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
(continued)
Election Analysis: Progressive Directions?
By Bill Thomson
- 1924 Winner:
Calvin Coolidge (R)
Progressive/Socialist (16.6%) (Robert LaFollette)
Major issues: Progressive reform, farm and labor support
Lasting impact: Issues absorbed by Democrats--also presaged FDR election of - 1932
- 1968 Winner:
Richard Nixon (R)
American Independent (13.5%) (George Wallace)
Major issue: Racism
Lasting impact: minimal
- 1980 Winner:
Ronald Reagan (R)
Independent (6.6%) (John Anderson)
Major issue: Anti-Reagan, anti-Carter (Iran hostages)
Lasting impact: minimal
- 1992 Winner:
Bill Clinton (D)
Independent (18.9%) (Ross Perot)
Major issue: Disaffection with major parties
Lasting impact: Probably minimal--14% increase in voter turnout
- 1996 Winner:
Bill Clinton (D)
Independent (8.4%) (Ross Perot)
Major issue: Disaffection with major parties
Lasting impact: Probably minimal
What can we learn
from this trip down election-memory lane? One point to be made requires a
bit of explanation. Consider the concept of "historically positive,"
"historically negative" and "historically irrelevant"
issues. Let's call an historically positive issue one, which in 100-200 years,
will be considered by reasonable people to have been correctly decided (e.g.,
elimination of slavery). Analogously define historically negative (e.g., slavery)
and irrelevant (anti-Mason). Note that in each election, third parties with
historically negative or irrelevant issues (1832, 1860, 1968, 1980 and 1992?)
had minimal lasting impact. Conversely, in every case in which the third-party
issue was historically positive, the issue ultimately prevailed. Parenthetically
note that parties based primarily on charismatic leadership were short-lived.
Whither the Greens?
It seems to me that there are two ways for progressives/Greens to go. Either
they can attempt to become large enough to serve as an effective and viable
replacement for the Democratic party (an historical long shot only accomplished
by the Republicans in 1856), or they can attempt to influence and "take
over" the Democrats. In either case, continuing progressive pressure
on the Democrats is essential. To the best of my knowledge, there has never
been a democracy in the world with three evenly-matched political parties-it
always boils down to two. In order to succeed in either of the above options,
I believe the Greens need to do two things: They need to promote historically
positive issues, and they need to work to generate sufficient support among
the populace.
Let's consider the latter task. There are almost 100 million Americans who
failed to vote in this election. How many of them could be persuaded to participate
in the political process? The Perot candidacy, even though primarily an "anti-"
candidacy, increased turnout by 14%. That number would be decisive in virtually
any election. How many more of the 100 million could be persuaded? I don't
know, but it seems to me that the Greens could make massive inroads there.
For example, one idea would be to make voting a requirement of citizenship,
as I understand it is in Australia. 100% (or close to it) participation would
necessitate a scramble for those voters, and would also have the positive
benefit of conveying "ownership" of the system on the American public.
Another factor to be considered in the potential participation of the American
public is the influence of the revolution in communication technology (email,
internet, etc.) It is not coincidental that the last great revolution in American
political values (FDR) coincided with the rapid rise of radio and FDR's mastery
of the medium. Political parties who fail to understand the influence of electronic
communication do so at their peril. Finally, let me point out that there were
several million first-time eligible voters in this election, most of whom
did not vote. Progressives need to make a direct, continuous and sustained
effort for that vote.
Consider issues. It is always a tricky business to try to define historically
positive issues in advance, but in my opinion, the current Green platform
(www.gp.org) contains many such issues. An even better source is the United
Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (www.un.org/rights/50/decla.htm)
with its emphasis on freedom, respect, dignity, peace, equality, justice and
tolerance. These are all historically positive concepts; the key is putting
these concepts into clear choices for real people.
It does seem to me, however, that there are at least four issues that could
be used by any candidate to reach both enfranchised and "disfranchised"
voters, as well as the youth vote.
- Universal
health coverage.
- Elimination
of child poverty.
- Universal
free education through undergraduate/trade/professional level.
- Universal service (e.g., WPA, not military, type) for all 18-yr. olds.
There are others,
as well, especially campaign finance reform, but I believe that the preceding
four are easily understood and potentially experienced on a visceral level,
especially by the disfranchised.
Continue article on next page...
