Should third party supporters vote for Obama?

Democratic operatives and apologists, asking Nader voters to support Obama in swing states, need to understand that this is a two way street; you can’t ask supporters of third party candidates for their votes while participating in activities which are inimical to third party politics.

It’s pretty simple: if Democratic candidates want our votes, they will need to pledge some things in return:

1. You must allow third party candidates to participate in Presidential debates. A reasonable threshold (such as appearing on ballots in states which total over 269 electoral votes) is acceptable.
2. You must pledge never to work against the enfranchisement of third party candidates in their quest to access a spot on the ballot of any state. The track record of the Democratic party is particularly bad on this issue.
3. You should pledge to implement instant runoff voting or another approval voting system for Presidential candidates. This will allow third party supporters to express their approval of the policies of a third party candidate, while allowing them also to avoid the potential of hurting their second choice candidate (who might be the Democrat!).

If you, as a member of one of the parties in power, can’t pledge to make the playing field more available to third party candidates, then there’s really no reason why we should give you our votes.

Barack Obama has lost my vote

Look, I know that a McCain presidency would be a disaster for the country. So don’t bother writing that in the comments.

What I can’t do is vote for Barack Obama. On FISA, he voted the same way John McCain did. On the disastrous Wall Street Bailout, same as McCain. He wants to now “reduce” the troops in Iraq – not withdraw. He’s all for invading Pakistan, for supporting Israel against the Palestinians and Iranians, and for admitting Russia’s border states into NATO. The rationale may or may not be different; no matter, the policies are the same.

His speeches expose underlying philosophical differences with McCain. I can respect that. But I don’t see those principles being reflected where it matters – in the conduct of the Executive Branch. Many of Obama’s progressive proposals (funding renewable energy research, altering the health care landscape) will live and die in the legislature, with or without him; at best, he’d not be a threat to veto as McCain would. And his support for the current bailout package means he’s admitting that in the next four years, there will be less money to spend on investment at home: infrastructure building and repair, education, supporting small businesses. There’s no change – never mind change to believe in.

I’ve been leaning toward voting for Ralph Nader but had not yet made up my mind. I think a Ralph Nader presidency would be interesting; his irascible nature may make it difficult for him to work well with Congress to get things done. That would be a shame, but shame on Congress in that case. Would we really want to repeat the Carter presidency all over again? Why would a potentially sympathetic Congress not work with someone who has good intentions and great ideas?

Still – I can’t give my vote to Obama and endorse his policies. I have to make the statement that this candidate (Ralph Nader) embodies my vision for how the country should be run. He won’t win, but at least it will be clear that these ideas have a significant constituency; and maybe in 2012, more of these policies will make it into the debate, and hopefully into the campaign of one of the candidates.

Don’t Focus

Professor Larry Lessig recently requested that we don’t lose sight of “the goal” – electing Barack Obama as President of the United States. There are a number of ways in which his argument fails, both logically and personally.

1. Perhaps most important is the conflation of avoiding a McCain presidency with electing Barack Obama. These are clearly not the same goals, given that there are more than these two candidates for President. Granted, so far only these two seem to be on the ballots of all 50 states; however, if any other candidate appears on enough ballots to gain 271 electoral votes, then they are viable alternatives to both McCain and Obama.
2. Prof. Lessig asks us to worry first about electing Obama, and then about bringing pressure on President Obama to espouse progressive values and legislation. However, it’s clear that after the election it’s too late for influence, except perhaps as an implicit threat not to vote for him for a second term. If progressives don’t make it clear right now that their candidate must espouse progressive values, then they won’t have any seat at the policy table.Voters faced the same dilemma when pulling the lever for Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996. Progressives decided to hold their noses and vote defensively, avoiding a GHWBush second term and a Dole presidency. What they got was certainly better than what we have now, or a so-called McBush presidency, but it was not an administration which pushed aggressively for a progressive world-view. I think this was made clear by the abandonment in this cycle of Hillary Clinton as a candidate.
3. Professor Lessig encourages us to have a particularly short-range focus over a long-range focus. The long-range strategy is to use the political system to make it clear to the Democratic Party and to individual candidates that they cannot win the Presidency without the support of progressive voters. Democratic candidates should therefore be courting the Edwards/Kucinich/Nader supporters, not alienating them in an attempt to “move to the (non-existent) center”. You’d think that after Gore lost in 2000 (with Lieberman! as his VP), and John “reporting for duty” Kerry lost in 2004, the party would have gotten the message.In fact, you’d almost have given Barack Obama credit (during the primary) for learning that lesson. It certainly sounded like “change” was synonymous with a new progressive approach to policy. His background would have given one “hope” that he’d buck the typical interests in Washington. Certainly his declarations around foreign policy (“meet with anyone”) were bold and appreciated. However (and I’ll go into these in a later post), we have these missteps:
   • Supporting conservative Democratic Congressional incumbents (Barrow, GA) over progressive primary challengers.
   • Support for corn-based ethanol as a fuel alternative, despite its horrible effect on world food prices and its own huge carbon footprint.
   • Auctioning off carbon credits to polluters (in a cap-and-trade system) and using the proceeds as energy credits for consumers?
   • Uncritical support for Israel’s occupation of Palestine.
   • Opting out of public financing – yes, we all know the system is broken, and yes, we know you can’t win without doing this. But it’s a disappointment all the same. It would be nice to be on the podium with McCain and Feingold and discuss why this might be necessary.

