Dec/Jan 2001 Sentient Times

SENTIENT TIMES Dec/Jan 2001

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.
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.

How to pay for this? That's easy-significantly reduce the military budget. Let me give you just five facts:

The US is responsible for 36% of the world's military expenditures, more that the next 12 countries combined. (www.cdi.org/issues/wme/)
The US military budget is 22 times that of the 7 "rogue states" (Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, N. Korea, Sudan, Syria).
The combined military budgets of the 9 potential enemies of the US (rogue states + China and Russia) are 35% of the US military budget. Many would consider this as it should be, since there is an impression that the military establishment is financed out of a bottomless pit of money, but consider ·
For the cost of a Stealth bomber (about 1 billion), we could put an additional teacher/social worker into each middle and high school in the country.
In Ann Arbor, Michigan, the residents and businesses through income tax payments contribute over $380,000,000 annually to the cost of present and past military-related activities (over $3500 per capita), an amount 25% greater than the annual city and school budgets combined. There are priorities at work here, and I would submit, a powerful political argument to be made. It cannot be the case that Ann Arbor is unique in this respect. This argument must be made, and made at the local level!

Finally, let me emphasize the importance of work and effort. If the Greens want to have an impact, they are going to have to put in the time. They are going to need to be supported financially and otherwise by an army of volunteers. By the way-a fund raising idea: If each of the 2,703,717 Green voters sent a check to the Green party (Box 18452, Washington, DC 20036) for $1.85, the party would reach the magic $5 million in funding. You could also, of course, donate $3.70 and be twice as helpful, $18.50 and be 10 times as supportive, etc. Your time is also crucial-if you're unwilling to spend at least 1 hour a week to put progressive ideas into action (e.g., letters to the editor, food drives, organizational meetings, etc.), it won't occur in our lifetime. With effort, anything can happen.

This year the Greens fielded 238 candidates for office. Given that there are 52,770 local governments (county/3,043, municipal/19,372, township/16,629, school district/13,726), containing some 400,000 seats, clearly the Greens have a ways to go to achieve recognition. However, if only 1 in 6 Nader voters ran for office, every seat in the country would be contested. The math is simple-it only requires effort. I would further suggest that successful political movements never build from the top (President, House, Senate) down, but rather from the bottom up. As former Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill said, "All politics is local." The key to a progressive future lies in the number of school board and council seats they are able to contest/capture. Ralph Nader and the Greens have made an enormous impact and have set a clear agenda and direction-now it is up to the rest of us.

Bill Thomson is a clinical psychologist and a faculty member at the University of Michigan/Dearborn.

*******************

IMAGINE

-Imagine that we read of an election occurring anywhere in the third world in which the self-declared winner was the son of the former prime minister and that former prime minister was himself the former head of that nation's secret police (CIA).

-Imagine that the self-declared winner lost the popular vote but won based on some old colonial holdover (electoral college) from the nation's pre-democracy past.

-Imagine that the self-declared winner's victory' turned on disputed votes cast in a province governed by his brother!

-Imagine that the poorly drafted ballots of one district, a district heavily favoring the self-declared winner's opponent, led thousands of voters to vote for the wrong candidate.

-Imagine that that members of that nation's most despised caste, fearing for their lives/livelihoods, turned out in record numbers to vote in near-universal opposition to the self-declared winner's candidacy.

-Imagine that hundreds of members of that most-despised caste were intercepted on their way to the polls by state police operating under the authority of the self-declared winner's brother.

-Imagine that six million people voted in the disputed province and that the self-declared winner's 'lead' was only 327 votes. Fewer, certainly, than the vote counting machines' margin of error.

-Imagine that the self-declared winner and his political party opposed a more careful by-hand inspection and re-counting of the ballots in the disputed province or in its most hotly disputed district.

-Imagine that the self-declared winner, himself a governor of a major province, had the worst human rights record of any province in his nation and actually led the nation in executions.

-Imagine that a major campaign promise of the self-declared winner was to appoint like-minded human rights violators to lifetime positions on the high court of that nation.

None of us would deem such an election to be representative of anything other than the self-declared winner's will-to-power. All of us, I imagine, would wearily turn the page thinking that it was another sad tale of pitiful pre-or anti-democracy peoples in some strange elsewhere.

From one of the myriads of forwarded emails circulating after November's election (source unknown).

SENTIENT TIMES
PO Box 1330 Ashland, OR 97520
PHONE (541) 512-1084 • FAX (541) 512-1085
dmokma@jeffnet.org