Released from SoapBlox/Chicago
Bill Scheurer and Melissa Bean
As many of you know, Bill Scheurer is running as a third party candidate against Melissa Bean and the eventual Republican primary winner in IL-8. Also as many of you know, Bill is generally very progressive in his stance on issues and will be challenging Bean from the left. What you may not know is that in 2004 Scheurer also challenged Bean in the Democratic primary and was defeated 78% to 22%.
I wrote Bill a letter last week to ask about why he has decided to run as an independent rather than again challenge Bean in the primary. I also asked about his response to those who would categorize his run as a perceived spoiler in the mold of Nader or Perot. Finally I asked about his thoughts on making third parties viable in the United States and his stances on elevtion reform. Below the fold I'll present the full text of my letters and Bill's responses. Cal Skinner has also published the first part of my correspondence with Bill at his blog, "McHenry County Blog". I also e-mailed Rep. Bean's office to get her take on Bill's candidacy, but did not receive a reply.
My letter to Bill Scheurer:
I am a student who grew up in Palatine in the 8th. I consider myself a progressive and have always voted for liberal (usually Democratic) candidates. I've been disappointed in Congresswoman Bean's voting record and have been pleased with what I've learned about Bill's position on the issues. While I prefer Bill to Bean, I certainly don't want to do anything to put one of the Republican candidates in office.
What I want to know is why Bill Scheurer has decided to run as an independent rather than challenge Bean in the primary. Practical? Ideological? I think that he offers a good alternative to Bean, but people are always going to struggle with the whole "throwing away your vote" or "voting for Scheurer is like voting for the Repub" thing.
Bill's response:
Democrats sometimes ask why our campaign is running me as a new party candidate in the general election, instead of challenging the Democratic incumbent in their primary. Won't this just hand the seat back over to the Republicans? They ask.
We thought long and hard about going into the Democratic primary. In the end, the majority of my supporters agreed that it would be better to take our campaign into the general election instead. There are several reasons for this.
One of the reasons for this decision is that both, the Democratic incumbent and the Republican challenger, are basically out to appeal to the same, corporate conservative voting block. They support the interests of the wealthy over working families, the Iraq war, the Patriot Act, the bankruptcy bill, estate tax repeal, millionaire tax cuts, the Enron/Halliburton energy bill, the flag amendment, the Mexico-wall, CAFTA, and other such Republican positions. This does not offer much of a choice to voters. At some point, we have to force the system to start offering better choices to voters.
Neither of the two established parties has presented any credible agenda for the biggest challenges that face this country -- establishing security and peace, balancing the budget, fixing our broken healthcare system, and stopping the attack on working families. This is what the majority of Americans (and, people in our district) want us to do.
Another related reason was that we felt our prospects for reaching the most voters with our message were better in the general election in a 3-way race -- where the other two candidates would be splitting the same votes, rather than in a head-to-head against the Republican candidate (who would have all those votes to his or herself).
We realize that my presence in the race almost guarantees a loss by Bean, and that we have to accept some of the responsibility for this outcome. However, the Democratic Party and Bean herself will bear the greater responsibility for any temporary setback -- should we not win enough votes for my candidacy to prevent this seat from going back into Republican hands for the next two years.
The Democratic Party still does not understand why it keeps losing elections. Even with the current meltdown of the Republican regime, with its unprecedented levels of incompetence and corruption -- the Democrats gain little ground. This is because they have conceded the battlefield, before the battle even begins.
The Democratic Party keeps acting like there is a right-wing majority in this country (and in our district), and that the only way to not lose is to accommodate this phantom voter block. This leads them to offer candidates whom their core supporters can only regard as being "the lesser of two evils" at best.
Well, guess what? The Republicans have candidates that their core supporters enthusiastically embrace! So, who is going to win and lose these elections? Our feeling is that Bean almost certainly would lose her 2006 re-election bid, even without me in the race.
She has betrayed the core supporters who put her in office in the first place. It is not just organized labor. Progressives of all stripes are completely disenchanted with her, including an ever-growing block of peace voters. She traded all this for the marginal middle, a truckload of corporate cash, and newspaper praise.
Listen to her most vocal supporters. What can they say about her? All you hear is -- she is a Democrat, and will vote for the Democratic leadership. There is nothing else they can say! I am not minimizing the importance of ending Republican rule. But really -- can they honestly expect her to win with something like that? When McSweeney and Salvi have their adoring legions of enthusiastic support -- for them, and their positions.
Melissa Bean is still running against Phil Crane. Well, guess what? Phil Crane lost 37% of his vote in a Republican primary to an unknown, unfunded challenger -- with no campaign organization and no support. People knew -- on both sides of the aisle -- that Phil Crane had been there too long.
Bean appeared Republican enough (and, accurately so) for some people to let Crane go and give her a try. But now, the Republicans will have a real Republican. They don't need her anymore. While, the Democrats do not have a real Democrat. They don't want her anymore. (Even the party loyalists don't really want her. They just don't want a Republican more. How can she win like that?)
So, what we patiently try to explain to people who care about the Democratic Party is that Bean is the real spoiler in this race, not me. This statement is not made in arrogance, and I understand -- at first, it seems absurd, in view of the party apparatus behind her. But, that poor machine will not be enough for her to win. This means -- a Democrat vote for Bean, is a vote for the Republican.
I am not claiming to act in the interests of the Democratic Party. Nor, do I claim to be a great candidate, as an alternative to her. What is clear to me, and to my growing list of supporters -- is that Bean is not the right person to keep this seat out of Republican hands. And, it is becoming highly doubtful to a rising tide of people around the country -- that the Democratic Party itself is moving in the right direction to stop this country from staying in Republican hands. This is because it is losing its base.
The Democrats have not yet learned that the Republicans seized power by playing to their base, not by running away from it. As long as the Democrats keep marginalizing their base, taking them for granted, or worse, discrediting them -- they offer diminishing hope to the problems of one-party rule in our country.
My follow-up question:
While I agree generally with your points my issue is also with the current voting system. The current method of voting all but ensures a two-party system in perpetuity. As long as one party can maintain an iron-fisted handle on its base any other candidates will simply cannibalize the remaining each other without leading to any real growth. My question to you then, is if you are interested and willing to begin pushing for voting method refom such as instant run-off voting, Condorcet methods or some other? (http://en.wikipedia.org/...) Are you familiar with H.R.2690 (http://www.govtrack.us/...) and what are your thoughts on it?
Bill's response:
I actively support all reforms toward a healthy, multiparty democracy, with equal ballot access and full public funding of campaigns.
See the item below from the "reform" section of our website:
Reform
Our democracy is drowning in dirty money. We snicker at developing countries where bribery is part of doing business. Here, we do it in the light of day, "in front of God and everyone."
The corporate, two-party monopoly has given our government a "bipolar personality disorder."
A dysfunctional government turns out bizarre legislation harmful to our long-term interests. People are so divided, they can't think straight, can't talk to each other.
We have to clean up the system and open it to all. With a little creativity, and a lot of resolve, we can do this in ways that still uphold our 1st Amendment free speech rights.
We need to move to a healthy, multiparty democracy, with guaranteed voting rights, equal ballot access, proportional representation, instant runoff voting, and real campaign finance reform.
This will invigorate our democracy and open it to broader participation and higher quality debate.
The two major parties do not like these reforms, because it will end their monopoly on our political system. But, it is our democracy, not theirs.
Electoral reform and media reform go hand in hand. The same corporate interests that own the parties, also own the media.
An informed public is the only sure base for a healthy democracy.