Miriam,
I go back and forth on this subject. When I listened to Noam
Chomsky's rationale I nod in agreement. But then when it comes down
to the voting I get weak in the knees and vote for the person I can
best accept serving in the office, even knowing that my vote could
help defeat the likes of Donald Trump. .
I have spent almost 63 years voting for the lesser of two evils, and
watching our nation continue to slide away from democracy.
Probably we should focus less on the individual, and more on the
passage of legislation protecting the voting rights of all citizens,
get money out of elections, the end to Gerrymandering, and efforts to
tamper with elections.
Carl Jarvis
miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
But the point of that letter, signed by some very wise people, is that the
party which seems to best represent your beliefs, may have no legal way to
have its presidential candidate elected. The legal structure won't permit
that person to win and your vote, which is intellectually and emotionally
satisfying to you, has no real power. It may, in fact, because it isn't used
to prevent a would-be dictator or racist from taking office, do harm. In
spite of how evil Hillary is, her presidency would not have been as harmful
to the country as Trump's presidency is.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2020 1:28 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: An Open Letter to the Green Party for 2020
Our first order of business is to support what politicians we believe will
provide our nation the best leadership.
Before voting, set down and write out your positions on the major issues
facing us today. Then take a look at the platforms proposed by
the political parties entering candidates. Vote for the Party that
comes closest to meeting your needs.
Carl Jarvis
On 1/25/20, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
An Open Letter to the Green Party for 2020
Green Party leader Howie Hawkins.
Green Party leader Howie Hawkins. (YouTube screenshot)
As the 2020 presidential election approaches the Green Party faces the
challenge of settling on a platform, choosing a candidate for
president, and deciding its campaign strategy. In that context, Howie
Hawkins, a contender for Green Party presidential candidate, recently
published a clear and cogent essay titled "The Green Party Is Not the
Democrats' Problem." It represents a precedent Green Party stance
which may guide Green campaign policy. We agree with much, but find
some ideas very troubling.
The stance offered in Hawkins' article says "the assertion that the
Green Party spoiled the 2000 and 2016 elections is a shallow
explanation for the Democrats' losses;" that in 2000, "the Supreme
Court.stopped the Florida recount;" that many factors "elected Trump
in 2016.including black voter suppression, Comey publicly reopening
the Clinton email case a week before the election, $6 billion of free
publicity for Trump from the commercial media, and a Clinton campaign
that failed to get enough of its Democratic base out;" that the
Electoral College "gave the presidency to the loser of the popular
vote;" that most Greens are "furious" at a Democratic party "that
joins with Republicans to support domestic austerity and a bloated
military budget and endless wars;" "that the Green Party's Green New
Deal science-based timeline, would put the country on a World War II
scale emergency footing to transform the economy to zero greenhouse
gas emissions and 100% clean energy by 2030;" and that "the Green
Party want(s) to eliminate poverty and radically reduce inequality"
including a job guarantee, a guaranteed income above poverty,
affordable housing, improved Medicare for all, lifelong public
education from pre-K through college, and a secure retirement;" and
finally that the Green Party strategy "is to build the party from the
bottom up by electing thousands to municipal and county offices, state
legislatures, and soon the House as we go into the 2020s."
We agree that many factors led to Democratic Party losses and that the
Supreme Court was a big one as was the Electoral College, and we too
are furious at Democrats joining Republicans in so many violations of
justice and peace. Likewise, we admire the Greens' Green New Deal and
economic justice commitments, and also support a grassroots, local
office approach to winning electoral gains.
So with all that agreement, why are we sending a critical open letter?
The stance the article presents, which may guide the Green campaign
for president, says, "To hold all other factors (contributing to
recent Presidential victories) constant and focus on the Green Party
as the deciding factor is a hypothetical that is a logical fallacy
because it assumes away a factual reality: the Green Party is here to
stay." However, our finding Green policy a factor in Republican
victories in no way suggests that the Green Party should disappear.
And our focus on factors within our reach to easily correct (for
example, the Green Party role in contested
states) is in fact sensible.
The stance also says "the Green Party is not why the Democrats lost to
Bush and Trump," but even if true, that wouldn't demonstrate it won't
be why this time. In any case, let's take Trump and Clinton, and see
how Green Party policy mattered.
If Clinton got Jill Stein's Green votes in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin,
and Michigan, Clinton would have won the election. Thus, the Green
Party's decision to run in those states, saying even that there was
little or no difference between Trump and Clinton, seems to us to be a
factor worthy of being removed from contested state dynamics, just
like the Electoral College is a factor worthy of being removed across
all states.
We realize many and perhaps most Greens will respond that if those who
voted for Stein in contested states in 2016 hadn't done so, they would
have abstained. We don't know how anyone could know that, but for the
sake of argument we will suppose it is correct.
Still, if these voters who preferred Stein did indeed erroneously
believe that there was no difference between Trump and Clinton, surely
to some degree that was a result of Stein refusing to acknowledge the
special danger of Trump, and insisting that while it would be bad if
Trump won it would also be bad if Clinton won, and refusing to state
any preference.
Similarly, if these Stein voters did indeed erroneously believe that
no harm could come from casting a vote for Stein in a close state in a
close election, that also to some degree was surely a result of Green
campaigning insisting that Green voters bore no responsibility for the
2000 election result.
