We have now reached a stage in American politics that is sadly all too familiar. Both Republican and Democratic parties are on the verge of nominating candidates that many of us progressives have reactions to ranging from dislike and distrust (in the case of Hillary Clinton) to utterly revolting (Donald Trump). We are then faced with the dilemma of whether to vote for the lesser of the two evils or say to hell with both of them and either not vote or vote for someone else who is more closely attuned to our own agenda but will definitely not win. In the current race, the Green party’s Jill Stein fills that role.
This is never an easy decision for those who take their vote seriously and each person has to weigh what to do carefully and their choice must be respected. There are those who think that the solution might be to vote for Trump because among his many statements and stances are some that seem better than Clinton’s (such as opposing TPP, getting rid of NATO). But who knows what he will do since he seems to have been on both sides of so many issues, as this cartoon illustrates.
The fact that Republicans like Jeb Bush are leery of Trump’s intentions may give hope to some that Trump may be more progressive than he lets on. But that is buying a pig in a poke, with no idea how things will turn out if he wins. Others like Christopher Ketcham argue that the status quo is so bad that although they don’t like him, maybe Trump will create a total collapse of the system and something good might arise from the ashes.
I went for Sanders in the primaries, even gave several hundred dollars to his campaign. But there’s no way I’ll pull the lever for Clinton, because I know what a Clinton presidency bodes. More of the same neoliberal plundering with a friendly Democratic smile to quiet the left.
It happened under Obama: the warfare state and Wall Street reigning supreme while we all sing kumbaya because a black man has stamped his imprimatur on an intolerable status quo. It will happen again under Hillary.
What’s needed now in American politics is consternation, confusion, dissension, disorder, chaos — and crisis, with possible resolution — and a Trump presidency is the best chance for this true progress. This is a politics of arson. I’d rather see the empire burn to the ground under Trump, opening up at least the possibility of radical change, than cruise on autopilot under Clinton.
Protest votes are dangerous because you never know what might happen. There have been anecdotal reports of people who in the Brexit referendum voted for Leave as a protest vote because they did not think they would win and are now regretting their actions. These are likely too few to have swayed the outcome but it is still a cautionary tale
But that still leaves the question of whom to vote for president in November.
What informs my own decision to decide to reluctantly vote for Clinton is that there are many things that can seriously affect the lives of many people who are less well-off and these take place far away from the big issues that generate headlines in presidential races. A Democratic president, even someone as dreadful on major issues as war and oligarchic power as Hillary Clinton, will appoint people in key administrative positions everywhere in government agencies who will mostly take decisions that will be better for the less advantaged than a Republican appointee would, such as when it comes to worker rights or labor relations or health benefits or discrimination or a whole host of other things. Cabinet secretaries, department heads, people on various boards overseeing both the public and private sectors can issue directives and interpret rules in ways that help ordinary people or hurt them, and you are more likely to get better people under a Clinton administration than a Trump one.
There is also the well-worn issue of Supreme Court justices and other federal judges. It is true that this is often used by both parties as a cudgel with which to frighten people to vote for poor candidates and thus avoid having them take progressive stances on other issues. But that does not make it a marginal issue. With Clinton, we can expect judicial nominees at all levels who will be pro-business and defer excessively to government use of power, but will also be more likely to be sympathetic to the rights of marginalized groups, whether they be based on income, race, ethnic, gender, or sexuality. Trump’s list of nominees that he released consists of people who will be pretty much opposed to all those things. This is not insignificant.
There was a time when I would have voted third party for the candidate who truly shared my values even though I knew my candidate would lose because I despised the idea of ‘lesser of two evils’ voting. But as I have got older my attitude has changed. It is not because I have got more conservative in my politics. If anything, I have gone the other way and feel even more strongly about issues of social justice than before. But now I am more conscious that as a comfortably off person, whether Clinton or Trump wins is not going to adversely affect me personally because I belong to the class that both will look after. Also, as an older person, I will escape the long-term consequences of my decisions which will have to be borne by the generations to come.
I feel that I need to seriously take into account which party candidate in the presidential office will help more those who are younger and less fortunate, even if what they do is incremental and both party candidates will likely take major decisions that I disapprove of. I take some consolation in that the shift in positions that have been forced on Clinton and are reflected in the Democratic party platform are at least mitigating factors that partially act as a salve on a very painful decision to vote for her.
