It's safe to assume that most folks who are center-left would like to see someone else in the White House other than Bush and his gang. Therefore figuring out what has to be done for the 2004 election is crucial. What this seems to mean, then is yet another long-winded huffing "debate" about rogue greens and the fold. I got sick of that stuff after 2000 and I'm displeased to see it revisited with such vengeance. So after wading through more green/progressive bashing on dailyKos and other blogs and forums, it's nice to find something that resembles a constructive and respectful debate over at Alas, a Blog.
I hope that this atmosphere will remain there and that it may spread to the larger treatment of the issue. While I want Bush out of there as much as most anyone, I don't see that the way to woo my rogue-green vote is by constantly pestering me about my "electing Bush" (for the record, I live in Massachusetts--even folks here can't seem to figure out that somehow the Electoral College trumps on this level) or demanding that I stop stealing votes from those candidates who obviously deserve it more or that by wanting a candidate to reflect some level of my beliefs that I'm demanding too much from them. It's not enough to simply be notBush, they have to not be Bushlike. They have to accept that perhaps I want a candidate to stand for something and that that something had better not be the corporate line.
If the Democrats really want the progressive vote, they should be willing to listen to progressives. And even more than that, court them. If the Democrats are so concerned about the spoiler issue (here, I give a local shout-out to party-liner Alan Chartock) they would support ininitiatives like Instant Run-off Voting. If they were so devistated by the 93,000 votes that Nader got in Florida, they would express absolute, shrieking outrage over the various means of disenfranchising tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of non-white voters. When almost 14 percent of the African-American populations in Florida are denied the right to vote by felony convictions (90% of which generally votes Democratic), when machine errors stack up by the tens of thousands, when thousands of hispanics were turned away for not producing two forms of id (heck, I almost never carry 2 forms of ID with me), a tactic that wasn't used in predominantly white districts--same with roadblocks, when voting irregularities and bias are exposed and the Democrats do not make voting reform a major plank of their platform, they fail, yet again, to not only stand on principle, but to ensure the system doesn't act against the interests of democracy.
Which reminds me of my democracy rant, but that's for another day.
For now, I want to defeat Bush passionately, but if the Democrats expect to get my vote, and the votes of many other progressives, they would be wise to recognize that we are committed. To pour abuse on those you are demanding fealty from is not particularly constructive. There's a good chance that many progressives will hold their noses and vote D just to boot Bush...but that kind of support is not what a movement is based on. If anything it further alienates those voters from the Democratic party when the flash issue of the Bush regime is over. To not only bring these voters back into the fold, but to keep them there requires an actual appeal.
4:14:30 AM 
|
|
