[Update: I've seen some headlines in the last day or two in which Obama says that he's going to put a stop to torture by the United States. Time will tell if this is true, but if does this, as far as I'm concerned he doesn't need to accomplish anything further to be considered a successful President.]
As many of us have come to realize, there are two often-contradictory aspects
to voting in the United States: (1) a vote is a pragmatic tactic for getting
the least-bad major-party candidate elected, and (2) a vote is a means--the
only means that really counts--of communicating a message about one's
preferences to the powers-that-be.
Thus the agony for those of us for whom most closely match the principles of
Ralph Nader or the Green Party; if the race is close, we are forced to choose
between a pragmatic vote that sends a false message and a message vote that
risks an unpleasant practical outcome.
I voted for Nader in 2000 because he's one of the very few people in public
life that I really respect, and his political views most closely match my own.
He's certainly not perfect and I could name dozens of people that I think
would make a better President, but of the actual candidates he's an obvious
stand-out.
In 2000, I lived in Missouri, and (to avoid unhinging anyone) I will remind
that third-party voters did not affect the outcome in this state. Like many
of you, I was outraged by what I saw as a possibly stolen election, but the
argument that Nader "cost" Gore the election I found no more than marginally
compelling at the time.
[Actually, that argument reminds me a lot of being a child and having some
playground bully walk towards me with his arms swinging wildly, asserting that
if I didn't move out of his path, I wasn't allowed to complain about a bloody
nose, since technically I would have "hit" his fist with my nose. This
argument also seemed mildly compelling at the time, as I recall.]
In 2004, I voted for Kerry even though Nader was also on the ballot.
Unfortunately I do not recall my exact reasoning, but I think I was swayed
quite a bit by the anti-Nader sentiment. Also, my impression at that moment
was that Kerry's views were relatively closer to mine than Gore's.
One thing I learned in those two elections was that voting one's principles
and losing stings some, but selling out one's principles and losing leaves a
much more lasting mark.
In 2008, I live in Kansas. Since it's one of the preordained red states and
never determinative, Democrats in Kansas vote in the Presidential race only to
send their message. My vote being only "symbolic", I could vote as I pleased.
On the one hand, I was extremely happy to see an African-American candidate on
his way to victory. I also have to admit that as candidates, Obama is
exciting and Nader is not. On the other hand, I remember Bill Clinton
well--he's the only Democratic candidate I've ever voted for that won (I was
too young to vote for Carter), and after being inaugurated, he almost
immediately began selling out what I considered to be important liberal
principles (refusing to stand up for my gay friends in the military, for
example).
For the last couple of years I've been coming to DailyKos to gather
information and watch issues being discussed. For me, it is the face of the
Democratic Party. I guess there are other Democrats, but they seem to act in
relative secrecy, and at times and places that rule out my attendance.
Although I see a lot of material on DailyKos that matches my thinking, the
anti-Nader rhetoric stands in stark contrast. As I said, I don't find the
basic argument that Nader cost Gore the election to be compelling. I won't
repeat the case against what seems to me a canard--I'm sure I won't change
your mind at this point.
What has shocked me, though, is the repeated, vitriolic attacks on those who
voted for Nader, or who express admiration for his work, or especially those
considering voting for him in the current election. We are apparently
supposed to be traitors--certainly un-Democratic if not un-American. Our
desires to have our voices heard, to disagree with the continued war, to
disagree with FISA and telecom immunity, to be heard on so many other issues,
are held out as some sort of political heresy.
I believe that Nader and the Green Party render a valuable service to liberals
in this country. Without some kind of counterbalance, elected Democrats will
inevitably compromise to the right when difficult choices come up. Simple
consideration of the economics of the situation demonstrate why "marginal"
Democrats like Joe Lieberman wield so much power--their votes are often
decisive. Without a contervailing block of non-Democrats to the left,
Democratic politicians will continue to lean like a sapling supported by only
one pole.
A strong left-flank opposition makes it much easier for Democrats to
demonstrate fortitude. It's one thing to tell a Joe Lieberman that you can't
adjust your position because it's too far a stretch of your principles. It's
an entirely different and more powerful thing to say that you can't adjust
your position because you and your party will get killed at re-election time
by defections from your party to the left.
Markos seems to feel that anyone with liberal inclinations must support the
Democratic Party one hundred percent, and that the only answer to dissent is
caustic, scorched-earth attack. This appears to me to be like (paraphrasing
Scott Adams) walking into a car dealership, telling them you have $20,000, and
asking them to pick out a car for you. By doing so you entirely destroy your
bargaining position.
I don't doubt that Markos wields a fair amount of "power", in the sense that
VIPs will invite him to lunches and nod courteously when he expresses his
opinions. But that doesn't appear to me to give him real power, but rather
just to make him a sort of celebrity lackey. The only way for the left wing
to wield real power is to demonstrate a credible threat to the Democratic
Party if they succumb to the temptation to stray to the right.
One thing that reading these shrill--the word unfortunately seems apt--attacks
has convinced me of is that I even though I've thought of myself as a stalwart
Democrat for my entire life, I really am not. If I have to pile on when good
people are trashed and told to "fuck themselves" and "kill themselves", well,
I'm just not up for that. If that's heaven, I'll take hell, thank you.
As for Obama, I'm glad he won the practical race with McCain. Perhaps I got
to have my cake and eat it, too. I'm cautiously optimistic that he might turn
out to be somewhat better than the recent batch of Democrats. But there is
already much to argue against it, as we are already starting to see as he
begins his drift to the right.
I'm glad I didn't compromise this time.