Stein and Sanders are much closer on the issues than Sanders and Clinton and so Stein is understandably not pleased that he endorsed Clinton and turned down her offer to replace her as the Green party nominee. Charles P. Pierce says that it would have been a big mistake for Sanders to accept her offer. Trump, on the other hand, clearly had hoped that Sanders voters would turn to him and is disappointed with the endorsement by Sanders of Clinton, though he is still making a pitch for them.
So while I prefer Stein and the Greens to Clinton and the Democrats, I have to agree with the reasons given by Sanders in a letter to his supporters explaining his decision to campaign for Clinton.
You should know that in the weeks since the last primary, both campaigns have worked together in good faith to bridge some of the policy issues that divided us during the election. Did we come to agreement on everything? Of course not. But we made important steps forward.
Hillary Clinton released a debt free college plan that we developed together which now includes free tuition at public colleges and universities for working families. This was a major part of our campaign’s agenda and a proposal that, if enacted into law, would revolutionize higher education in this country.
Secretary Clinton has also publicly committed to massive investments in health care for communities across this country that will increase primary care, including mental health care, dental care, and low-cost prescription drug access for an additional 25 million people. Importantly, she has also endorsed the enactment of a so-called public option to allow everyone in this country to participate in a public insurance program. This idea was killed by the insurance industry during consideration of President Obama’s health care program.
During the Democratic platform proceedings in St. Louis and Orlando, we were victorious in including amendments to make it a clear priority of the Democratic Party to fight for a $15 an hour federal minimum wage, expand Social Security, abolish the death penalty, put a price on carbon, establish a path toward the legalization of marijuana, enact major criminal justice reforms, pass comprehensive immigration reform, end for-profit prisons and detention facilities, break up too-big-to-fail banks and create a 21st century Glass-Steagall Act, close loopholes that allow big companies to avoid taxes by stashing their cash in offshore tax havens and use that revenue to rebuild America, approve the most expansive agenda ever for protecting Native American rights and so much more.
All of these progressive policies were at the heart of our campaign. The truth is our movement is responsible for the most progressive Democratic platform in the history of our country. All of that is the direct result of the work that our members of the platform committee did in the meetings and that you have been doing over the last 15 months.
But none of these initiatives will happen if we do not elect a Democratic president in November. None! In fact, we will go backward. We must elect the Democratic nominee in November and progressive Democrats up and down the ballot so that we ensure that these policy commitments can advance.
It is extremely important that we keep our movement together, that we hold public officials accountable and that we elect progressive candidates to office at the federal, state, and local level who will stand with us.
That is the real challenge. The sad truth about Democrats is that once they elect Democratic office holders they not only let their guard down and let them get away with pro-war and pro-oligarchy policies, they even defend those decisions as somehow correct, even if they opposed those same actions when done by a Republican. This is a real problem. We have to realize that the only way to achieve lasting change is by exerting pressure at all levels all the time.
That is not easy to do but until we have a viable third party that has made major inroads at the state and local levels and created an infrastructure, that is the only way.
Electability isn’t the only concern. The Greens have some positions I do not like, such as their opposition to GMO crops.
It’s not about this election. In many ways, primaries are more important because they can shake up the system itself, as well as the internal makeup of the party.
I don’t understand all these “strategic” or “protest” votes or whatever. The vote is used as justification for what parties are doing right and wrong, so a vote for Trump imo is a vote for fascism and white supremacy.
I don’t really understand third parties because they don’t have any senators or representatives or governors. Like they always have an issue with legitimacy and qualifications, with the strong exception of Bernie Sanders.
I don’t have a problem voting for Clinton in November because that’s not the end of the conversation. The progressive base of the democratic party continues to grow and shift the conversation.
…What’s needed now in American politics is consternation, confusion, dissension, disorder, chaos — and crisis, with possible resolution — and a Trump presidency is the best chance for this true progress. This is a politics of arson. I’d rather see the empire burn to the ground under Trump, opening up at least the possibility of radical change…
Exactly the attitude and actual policy of many leftist parties and individuals in the Weimar Republic, 1932-33. And, hey, 12 years later they were proven right and got what they wanted.
What could go wrong?
The aftermath of a burn-everything-down revolution is usually reactionism. Frightened populaces seek to return to the “good old days” before society collapsed. There’s a lot of that rhetoric going around already in light of cis, straight white people’s hegemony being ever so slightly loosened. A Trump presidency that severely threatened national stability would give rise to an even more fascist, vicious and stronger right-wing and quite possibly outright genocide or dislocation of minority groups.
