This is the inaugural blog. My aim is to post at least three times a week, about various political topics, with a focus on environmental and human rights issues. Since we are entering steamy presidential campaigning season expect some blogging pertaining to it. Like today:
There is a trend among university students to support Obama, seeing him as an anti-Bush president. However, he voted for the Patriot Act, supported the Secure Fence Act, which authorized the construction of over seven hundred miles of wall on the U.S./Mexican border and, despite his strong environmental stance, has accepted tens of millions of dollars from corporate donations. One of the main points Obama supporters enjoy reciting is that he has not accepted money from lobbyists (or PACs). While that’s great, the fact that he has accepted tens of millions of dollars from corporations is either omitted or unknown to the supporters. The website, opensecrets.org, has a detailed account of where each candidate’s funding comes from. So, even Obama hasn’t washed his hands of corporations. (Why don’t politicians push for strict(er) laws against corporate donations? Oh, right, because both Republicans and Democrats are money grubbing power sluts.)
More generally, the actual differences between Republicans and Democrats are indiscernible. Debates focus on wedge issues (e.g. God, abortion, gun control, etc.) in an attempt to aggrandize the parties’ differences to niche constituencies. Much of the debates hinge upon irresolute rhetoric that doesn't display a firm stance on a particular issue. Remember, just because Obama opposes Iraq does not mean he opposes war in general. (It's too profitable.) To see the differences between the two parties, click here (this is dated, but is still relevant). Even now, both parties have one candidate who is for withdrawal from Iraq and one who isn't. As the presidential race develops, the candidates will be forced into firmer stances on issues. Yet, the gulf between the two parties will never become as perceptible as we think it is.
So where do we turn, as concerned citizens? Third parties!
Last week, Ralph Nader announced that he is considering running for presidency. He has formed an exploratory committee to determine if he can run a legitimate campaign. Some of the committee’s objectives include raising ten million dollars (non-corporate(!!!)), staffing committed people to aid with campaigning and organizing one thousand people in each congressional district.
Many people think that voting for a third party is “throwing your vote away”; however, this is not the case:
Indeed, in the 2000 presidential election, Nader was arguably the most preferred candidate and might have won if the election had been conducted under a majority preference system instead of the Electoral College plurality system. An analysis of the National Election Study exit poll data by Harvard political scientist Barry Burden showed that only 9% of the people who thought Nader was the best candidate actually voted for him. If people had not voted strategically for their lesser evil or stayed home because the polls showed he would not win, Nader would have had over 30 million votes instead of 2.9 million, making it a close three-way race and might have won the election, especially if he had been allowed into the debates. (from http://www.gp.org/2008-elections/documents/Questionnaire_Nader.pdf)
Apart from winning the election, change can come about if a third party receives a substantial percentage of votes. If 5% of the total votes are received by a party, they will receive federal funding during the next campaign. In particular, if Nader succeeds in attaining one thousand people in each congressional district, he will incite politicians, particularly Democrats, to take notice of his platform. While certain “extreme” sections, like single-payer universal health care, a switch to renewable energy and living wages, are less likely to be adopted, certain items, such as health care reform, stricter environmental regulations and a restructured tax system, with less tax-breaks to corporations will be adopted, in an attempt to attract Green voters. This would be the inception of a transformation toward sustainability.
If you haven’t actually read about the Green Party, you should. Visit http://gp.org. You will be surprised by their positions, and they may be much closer to what you think the Democratic Party should be or is.
No comments:
Post a Comment