1)Actually working for the defeat of the Republican party.

2)Keeping grassroots pressure on the Democratic administration that follows to embrace progressive change.

3)A broad-based campaign after the election for electoral reform so that presidential elections don't have to be as limited as they are now.

What CAN'T work

1)Voting for minor-party presidential candidates. The Electoral College makes this permanently useless and pointless.
2)Accusing progressives who tactically support the Democratic presidential ticket of not being on the left because they don't believe in the futility on non-party presidential candidates(and because they know that such votes only cause damage to working-class voters, GLBT voters, Rainbow voters and the dispossessed, none of whom have the luxury of sitting through what would have to be decades of unchallenged extreme right-wing rule in order to get a "pure" new party, and who know that inevitably a "pure" new party would have to end up being just as compromised as the Democrats now are.

I am a leftist. I am an activist. But I am not a fool. That is why I can't vote to consign the Rainbow majority to powerlessness by voting for a non-party candidate. And those who cast such a vote are voting to say to that Rainbow majority "we don't care if you suffer".

The path has to be

1)defeat the far right.

2)organize a larger left movement from below.

3)create the pressure for electoral reform so that more progressive choices can be made in the future.

1. The Democrats haven't pursued any policy significantly different from the Republicans.

2. Mass movements are capable of influencing the course of history without necessarily electing some representative to office.

It was Nixon - not JFK or LBJ - that thawed the Cold War and surrendered in Viet Nam.

Your fearmongering about "extreme right-wing rule" does a disservice to the ability of the people of the United States to bring about change. Most dangerously, it perpetuates the illusion that the Kennedys and Carters and Clintons and Obamas are the expression of ... what... of "moderate" right-wing rule?

quote:

---

1. The Democrats haven't pursued any policy significantly different from the Republicans.

---

quote:

---

2. The Democrats haven't pursued any policy significantly different from the Republicans.

---

quote:

---

3. The Democrats haven't pursued any policy significantly different from the Republicans.

---

quote:

---

4. The Democrats haven't pursued any policy significantly different from the Republicans.

---

quote:

---

5. The Democrats haven't pursued any policy significantly different from the Republicans.

---

quote:

---

6. The Democrats haven't pursued any policy significantly different from the Republicans.

---

quote:

---

7. The Democrats haven't pursued any policy significantly different from the Republicans.

---

quote:

---

8. The Democrats haven't pursued any policy significantly different from the Republicans.

---

quote:

---

9. The Democrats haven't pursued any policy significantly different from the Republicans.

---

quote:

---

10. The Democrats haven't pursued any policy significantly different from the Republicans.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

It was Nixon - not JFK or LBJ - that thawed the Cold War and surrendered in Viet Nam.

---

Republican presidencies are always dead zones for activism.

I believe in getting the far right out, using the space thus created to organize, and then pushing forward. You all know no one can organize for change when a country's MOST right wing party is in power.

And I'm not unquestioning loyal to the Dems. I worked for the Greens for ten years. We achieved nothing. Case closed on the point of doing that.

I support activism from below. But it goes without saying that third-party presidential campaigns can never aid such activism. 2000 proved that, once and for all.

I support building a movement. But it's been proven that voting for Nader doesn't build anything. Can't you see that, even now?

What possible good can come from supporting an unelectable third-party presidential candidate? The days when that was worthwhile ended in 1948, when Henry Wallace was crushed and the result was the blacklist.

I'm for the movement. I'm a leftist. If Spector would stop demanding that I waste my vote and my life on a third party effort that could never work just to prove I'm a leftist, I'd stop doing threads like this.

The U.S. needs change. History proves that third parties can never again achieve that in the U.S.

The people can build change, but no successful movement for change has ever occurred when Republicans held the White House.

Their needs to be the space. That space never exists under Republicans. That's the distinction I'm making.

It's different in Canada, since you don't have the Electoral College. An NDP could never have worked here.

[ 23 June 2008: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

[ 23 June 2008: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

I will continue to work for a movement from below to create change.

My only disagreement is on third-party presidential campaigns.

I don't think Obama=Utopia. I think the electoral defeat of the GOP is a necessary precondition to further organizing. Does everybody get the distinction now?

I support electoral reform and work for it in various ways. Don't assume I sit on my hands.

[ 23 June 2008: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:
History proves that third parties can never again achieve that in the U.S.

---

You are acting as if the Presidential election is the one election that matters at the federal level in the US. There are actually 2 others: The House of Representatives, and the Senate. It is more realistic to target these types of seats first and keep going. Would an NDP-type of party take control of the Congress after one election? No, but if this party were to keep pushing, it could break through. A similar thing happened with the CCF here in Canada. And as this party gets momentum, it would also create pressure on higher levels of government to act in such a way. Why not try with successful candidates at municipal and state levels who break the Democrat/Republican mold?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:
OK, I can see a valid case for Congressional and Senatorial races for third-party candidates. If you read my posts carefully, the point I was making was exclusively about third-party PRESIDENTIAL candidates.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:
Republican presidencies are always dead zones for activism.[ 23 June 2008: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

---

I have a bit of a quibble with this assertion. The anti-Vietnam war movement reached it's peak during Nixon's first term, and The largest global anti-war protests took place against the impending Iraq war on February 15, 2003. However, I do agree that second-term republican presidencies have been dead zones for activism.

