. A fully-Dem congress would stonewall pretty much everything.

I put my Prez McCain glasses on and I don't even feel like getting out of bed, let alone looking around. I put my Prez Obama glasses on, and things are definitely looking up. My husband and I are thinking about a trip out of the country (our 7 years overdue honeymoon!)... I'd like to be able to hold my head up high and say I didn't contribute to W's third term.

No, Obama's not going to solve all the problems, he's said so; I also do not see him as the second coming. He's also said in his book that his overriding philosophy when dealing with other politicians and constituents is empathy... not antagonism and isolation and dogmatism. Whether we agree with his ultimate decisions or not, that seems like an ok way to go about things.

I do know that Arizona has the teensiest chance of going "blue" this election. Very slight, hey. My vote MAY actually mean something.

Highkarate and wcdevins:

I understand what you are saying. Although a vote is an action, the action we will need, the action that will determine where we are four years from now must be realized after this election- no matter who wins. We are all passionate and we must put that passion to good use, whether we have been activists, are becoming activists or are getting back into the game. Being informed and communicating with one another is hugely important, but we will not change the world through this forum alone. As Redgreen stated, "we ARE having a discussion of tactics" and that's true and great, but we also need to find ways to engage in other types of action and constructive dialogue if we are not doing so already.
I am very interested in having concrete discussions about what we can do with our time while not in front of our computers. We all come from different persepctives, with unique demands on our time and energy. We will all be able to contribute in different ways. So, we all want to change the world. How exactly are we going to do it? I mean exactly. Is there a forum for that?

I don't mean any offense to any one here at CD, nor do I claim to know anything about you and what you do with your time. I am not here to judge anyone. That would be counter-productive, not to mention foolish on my part, since I am sure there is always much more to be learned. While I may disagree on certain points and voice those disagreements at times, my most sincere interest is in working together. Please please can we get past our differences knowing that we have much more in common. This is after all "common" dreams.

Sometimes I think that there is a lack of dialogue in terms of what ways we can each make a difference because people are afraid of being criticized for silly ideas or for not doing enough. We should be careful not to scare off people with good intentions just because they are inexperienced in activism or in engaging in conversations with such experienced quick-witted superbly-knowledgeable intellectuals, in or out of this forum. Please note that I don't necessarily include myself in the quick-witted, superbly knowledgeable intellectual group. I only know that I mean well.

finally just now registered to make this one point:

this debate--"hope-he'll-surprise-us-in-a-good-way" Obama/"anyone-but-McCain" vs. die-hard third-party--has been going on here for quite awhile... reflecting the major argument of the day among progressives.

though my vote (in my safely blue state) will certainly go to McKinney, my hope is that most of us, on both sides of the issue, can agree on one thing:

if the g.o.p. steals this one, we should each do our part to make sure that ALL HELL BREAKS LOOSE and they don't get away with it.

the democrats are already not taking care of this (again!) as early voting proceeds, with more of the same trickery and cheating...

then--if we can steal it back for Obama--we hold onto the momentum, seize the moment, and hold him accountable to the (wildly unrealistic) hopes that have motivated so many of his supporters: peace abroad, and justice here.

that's what time it is!

At some point, policy must begin to matter. What a shame that people willingly suspend disbelief in order to enjoy being dazzled by wishful thinking and symbolism.

As such, "President-elect Obama" is not a starting point at all. It is an indicator of continuing damage, just at a slower rate. For this, progressives are supposed to cheer and then be mute about policy?
I think not.

Ahhh, but Obama doesn't engage in the us vs. them mentality....nooo. He just ran in the exclusive two headed candidacy of mainstream, wall street and K street and corporate owned media street election system because he is inclusive of others views.

Obama's best up against the worst of what one sees in McCain can make him a saint, but up against Nader he is quickly brought down to the sinners seat.

As always the only people who are served by the two party system, are those serving the two party system.

Republicans have proved to be a thousand times worse than Democrats.

Consider this, kids. Exxon Mobil reported record highest earnings ever for last quarter today. So, bottom line, while we were all paying up to $5 a gallon for gas, Exxon Mobil was laughing at us. McCain thinks this is great stuff. He wants to reduce taxes on Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big everything.

Obama says Big Oil doesn't need tax breaks after they have raped the American public. Instead he wants to lower taxes on middle class Americans and force Big Oil to give some of the money back to us that they stole.

I'm so glad Exxon's earnings report came out today. If anyone can look at that and then not vote for Obama, you're nuts.

I for one will continue to withold my vote from any candidate that will not wage peace. If enough of us did this they would HAVE to change. But hey "culture of death" is the new "culture of life", (as long as you don't have to twist the knife personally, I guess).