Revolutions CAN be left-leaning, when they are directed by competent leaders with the explicit goal of overthrowing the status quo and are supported by significantly powerful factions -- e.g., Bolsheviks, French Revolution. The difference is between a coup and organic collapse.
I wish sanders would have come around a few weeks ago but he’s finally on the right page now. What he’s accomplished is what I supported his revolution for -- to show progressives’ strength and influence the Democratic Party to our side. If he’d won that would be great, but that was always a long shot. The bigger picture is creating a powerful, influential bloc, and maybe even doing to the Democratic Party someday what the Tea Party did to the Republicans.
Also I’ve liked Stein a lot in the past but lately I’ve been seeing her statements obfuscating vaccines (BOO! Big Pharma gonna getcha!), opposition to GMO’s and have heard she supports abusive therapy for autistic people, which disappoints me.
Meanwhile, the OP skips a crucial factor for each voter: What state do you vote in?
The cockamamie Electoral College system makes all the difference here. For instance, Prof. Singham and I live in swing states (OH & FL respectively), so as progressives have little choice but to vote for Clinton (sigh), because our votes might actually decide the outcome.
However, those who live where the state majority will predictably go one way or the other -- e.g., Oklahoma or New York -- this year have a great opportunity to build new parties that may come to replace the shabby and corrupt duopoly that’s misruled the US for over a century and a half. The “right” way to vote varies from place to place, and the situation calls for situational ethics.
@Pierce R. Butler, No. 5′
That’s true, you’re absolutely correct. Those of us in swing states can’t safely make protest votes.
Which is all the more reason we have to make protest votes: the parties (both Republican and Democratic) expect us to toe the line when the vote really counts (Ohio, where I live) and only protest when the outcome is a forgone conclusion (like Oklahoma where I have in-laws).
I followed that safe-vote logic in 1996 and 2004 and 2012, but came to heel in every other election since I first voted for Jimmy Carter in 1976.
No more.
I’ll be voting for Jill Stein in November.
Do all you can to make today a better day,
Jeff Hess
Have Coffee Will Write
I haven’t finished reading your post, but I did read the article by Ketcham that you linked to and I’m compelled to jump in and say as an anarchist (and a social-movements scholar) that it’s one of the most idiotic things I’ve read from a so-called far-Left perspective in some time. The anarchist movement, in its years of greatest strength and reach, was not about wanton destruction in the name of building an ideal system on the ashes. Anarchists recognized that the ones who benefit from tossing aside liberalism are the Right, and that movement toward an anarchist system is immeasurably more likely to come through a liberal system than through a reactionary one.
You build a system though organization and action -- in unions, communities, schools, media,… An authoritarian government of the sort Trump, or any Republican, represents will never offer an environment anywhere close to conducive to this work. And let’s be clear -- as Bernie Sanders recognizes, there’s a good deal of work to be done on that front by leftwing movements in the US (and in solidarity with leftwing movements in the rest of the Americas especially, a subject on which Sanders is, as he’s admitted, relatively ignorant). I can’t believe people like Ketcham don’t seem to have thought for a moment about how radical-revolutionary movements (or even centrist or liberal movements) fared under Mussolini, Hitler, Franco, Pinochet,… Not well, even when they were far more organized than they are in the US right now. Authoritarian governments suppress dissent and organizing through a variety of means we’re all familiar with, and they can debilitate leftwing movements.
Furthermore, people on the Left are people, with real, immediate needs -- like for health care, child care, education, clean water. (Meeting people’s needs is also, it shouldn’t even need to be noted, necessary to building strong movements; when all of your time and energy are consumed with merely surviving, it makes any sort of participation or activism difficult.) The callousness with which Ketcham and his pals -- or Susan Sarandon, for that matter -- suggest that even the relatively meager gains people have made should just be thrown away in order to shake up the Democratic Party is extremely disturbing.
And the people who are in the line of fire -- literally and figuratively -- of Trump or the Right, I suppose they should just be sacrificed, too. Black Lives Matter, black people, women, Latin@s, LGBT people, immigrants and immigration activists, Muslims, refugees, poor children, prisoners, people in countries where the US has imperial ambitions -- they’re expendable in the service of the Revolution. That’s what Ketcham and company are suggesting, because there’s zero chance they won’t fare far worse under Republicans/Trump than Democrats/Clinton. Not to mention that the planet probably can’t survive a Republican presidency.
