1
1
1
The simple answer is that they were pushed. They were pushed hard by people who care about these issues and who care more about principles than just winning elections in the short run. The candidacies of Ralph Nader in 2000 and 2004 and 2008 were part of that pushing process. Any suggestions that the activist left needs to stop pushing, for whatever reason, is a wan attempt to buttress the status quo power structure. I would like to convince more people to be unfaltering pushers. Be loud, vocal advocates for the next level of principled issues- single-payer healthcare, an end to corporate domination, a contraction of empire, opposition to nuclear and coal power. These things can also become an accepted part of the agenda only through agitation.
In the aftermath of Obama’s impressive win there seem to be many who are dismayed that some on the left didn’t get on board the bandwagon, voted for a third party candidate and who are already critical of the conquering hero. They seem mystified that anyone would want to vocally protest a popular Democratic president. There’s even an effort to shout down and stifle some of these protests.
In the reflection of the scorn that was heaped on the ten percent of 2001, the attempts of these present day guardians of consensus to shame insurgents are pretty laughable. One can rest assured that they will have no affect whatsoever on the opinions and tactics of these seasoned dissenters. It only draws comparison between the proclivity to believe that Bush was a trusted authority figure and that Obama, likewise, needs us to be blind followers. This isn’t to suggest that Obama will be a repeat of Bush but rather that there is a segment of the population that is prone to unquestioning obedience in times of uncertainty. They are not natural constituents of the ten percent.
There will always be a tension between principle and the need for pragmatic compromise in order to achieve results. But the defining characteristic of this particular Democratic Party is to always keep their base in a subordinate position no matter how right they are and how indispensable they are to the party’s victories. This can only be attributed to the fact that they are serving a different master than their constituents. The positions that Ralph Nader articulates are supported by the vast majority of Democrats and yet we are told that it is impractical for the Democratic Party to adopt them. Why?
What too many are afraid to admit is that they have little power or voice in their own party. It should be no surprise that Obama is assembling a cabinet that is more conservative than Bill Clinton’s. The reigns of power have never been wrested from the corporate conservatives no matter how complicit they have been in our policy disasters. Progressives failed to make their voices heard in this last election by unifying as a voting bloc. The belief that Obama was a champion of progressive ideals was belied by his clearly stated positions.
Building electoral strength can happen within the Democratic Party, but we should be cognizant of the ways that the primary system thwarts these efforts. Dennis Kucinich was forced out by the power establishment. John Edwards took himself out. Howard Dean was piled on by the media. To believe that progressives can only build electoral strength within the party is to accept the fenced in and futile confines of a “free-speech zone”.
Building a third party should be a consistent and serious effort. Any admonishment that this would upset the smooth functioning of the status quo two-party system should be seen as a validation of our efforts. No one should believe at this point that staying silent will serve progressive goals, the Democratic Party or the nation at large. We have to have the courage to play the game where it counts- in rallying votes that can win elections.
1 | 2
