- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
First of all, some interesting and substantial discussion here today as usual.
However, parts of the discussion highlight a certain prevailing and condescending attitude towards those who bring ideas to the discussion that involve a rejection of the Demopublican duopoly and the "Washington consensus". As has been stated before, the posters named in my subject line aren't really approaching this discussion in a diplomatic fashion, so it's hard to react to them in a kindly fashion. However, I do agree with adnoto that the substance of the arguments presented has been ignored.
I know the regular posters here and Glenn himself are hardly loyal partisan Democrats, but nonetheless, there does seem to be a sense of capitulation to the idea of voting for and supporting the "lesser of two evils". There indeed can be good arguments for the practicality of doing so, and by no means would I call the Democrats and Republicans identical. It's more just a matter of the Democrats not being different enough to warrant unerring support.
I don't want to project about anyone's voting habits and other political activities, but it does seem that the prevailing opinion here states that, for example, supporting and voting for 3rd party or independent candidates is tantamount to throwing your vote away. Of course the Catch-22 of this all is that the only real reason that someone like Nader, or even someone within the Democratic Party, like Dennis Kucinich, is not a viable candidate is in large part because people who share these particular candidates principles and are politically to the left of the Hillarys and Baracks of our system nonetheless continue to buy into the notion that these are not viable candidates.
I know that there are several groups now working to "progressive-ize" the Democratic Party through bottom-up promotion of progressive candidates in primaries and generals, attempting to replace the centrists... And I do hope that these efforts can have an effect. However, I can't help but wonder if these projects will have the kind of momentum to affect real change in a timely fashion. I can't help but wonder if "Acting Blue" will mean donating to progressive primary candidates and then voting for the centrists who defeat them in the general election anyway.
I guess my real question is that for those out there who voted for Obama for reasons of pragmatism and practicality, rather than principle is how far does a politician have to go to induce you to seek out alternatives?
If Obama backtracks on torture, leaves tens of thousands of troops in Iraq, implements a mediocre health care system that is far from universal, leaves the treasury door open for plunder from the Wall Street fat cats, disregards the creeping imposition of the police state, etc. etc. etc. will you vote for a 2nd term for him? Would the threat of a Romney/Huckabee administration moot all of these concerns?
We are all subject to having our opinions shaped by the dominant media around us... And I can't help but wonder if the lack of interest in 3rd parties (that operate on principle rather than "big tent" pragmatism) and as adnoto mentioned, peaceable protest, on UT is in large part due to the effectiveness of the media and bipartisan establishment in defining these options as "fringe". I think the posting here and certainly Glenn's insightful parsing of the semantics of our mainstream political media do a good job of helping to break down this dominance of the discourse; I just wonder what more it would take to help people cast aside entirely their devotion to the two-party system, despite the fact that there might be a few good apples in the barrel.
What does it take for people who support progressive policies to stop adhering to the dominant idea that actual progressive candidates and parties are simply the nonviable "fringe left"?