The rhetoric in that piece about how Clinton and Trump are equivalent, and even more the references to “the 25-year-long horrorshow of Clintonism” (?), is lacking all proportion. A Clinton presidency, even if all progressive movements just went to sleep after the election, which isn’t going to happen, would not be a horrorshow. (In the US. The actual horrorshow in Honduras and elsewhere and the one that they’re diligently working to put on in Venezuela will go on, and can to a significant extent be attributed to Clinton personally. That the Obama administration was pressured on Honduras by Jim DeMint and others on the Right is not a defense of their actions – they still have blood on their hands, and of course have continued with these policies – but it does clearly suggest that things would be even worse if the Republicans were to return to power. In another example: as supportive as Clinton is of Israel’s crimes, the Republican Party’s new platform is to the Right of AIPAC.) A Trump presidency would very likely be a horror show the likes of which the US hasn’t experienced.
Nor is Trump the cipher such arguments pretend he is. His authoritarianism and utter lack of public conscience or civic-mindedness, his bigotry, his violent and destructive tendencies, his disregard for legal checks on power, his credulity with regard to rightwing conspiracy theories, his nationalism, his vengefulness, his pandering and opportunism, and his mendacity -- not to mention his hyper-capitalism! -- have long been on display. It’s plain foolish to imagine that if given the power of the presidency he (or those surrounding him, or his party) wouldn’t create catastrophic outcomes, far worse than anything brought about by a Clinton presidency. Elizabeth Warren recognizes this. Bernie Sanders recognizes this. Noam Chomsky recognizes this. Political historians recognize this. It’s grossly irresponsible to ignore history and evidence in order to preserve some radical pose.
And by the way: “This is not to discount the importance that a woman for the first time in U.S. history is clinching the nomination of a major party for the office of the presidency.” Sure – no sexism there:
To sum up:
In addition to the callousness and irresponsibility discussed above, this is a false choice. There is absolutely no reason anyone on the Left has to or should cruise on autopilot during a Clinton presidency -- we need to do the opposite. And we don’t need (more) confusion, chaos, or crisis. We need organization, solidarity, empathy, intelligence, strategy, and movement-building at all levels. A politics of arson in these circumstances would mean the torching of the Left.
Did it ever occur to you that those people you list might also believe in scorched earth policy? That those people are so disgusted with our political system that it’s essentially worth the risk?
I’m sorry, but describing such ideas as callous and privileged seems counterproductive and divisive. These people have clear grievances that we completely agree with and those can be directed toward productive causes. You talk of empathy, but you’re not employing it. Rather than castigating people and acting all condescending to them, we should be embracing and redirecting them. They are our natural allies and we should not turn our backs to them.
Of course it’s occurred to me. As a woman, I’m one of those people (I don’t know about Ketcham or the friends he quotes). Believing in a scorched-earth policy as someone in a group clearly targeted by the Right and that would fare especially poorly under an authoritarian presidency is foolish. It can cause you to act in ways that have harmful consequences for many people, including but not limited to yourself. I’ve made an argument that it isn’t worth the risk to ourselves or others, no matter how disgusted we are. That isn’t condescending, counterproductive, divisive, or unempathetic. A stupid choice like voting for Trump will have especially negative effects for certain groups of people regardless of their/our beliefs about scorched-earth voting.
My argument is based on my knowledge of political history and how social movements work, but it’s rooted in my concern for everyone, especially those most targeted by Republicans or in need of public programs (that includes me). Anger, disgust, and frustration aren’t arguments, and you can be sure I’m going to do what I can to change people’s minds when I see them making or advocating for ill-conceived or harmful choices.
What on earth are you talking about? Where did you see me suggest turning “our” backs on anyone?
This is from the article to which I was responding:
That’s callous or at the very least totally thoughtless. And wrong.
(The Ketcham article was also strange reading. It’s supposed to be about anarchists, but to the extent that it nods toward anarchism at all it’s to a caricature of anarchism. There’s so little about democratic organizing or direct action. And anarchists have long been among the strongest anti-fascists, while Ketcham and his friends seem wholly unconcerned about helping to give neo-fascists and reactionaries more power.)
Ketcham is mistaken about the sorts of shake-up a Trump presidency would have. Trump getting elected wouldn’t have the oligarchs scrambling to react because it would kick them out of power. It would have them scrambling to react because their own internal power games were shaken up. Don’t mistake being able to play spoiler as being in a position to play the game you want. Until we can choose to skip the corrupt games and demand to play fair (or at least fairer) ones I don’t think there’s much point in protest votes. They just don’t create any momentum for change because they serve the status quo, which serves the cause of the oligarchy.
hyphenman @ # 6 -- Neither your comment here nor the blog post you link to give any reasoning behind your planned “protest vote”.