I’ll put more in a subsequent post about this, but I thought I’d plant the seed here. Progressives need to look hard at the promises made in the Obama campaign and evaluate each of them in terms of their likelihood of implementation. The most obvious distinction is between executive and legislative prerogatives. For example, when Obama promises a health-care proposal, it’s nice but it’s hot air, since it can only be implemented by the legislature. And we’ve seen how well that worked for the Clintons. Same with a lot of the education and environmental policies (except those which can be implemented by Executive Order). On the other hand, if you have warmed over Clinton foreign policy hawks as advisors, you can predict where the Commander-in-Chief might stand with respect to Iraq, Iran, Palestine, etc. And of course check out Senator Obama’s voting record on judicial appointments.

I fear that Professor Lessig’s post reads like the first in a series of disappointments; if we’re unlucky, leading ultimately to heartbreak. Much like the couple planning to get married in November, you can’t go into this with the idea that “we’ll get married first, then I’ll work on my partner to change later”. You need to work on your partner first, and if they’re not who you need them to be, then don’t marry them in November.

Some Advice for Ralph Nader

I can’t help thinking about what might happen during the Ralph Nader 2008 campaign, and the advice I’d give if I were involved as an advisor. So here are some observations. Keep in mind I’ve never worked on a campaign, so I have no expertise to call upon; on the other hand, I can see how this looks from the outside, so maybe these are useful:

1. Nader is perceived as garrulous and difficult to work with. Unwilling to listen to advice, unwilling to work with others, unwilling to compromise – all the negatives ascribed to Jimmy Carter, who was arguably one of the best presidents of the last half of the 20th century. To appeal more broadly, these perceptions need to be reversed. Instead of the campaign appearing like “Ralph against the world”, Nader should consider promoting or even just mentioning Congressional candidates with platforms similar to his. They of course will run as far and as fast away as they can, but Nader can at least help his supporters/voters come out and elect a progressive Congress, and, if lightning strikes and Nader is actually elected, he will have a track record which will make it easier for him to push his agenda through Congress.
2. Attacks on Democratic candidates overuse generalizations. The points Nader makes about the Democratic candidates (never mind the Republican) being influenced (“bought”?) by corporate dollars are certainly true to their extent. However, by being unwilling to point out real differences between the candidates, Nader alienates possible supporters with his oversimplification of their commonalities. It may be true that the differences between Obama and McCain are matters of degree and not principle; however, in many cases even these subtle differences are important.
   Take for example the topic of health care. None of the presidential candidates promote a single-payer system. However, Barack Obama at least recommends having a Medicare-like option in competition with private insurers; over time, if that option proves efficient and reliable, one could expect the majority of Americans to choose what would effectively turn into a single-payer provider. Yes, it’s not market change by fiat. But keep in mind, we’re voting for a President here; and this sort of change is not by Executive Order, but by an act of Congress.
3. Focus on the ballots and debates. One of the most important accomplishments Nader can achieve in an election cycle is exposing the lock that the two parties have on the electoral system, and working to make it ever easier for alternate candidates to run for President. In this, he should seriously consider joining forces with other former third party candidates to bring attention to the issue. Unfortunately, ballot signatures are a zero-sum game, so there’s no benefit to working with current third party candidates; they’re both (all?) trying to spend their resources in an attempt to collect what signatures and certifications they need to be on the ballots in as many states as possible.

If Ralph Nader is going to spend the time and effort to talk people into spending their time and money on his campaign, then he really owes it to his supporters to make the best effort he can to be elected. I can’t help thinking of the advice you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.