Admittedly, this series says the same thing numerous times in slightly different ways. The goal is to convince people that voting for a third party or independent candidate for president is probably a necessary step to achieving significant and progressive reforms in our society. There are numerous ways to show that, but in my mind they inter-relate, which helps explain the significant overlap in the first four posts. Having thus far made very short arguments on why Democrats and Republicans do not offer voters meaningful choice (Part 1), why limiting one’s options as a voter to only Democrats and Republicans cannot work even in theory (Part 2), how Americans have basically forsaken their republican form of government by so limiting their options (Part 3), and how this “two party mentality” is a form of “pluralistic ignorance” preventing progressive social change (Part 4)—really all just separate attempts to make the reader think a little about the merits of the two party only voting strategy—I will conclude the series by highlighting some of the most prominent alternatives running for President this year.
Before getting to the candidates, though, here are a few more quick points to remember:
1. A discrete action that is consistent with an ideology or that advances a goal does not prove that the actor favors the ideology or the goal. For example, President George W. Bush signed a roughly $150 billion stimulus plan in 2008. Despite that fact, people generally, and appropriately, do not think of Bush as a socialist – far from it. Other times, however, people—especially partisans—will point to one or two things that their favored candidate has done to decisively “prove” they s/he is the best candidate for those issues. For example, Andrew Sullivan wrote earlier this year that both liberals and conservatives should be totally satisfied with Obama’s first term in office. “[A]s an unabashed supporter of Obama,” Sullivan apparently thinks that a President that adopts both conservative and relatively liberal (compared to Republicans) policies necessarily means that he is a perfect candidate for all voters, liberal and conservative alike. Partisanship makes for simplemindedness. I suggest that people take off their party hat and try to look at the candidates somewhat objectively, which will present a more realistic, if more complex, view of the candidates and the interests they represent.
2. There is no logical end to “lesser evil voting.” No matter whom the two major parties run, you will always find differences between the candidates, and, therefore, reasons to prefer one to the other. Since most people accept as fact that only a Democrat or Republican can win, voting for the lesser evil to avoid the greater evil means never voting for an alternative party (or independent) regardless of how bad the lesser evil is. Under this voting philosophy that most voters strictly adhere to, you have no real control over policy. As The Simpsons depicted perfectly, most voters’ reasoning would have them voting for a major party even if both Democrat and Republican candidates were aliens bent on enslaving the human race.
3. Americans get what they vote for (usually, 2000 a notable exception). Earlier this summer, The Young Turks on Current TV recorded a segment discussing a poll that found nearly 2/3 of respondents believed that the United States was heading in the wrong track. Accepting the poll results and making numerous other criticisms of the President, the panelists nevertheless concluded that President Obama should win the election because he is better than Romney. One of them, Alyona Minkovski, described it as “a scary place” for voters. Indeed, it is scary… and a little silly, or totally deceitful. No one is actually limited to voting for just the major parties, but it definitely benefits a small, elite group of people if everyone believes it. I honestly think that most people would reject two-party tyranny if the media and elites did not constantly work to convince them otherwise, and exclude alternatives from serious coverage. For example, in 1992 Ross Perot was actually leading in the polls before dropping out. He was the only candidate who opposed NAFTA. Last year, it was reported that NAFTA cost the United States 700,000 jobs. This suggests that people understood that NAFTA would hurt working class Americans. Both major parties supported NAFTA because neither cares about working class Americans, a fact that won’t change until people change their votes. Since 1992, third party candidates have been excluded from all presidential debates, sued by the major parties, and been systematically discouraged by two-party propaganda. It is very hard to combat all of that, but not impossible.
——————-
Finally, here are some of the most prominent alternatives to the Democrats and Republicans running for President.
ROCKY ANDERSON – Rocky Anderson helped form the Justice Party last year and became its Presidential nominee. His running mate is Luis Rodriguez. Anderson is a former mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah, and the Executive Director of High Road for Human Rights. As mayor, Anderson called for the impeachment of George W. Bush, opposed the invasion of Iraq, and “champion[ed] several national and international causes, including climate protection, immigration reform, restorative criminal justice, LGBT rights, and an end to the war on drugs.”
On the “VoteRocky” website, Mr. Anderson lists a “Strategic Plan” composed of 19 “solutions.” The solutions cover a number of important topics, and give a good idea of Anderson’s values. They include a four-pronged plan to reduce inequality, a separate proposal in increase the minimum wage, plans to conserve resources and protect the environment, and opposition to military intervention.
JILL STEIN – Jill Stein is the Green Party’s official candidate for President. Her running mate is Cheri Honkala. A good overview of Ms. Stein’s platform, the “Green New Deal,” is here. The Green New Deal contains four basic pillars: (1) an economic bill of rights, (2) a Green transition, (3) real financial reform, and (4) a functioning democracy.
GARY JOHNSON – Gary Johnson, a former Republican governor of New Mexico (according to his website, he was known as the “most fiscally conservative governor” in the U.S.), is the Libertarian Party’s candidate for President. You can learn more about his positions on specific issues here. His running mate is Judge Jim Gray.
VIRGIL GOODE – Virgil Goode leads the Constitution Party’s ticket in this election. Goode is running with James Clymer. Mr. Goode, formerly a Republican (and before that, Democratic) member of the U.S. House of Representatives, has put his views on many issues here.
—————–
I kept the above descriptions very short because ACED does not endorse any of them (or anyone else), and because you should look into all the options on your own. That said, it is worth at least listing some of the lesser-known candidates because many people I have encountered are not even aware of a single alternative candidate for President this year.
Comments are closed.