I also agree with Ken Burch that there is zero hope of an electoral win by a third-party left of centre presidential candidate immediately following a Republican presidnecy. The only hope for a third party left of centre presidential candidate comes following a Democratic presidency. No movement to create a viable third party can take place under a Republican presidnecy; and any movement during a Democratic presidency to create a viable third party that can elect a third party presidential candidate withers and dies if the Republicans get back into office.

It is also evident that a movement to create a third party cannot gain support fast enough to be able to win the presidency after four years of Democratic administration. Therefore, any movement to create a third party will need to be, for a few election cycles, be convinced to adopt a strategy of critical support of the Democrats.

So the strategy looks like this:

Elect a Democratic president, as well as a Democratic controlled Congress. The more decisive the victory over the republicans, the easier the task of building a viable left of centre alternative to the Democrats.

Work like hell over the next 4 years to build a viable third party to the left of the Democrats. At the same time, work like hell to change to political discourse in the US and create large a large scale progressive social movement, as these will be curcial in the formation and eventual election of said third party presidential candidate.

Convince supporters of said third party that the party can only contest down-ticket races in the short term (said party will need to correctly gauge what down ticket items can be contested, so the Republicans do not regain power). Convince them that it is absolutely necessary to support the Democratic presidential candidate. Obviously, this means not running a third party presidential candidate a this juncture.

Work like hell to keep building the third party, increasing what races are contested as the party's support grows. Also, keep working like hell to change the political discourse in the US, and to build a large scale progressive social movement in the US.

When the third party has enough support to win the presidency, run a presidential candidate. The calculation on this matter needs to be right. The third party calculates wrong, they will split the left of centre vote with the Democrats, and the Republicans will get back in.

If the Republicans recapture the presidency, at any point in this process, support for said third party will collapse. If the Republicans recapture the presidency because the third party's presidential candidate splits the anit-republican vote, then said third party ceases to be able to ever elect a president.

The other scenario is that said third party, and its attendant social movements, manage to put sufficient pressure on the Democrats to enact electoral reform, which might enable said third party to survive even if the Republicans recapture the presidency.

In any case, it will take a seismic shift in the political, social, and class consciousness of millions of American workers.

[ 23 June 2008: Message edited by: Left Turn ]

quote:

---

There could never have been a Tommy Douglas in U.S. presidential politics.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
His name was George McGovern.

---

McGovern was one of if not the most missunderstood men who have run for the presidency. His opposition to Vietnam led to some to call him a coward and a traitor.

What many do not know is that he flew 35 missions as the pilot of a B-24 in WWII and earned the Distinguished Flying Cross for saving his crew.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:

What possible good can come from supporting an unelectable third-party presidential candidate? The days when that was worthwhile ended in 1948, when Henry Wallace was crushed and the result was the blacklist.

---

That's what's always confused me about American third-party efforts. There always seems to be a lot of focus on electing some no-hope Presidential candidate instead of competing for local offices where there's more of a chance. It's like trying to run before you can walk.

[ 24 June 2008: Message edited by: Doug ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Left Turn:
However, I do agree that second-term republican presidencies have been dead zones for activism.

---

Could it have anything to do with the cold, dead hand of the Democratic Party, promising once again that if the activists will just go home and shut up for four more years and then vote Democrat, their most ardent activist desires will be realized?

quote:

---

I also agree with Ken Burch that there is zero hope of an electoral win by a third-party left of centre presidential candidate immediately following a Republican presidnecy.

---

quote:

---

So the strategy looks like this:

Elect a Democratic president, as well as a Democratic controlled Congress. The more decisive the victory over the republicans, the easier the task of building a viable left of centre alternative to the Democrats.

---

quote:

---

...to build a large scale progressive social movement in the US.

---

quote:

---

People used to say the same thing about the possibility of a black man (or a woman) becoming president immediately following a Republican administration. Never say never.

---

What we learned instead is that a Black man or a woman can and will win the nomination of the Democratic party and get elected President. What will not work is to have a Black man run for President as the candidate of the African-American Party or for a woman to run as the candidate of the Women's Party.

quote:

---

News flash: There's already a large-scale progressive social movement in the US. These are the millions of progressives who see no alternative to the capitalist duopoly of US politics, and vote Democrat out of sheer habit. All they need is some organization and political leadership - a leadership that won't be constantly trying to drag them back into the arms of the Democrats.

---

Then the locus for organizing that needs to be in lower-ticket offices, where there is actually the chance of winning some seats.

Why, Spector, are you so obsessed with having U.S. progressives waste time and money on a no hope third party presidential campaign? That's my major point of disagreement with you.

You make it sound like if we all just went independent we could win THIS YEAR or something. That's delusional. The kind of split off you advocate would leave the hard right with absolute power for at least ten to twenty years, assuming we could win by then.

