The duopoly again
Right now I'm listening to Revolutionary Blackout talking about Cornel West running as a Green:
The Nation magazine, to no-one's surprise, has published a piece coauthored by Bhaskar "The Jacobin or whatever" Sunkara titled "Cornel West Should Run as a Democrat."
The subtitle is amusing:
If he wants to go beyond preaching to the converted, he needs to take his socialist politics into the Democratic primaries.
The first and most obvious rebuttal is this: if Guttenplan and Sankara haven't noticed yet, the Democratic primaries are a mess. What's the enticement here? I'm sure Cornel West is saying "gee, if I try really hard, I can earn some delegates from Iowa and from New Hampshire which the DNC will refuse to seat. What a great opportunity!"
And wouldn't it best to avoid "preaching to the converted" by running as a Republican? The Democrats are, to be sure, already converted -- the problem, of course, is that they are in fact converted to the belief that it's best to be insincerely "nice" to the likes of Cornel West while selling out those who genuinely believe in his message. Yeah, Cornel West needs to convert LOTS of people to that belief, without any concern at all that all of his efforts will accomplish diddly-squat.
Guttenplan and Sankara begin by introducing West to their readership, then they offer their first drop of poison:
Though the party does have a long history in Europe, the US Green Party reached its peak in 2000, when Ralph Nader won almost 3 million votes for president (and has been blamed by mainstream pundits ever since for the failure of Al Gore’s dismal campaign).
Here we go; it's the old spoiler argument again.
And if Donald Trump remains in serious contention next year, that is a risk no progressive can dismiss.
Maybe Cornel West will "divide the vote" and allow Donald Trump to ascend to the Presidency, where he will -- if he's not too lazy to do so -- end Joe Biden's dangerously stupid con job in Ukraine. How terrifying. And I'm sure Trump will, once again, appoint someone like Elliott Abrams. No, wait, that's happened already under Biden.
But wait! There's a positive argument.
On the debate stage, at campaign rallies, and in national media coverage, West, with his prophetic voice and moral clarity—like Sanders in 2016 and 2020—could accomplish a great deal.
Like Sanders in 2016 and 2020, they say. I don't know if Guttenplan and Sankara have noticed, but the Sanders of 2023 has already endorsed Joe Biden.
& here I'd like to ask what these authors think Sanders has in fact accomplished, besides making us all feel obliged to elect neoliberal Democrats every four years.
Guttenplan and Sankara conclude by arguing:
Running as a Democrat would transform West’s candidacy from a sterile exercise into a vehicle for redeeming our politics from the corporate complacency and soul-crushing cynicism about democratic politics that serves only those already in power.
Is that what Bernie Sanders did? Did Sanders redeem our politics from corporate complacency and soul-crushing cynicism? Or would it work out that Cornel West would, running as a Democrat, merely add to this soul-crushing cynicism?
(side note about RFK Jr. -- RFK Jr. comes to the table with some rather recent and rather controversial bona fide credentials for opposing the Establishment. The fact that RFK Jr.'s credentials are about vaccines is in this instance of no consequence. His most important attribute is that he is not Joe Biden. So, please, honestly, no, He's not "ersatz.")
Comments
Umm, not really sure about the conversion factors here
seems like anyone running under the donkey banner
are doomed to lose, unless the establishment says ok
independent, green or peoples parties get no satisfiable
traction
The Democrats might do well next year.
But unless they can nominate RFK Jr., they've lost the White House.
'French theory is a product of US cultural imperialism." -- Gabriel Rockhill
well hell they don't need the executive
as long as the legislative and justice branches
are trimmed to suit their fancy
the duopoly thrives
I don't know of an American minor party
anywhere, of any ideological persuasion that has had sense enough to try and push for
some form of proportional representation - which would at least get them a shot at being
on board at the state and local level.
Or, for that matter, push for awarding electors in presidential elections proportionally.
Under such a system both California Greens and Libertarians would have had at least one Electoral College vote in 2016 and 2020. Not much under most circumstances, but way ahead of zero...
There are some minor-party efforts
-- to push for alternative voting or political selection methods. Problem is, nobody can see them because the minor parties in the US are constituted by so few people.
So far, nearly everyone in American politics has been super-kewl with the "major parties are the route to success" route. The American mind appears impervious to the notion that if you focus really hard on calling something a success, it might still be a failure, and continuing to fool yourself will not change that fact.
'French theory is a product of US cultural imperialism." -- Gabriel Rockhill
RFK, Jr. goes *way* off the reservation...
Big Pharma already hate him for vax-skepticism, now he (in the context of other sane and nuanced comments about abortion and guns) threatens another of their main revenue streams by stating the obvious: the connection between antidepressants and mass shootings needs to be thoroughly investigated.
Imagine Kamala or Joe in this sort of town hall setting? Stuff of nightmares...
"I used to say, 'somebody should do something about that'. Then I realized I am somebody."
- Lily Tomlin