And finally, if these voters did indeed erroneously believe that it
was immoral to contaminate themselves by voting for Clinton or for a
Democrat, surely in part that too was encouraged by Green campaigning
that treated voting as a feel-good activity ("vote your hopes, not
your fears") as if fear of climate disaster, for example, shouldn't be
a motivator for political action.
The stance says, "The Green Party is not going back to the 'safe
states strategy' that a faction of it attempted in 2004." This means
they will not forgo running in contested states where Green votes
could swing the outcome as happened in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and
Michigan in 2016, and they will not run in only 40 safe states where
the outcome will be a foregone conclusion.
But why reject a safe states strategy?
Like Stein in 2016, some might claim doing so can't help Trump win
again or, in any case, that Trump's re-election would not matter all
that much. "He isn't that much worse."
We write in hopes that no one in 2020 will rationalize campaign
actions by making such irresponsible and patently false claims.
And, indeed, in his recent essay, Hawkins instead claimed a safe
states strategy "couldn't even be carried out. It alienated Greens in
swing states who were working so hard to overcome onerous petitioning
requirements to get the party on the ballot. Keeping the party on the
ballot for the next election cycle for their local candidates depended
on the Green presidential vote in many states. It became clear that
safe states was dispiriting and demoralizing because the party didn't
take itself seriously enough to justify its existence independent of
the Democrats. Few people, even in the safe states, wanted to waste
their vote for a Green ticket that was more concerned with electing
the Democratic ticket than advancing its own demands."
This claims there is a price the Green Party has to pay for a safe
states strategy. Okay, let's take that as gospel. Where is an argument
that this price is so great that avoiding it outweighs the price
everyone, including Greens, will pay for re-electing Trump?
We have no way to assess the claim that Greens would find it
dispiriting to remove themselves as a factor that might abet global
catastrophe via a Trump re-election. But wouldn't Trump out of office
much less Sanders or Warren in office not only benefit all humanity
and a good part of the biosphere to boot, but also the Green Party?
For that matter, weren't more potential Green Party members and voters
driven off by the party's dismissal of the dangers of Trump than were
inspired by it? Which grew more in the last four years, DSA or the
Greens?
And weren't the Greens in the late '80s and early '90s winning
elections to city councils and other local offices across the country,
consistent with a grass roots strategy, though for much of the past 20
years, they've largely abandoned local and state contests, devoting
nearly all their attention to increasingly harmful races for
president? Hawkins' own exemplary races for Senate and Governor in New
York state, and especially the Greens'
successful
mayoral races in politically important places like Richmond, CA, as
well as less visible ones like New Paltz, NY, were exceptions, but how
many Greens have used their hard-won ballot access to run for Congress
or state legislature? Might the massive focus on presidential
elections mark a decline in prospects for the localist strategy, not an
advance for it?
We are told, "Greens want to get Trump out as much as anybody" but how
can that be if Greens would vote for a Green candidate, and not for
Sanders, Warren, or any Democrat in a contested state knowing that
doing so could mean Trump's victory?
If during the 2020 election campaign, the Green candidate campaigns in
contested states knowing that he or she might be winning votes that
would otherwise have gone to Sanders or to Warren or whoever, causing
Trump to win the state and win the electoral college, how could that
possibly evidence wanting Trump to lose as much as anyone?
Indeed, if a Green candidate weren't telling everyone who was a
potential Green voter to vote for Trump's opponent in contested
states, how could that evidence that Greens want Trump to lose as much
as anyone?
Let us put our question another way. It is election night 2020. The
vote tallies are in. Which way would the 2020 Green candidate feel
better? Trump wins and the Green candidate gets 250,000 votes across
the contested states, more than enough for Sanders, Warren, or whoever
to have won? Or, Trump loses and the Green candidate gets no votes in
the contested states, but a bunch extra in other states as a result of
having more time for campaigning there?
Greens tell Democrats "to stop worrying about the Green Party and
focus on getting your own base out." We agree on the importance of
Democrats getting their base out, starting with nominating Sanders,
or, at worst, Warren. But how does that warrant the Green Party
risking contributing to Trump winning?
The stance asks, "So why are we running a presidential ticket in 2020
if our strategy is to build the party from the bottom up?" The stance
answers, "Because Greens need ballot lines to run local candidates.
Securing ballot lines for the next election cycle is affected by the
petition signatures and/or votes for our presidential ticket in 40 of
the states."
Greens will pay a price for not running in contested states. Our
advice to Greens would be to notice the infinitely bigger price that
millions and even billions of people will pay for Trump winning.
The stance says "Greens don't spoil elections. We improve them. We
advance solutions that otherwise won't get raised. We are running out
of time on the climate crisis, inequality, and nuclear weapons. Greens
will be damned if we wait for the Democrats. Real solutions can't
wait."
But real solutions require Trump out of office. Real solutions will
become far more probable with Sanders or Warren in office. Real
solutions will become somewhat more probable even with the likes of Biden
in office.
To conclude, is a Green candidate running for President after the
summer really going to argue we shouldn't vote for Sanders in
contested states not just to end Trumpism but also to enact all kinds
of important changes including urging and facilitating grass roots
activism and thereby advancing Green program?
We offer this open letter in hopes of prodding discussion of the
issues raised.
