Dec '00 / Jan 2001
A
Gift Given, A Gift Received: Water
to Iraq
By Edilith Eckart
Election Analysis Progressive
Directions?
By Bill Thomson
Modernizing Our Electoral Rules
&
Practices
By Rob Richie
Democracy 101
By Blair Bobier
Clean Money: Campaign Finance
Reform
By John Moyers
Book Review: The Cultural Creatives
Paul H. Ray & Sherry Ruth
Anderson Reviewed by
Peter Montague
Remembrance: Robert Theobald
By Bob Stilger
Transforming Our Dreaming
By Josˇ Stevens
Democracy and the Airwaves
By Suzi Aufderheide
StarLink: More Bad News for Biotech
by Ronnie Cummins
The US Is Warned "Wake Up
To Global Warming Threat"
By Environmental News Service
U.S. Position Threatens to
Derail Climate Change Negotiations
By Cat Lazaroff
Martin Luther King, Jr: Global and
Social Shaman
By Royal E. Alsup, Ph.D.
Sexual Union, Inside and Out
By Peter Moore
A Pagan Speak to Jesus
By John Darling
Cosmic Calendar
By Salina Rain
Election
Analysis: Progressive Directions?
By Bill Thomson
Little did I realize, when I sent out via email a brief analysis of Ralph
Nader's impact on the election early Wednesday morning after the election,
that I had apparently released a whirlwind. I have received almost 200 responses
(and counting), including possible inclusions in two major newspapers (The
Atlanta Journal-Constitution and USA Today).
Most of the responses were quite thoughtful and thought-provoking, though
I did receive my fair share of negative input. Gore supporters, thinking I
was a Nader voter, accused me in no uncertain terms of creating four years
and more of absolute disaster; appellations like "cretin," "rigid
ideologue" (you get the idea) were tossed at me. Nader voters, thinking
that I was a Gore supporter, accused me of having no principles, with names
like "whiner" and "crybaby" tossed about. I suppose it
is somewhat to my credit that I was an "equal-opportunity attackee."
Fortunately, my experience as a father of three (former) teenagers put me
in good stead to weather the attacks. And really, all I was trying to do was
to provide some objective information about the impact of the Nader candidacy.
Several people questioned my motivation and background (not to mention my
parentage), so for the sake of full disclosure, let me briefly address that
issue. Professionally, I am a clinical psychologist and a faculty member at
the University of Michigan/Dearborn. I consider myself politically progressive,
even radical. I first became politically active in the late 50's in the south
(Texas, to be precise). I received a death threat because of a letter I wrote
on civil rights in 1962. I participated in the first demonstration in which
mace was used, attempting to shut down the Oakland, Calif. army induction
center in the mid-sixties. Most recently, I was arrested last August in DC
protesting Iraq sanctions. It's been an interesting and stimulating political
experience.
With respect to voting for President, I have rarely supported a winning candidate,
Democrat or Republican. The exceptions were 1964 (fear of Barry Goldwater),
1976 (Jimmy Carter), and 1992 (Bill Clinton). I refused to vote for Humphrey
in 1968 over Vietnam. Typically I have written in Henry Gonzalez (a former
San Antonio congressman) for President, though I once entered the name of
Ralph Nader. This year I vote-swapped my Nader vote with someone in a "no-contest"
state. Locally I vote more pragmatically, often supporting candidates with
whom I may have some significant disagreements.
It seems to me
that there are several lessons to be gleaned from this election. First and
foremost, I would assume that the Democrats will begin to wonder how they
managed to lose/almost lose (as of this writing, the issue is still undecided)
a presidential election to arguably the least qualified and experienced (except
in name recognition) candidate in American history. This, with a candidate,
who, though not charismatic, was certainly well qualified through extensive
service in federal government. If the Democrats get no further than blaming
Nader, they will have missed an opportunity to change both the party and America
in a positive direction.
Though others will disagree, I submit that the election was lost by a significant
rightward drift at the presidential level over the past several years. Further
down the ticket, the Democrats did reasonably well, and as one of the responders
to my previous analysis, pointed out, with the exception of Texas and North
Carolina, the Democrats did especially well in all states with "sizeable
diversity and intelligentsia." It appears that the strategy of the Clinton-Gore
candidacies was to attempt to appeal to traditional Republican voters, under
the assumption that switching a Republican vote was twice as valuable as attempting
to gain an additional vote on the left, and assuming that progressives would
automatically vote Democratic as "the lesser of two evils." From
a practical standpoint, it's a sound strategy, but it opens up opportunities
for Republicans to make inroads into traditional Democratic issues (e.g.,
education, social security), and most critically, it abandons progressive
values held by the Democratic party for almost a century.
So what does a progressive do? I believe that this country needs another thoughtful
and well-organized progressive change, and I think that the time may be at
hand. If George W. Bush wins, I think that the political ineptitude that he
will display through his own inexperience, incompetence and lack of mandate,
plus a reasonably likely crash in the economy in the next couple of years
(it's cyclic, you know) will set the stage for a sea change in American politics.
What will be the progressive's role? And will they be ready?
To answer these questions, it's instructive to look at the influence of third
parties in the history of American politics. Since the ushering in of the
modern two-party system with the election of Andrew Jackson in 1828, there
have been 11 elections in which a third party captured at least 5% of the
popular vote. Below is a brief synopsis.
- 1832 Winner:
Andrew Jackson (D)
Anti-Masonic party (7.8%) (William Wirt)
Major issues: Anti-Jackson, opposition to secret societies and privileged groups
Lasting impact: minimal - 1848 Winner:
Zachary Taylor (Whig)
Free Soil party (10.1%) (Martin Van Buren)--threw election to Taylor
Major issue: Opposition to slavery
Lasting impact: foreshadowed Republican party--also took 4.9% of vote in 1852
- 1856 Winner:
James Buchanan (D)
Republican party (33.1%) (John Fremont)--threw election to Buchanan
Major issue: Opposition to slavery
Lasting impact: Death knell for Whigs, Republicans became second national party
- 1860 Winner:
Abraham Lincoln (R)
So. Democrat party (18.9%) (John Breckenridge)
Major issue: Protection of slavery
Lasting impact: minimal
- 1892 Winner:
Grover Cleveland (D)
Populist party (8.5%) (James Weaver)
Major issues: Agrarian and populist discontent
Lasting impact: Issues absorbed by Democrats--also presaged progressive Republicans (TR) of 1912 Winner: Woodrow Wilson (D)
Progressive/Bull Moose (27.4%)--finished 2nd (Teddy Roosevelt)
Major issue: Progressive reform implemented by the federal government
Lasting impact: Federal government progressive reforms can be traced to this movement.
Continue article on next page...