I'm as left as you are. I just want the left to use its efforts on fights it can actually win. The election of an independent left president, great as that would be, can't be one of those fights, at least as long as the Electoral College stays in place.

And yes, George McGovern was close to an American Tommy Douglas. And he worked through the Democratic party, which got him much closer to getting elected than any third-party presidential effort did. McGovern lost more due to Nixon's dirty tricks and the sabotage of his party's regular wing than through his actual stance on the issues.

[ 24 June 2008: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
I think that there is a far better chance of someone very left wing (by American standards) capturing the Democratic nomination and then getting elected President than there is of a 3rd party candidate ever winning election.

---

But, if you think there will be pie in the sky, if you feel like pure escapism, there's nothing more satisfying than "revolutionary" posturing, combined with an inability to even speak to the population of the United States.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:
Why, Spector, are you so obsessed with having U.S. progressives waste time and money on a no hope third party presidential campaign? That's my major point of disagreement with you.

---

I might just as well ask you why you are so obsessed with wasting time and money on a no-hope Democratic Party presidential campaign. But I already know the answer.

quote:

---

You make it sound like if we all just went independent we could win THIS YEAR or something.

---

quote:

---

I'm as left as you are.

---

Oh yes, just join the party and start working for the revolution, led by Spectre and the gang, which will surely occur some day. Won't it?

For sure it will, because they've been telling us it will for over a hundred years.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
I mean, when you are "correct", what's a little thing like the fact that almost everyone thinks you are fools?

---

And you can now stay out of this thread for the duration too, Jeff.

I work in my way to expand them.

You assume the fact that I support a tactical anti-GOP presidential vote means I've surrendered to the status quo. It doesn't.

All it means is that I'm trying to work in a way that can achieve something within the current U.S. spectrum, while still trying to expand that spectrum.

You don't HAVE to work for a minor-party presidential candidate to prove you're "left".

And working for the Democratic presidential candidate doesn't mean absolving that party of its failings.

And one of the reasons I started this thread and a couple of the others was your constant and pointless baiting and your unjustified attacks on the depths of my convictions, and as a way to present positive alternative, Spectre. You've been obsessed with trying to force me to take the path of futility and certain defeat just to prove to you that I'm really walking the walk or whatever. Why? It's not like I personally hold the key to the success of third-party presidential politics in the U.S. And you STILL haven't said why you think a third-party PRESIDENTIAL campaign isn't a pointless waste of progressive resources.

Remember, Ralph achieved nothing in 1996, 2000, or 2004. If that's how it went those last three times(with the vote collapsing last time)isn't that proof that third-party presidential campaigns will always be futile? Wouldn't trying that again basically be the definition of insanity?

[ 24 June 2008: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

Your view is always lets have an open political system that only includes the part of the political spectrum I like. Real believers in democracy say lets have all points of view discussed as long as they are non-violent.

The status quo means that as a rich white man from the free world you very powerful. It is quite logical that you would resist any political ideology that would upset your comfortable world.

Democracy is the exchange of political ideas not the exchange of only the right's ideas. The right in North America already control all the news media but that isn't enough for you it appears only complete silencing of opinions you disagree with will make you happy.

And again, I never said that Obama=utopia. But it does go without saying that we can't build a left if McCain and the far right stay in. Look at the last four years in the U.S. and you see my point.

The space for organizing and growth only occurs when Republicans are out.

Too much will be lost.

I supported Kucinich in the primaries. He was forced out by the corporate crowd. My support for Obama after that was based on the passionate multiracial and youth-based coalition he'd put together.

And all the stuff you dislike about U.S. foreign policy will be completely unstoppable if we do what you want and just concede a McCain victory. Obama will at least get us out of Iraq, and it will be possible to work for a stronger antiwar position on his part. What hope could there be for ever stopping U.S. involvement in Iraq OR Afghanistan if McCain won? The antiwar movement couldn't possibly grow in a McCain administration.

And it would only be possible to create the support needed for electoral reform if the far right was out of power.

It's about creating the space. Is that so hard to understand?

[ 24 June 2008: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
Who stopped America's invasion of Vietnam, Johnson or Nixon?? What has changed in the equation now?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
Who stopped America's invasion of Vietnam, Johnson or Nixon?? What has changed in the equation now?

---

It was stopped under Nixon(although only because in that instance the Democratic Congress actually showed some spine and wouldn't fund more bombing), but it can't be possible for an antiwar movement to succeed under a Republican president now. Too much has changed, national security-state wise.

And in any case, there's nothing so loathesome about Obama that it's worth stopping him just to punish the Democrats.

quote:

---

Who stopped America's invasion of Vietnam, Johnson or Nixon??

---

The US department of Justice has been thoroughly corrupted by the Bush administration. Right now they are attacking Democratic legislators in particular and left wing get out the vote operations. The legislators are vulnerable due to the endemic corruption in the system.

McCain won't fix that. Obama will. Precisely because it is specifically Republican corruption.