Don’t you think voting purely on the basis of resentment is a bit teabaggerish?
@ Pierce R. Butler, No. 12
Not at all.
My vote is for a better America, one where the power base is widened to the greatest extent possible, and not country that is not as bad as it could be.
The United States during my adult life has been a nation operating with a two party system that, as Jonathan Miller best described the reality in 1961 (start at timemark 5:10, but the whole show is hilarious) consists of the “Republican Party, which is the equivalent of our Conservative Party, and” the “Democratic Party, which is the equivalent of our Conservative Party.”
I’m tired of a two party system where the differences don’t make a difference.
My vote is for a new leadership that makes a difference. My vote is for a party that is sincerely invested in bettering the lives of the 99 percent and not increasing the wealth of the 1 percent. I want a party not controlled by the billionaire class. My vote is for a party that is 100 percent behind keeping carbon in the ground. My vote is for a party that is 100 percent on the side of workers’ unions dedicated to upholding the dignity of an honest day’s work. My vote is for a party that believes the next generation of American citizens can do better.
Today, in this moment, neither the Democratic Party nor the Republican Party are that party. The Democratic Party, or the party that may emerge as the Republican Party in 1852, will become that party only if the leadership changes (unlikely) or is replaced (more likely) by people who want to make that difference that is a difference, and that change will only come when enough citizens cast “no confidence” votes.
Don’t you think that voting purely on the basis of fear is a bit sheepish?
Jeff Hess
Have Coffee Will Write.
hyphenman, the difference between moderate Democrats and any kind of Republicans is very significant for women’s rights, for LGBT+ rights at the very least, probably also for ethnic and racially marginalized groups. Regretfully the difference isn’t that big with regard to economic policy.
I am willing to vote for Green or Socialist candidates for local and state level elections. I’m in a state where in several jurisdictions Republicans are not a serious risk, sometimes nonexistent. But not for the presidency until they gain a track record and Republicans are neutralized.
@ Anat, No. 14
That’s true, you’re absolutely correct. Republicans, in general, are out front with their xenophobia as regards a woman’s right to a safe and legal abortion, and the rights of members of the LGBTQ community to enjoy free and unimpeded access to exactly the same rights as any other citizen, and to feel safe in the exercise of those rights.
The leadership of the Democratic Party and the top elected Democrats, in general, are less out front about their xenophobia.
Remember that a Democratic President gave us “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the North American Free Trade Agreement and the 1994 Crime Bill. Consider that there have been Presidents from the Democratic Party in power for 20 of the last 40 years and then list the progress made on issues such as the Equal Rights Amendment, if anyone remembers the ERA; on consideration of Rep. John Conyers’ HR 40; on Universal Health Care; on bringing justice to our economic system and locking up the criminals who daily pillage and plunder the lives of working men and women; on taxing the wealth of those who have amassed insane fortunes by buying elections; and the list goes on and on.
Yes, you’re right, the Republicans are worse than the Democrats; but from where I stand, after 45 years of involvement in local, state and national politics, the difference is like asking me if I’d rather be mauled by a tiger or eaten by a shark: in either case I’m dead.
The difference between the Republican and Democratic parties is a difference that makes no difference.
Jeff Hess
Have Coffee Will Write
hyphenman @ # 13: My vote is for a new leadership that makes a difference. My vote is for a party that is sincerely invested in bettering the lives of the 99 percent …
So your vote goes for lofty rhetoric rather than actual consequences. Pls show me examples from history where that has actually worked.
hyphenman @ # 15: Republicans, in general, are out front with their xenophobia as regards a woman’s right to a safe and legal abortion, and the rights of members of the LGBTQ community …
Pls look up “xenophobia” somewhere, and tell us how that relates to abortion rights.
Incidentally, I agree that Dem & Rep economic and foreign policies come out much the same (well, Trump seems to present an aberration from both, and his faction may endure as the core Repub position for quite a while). But other issues count as well, and I don’t think we can make progress on economic or foreign questions if we have to also fight the rollback of, e.g., racial and gender/sexual progress at the same time.
Since you seem to be in so tight with the Greens, could you explain why they seem to never (or very rarely) run candidates for the local offices their own “grassroots” ideology would logically predispose them to prioritize?
@Pierce R. Butler No. 16,
Oh gee, I don’t know, how about the 1860 election when the infant Republican Party first successfully elected a candidate to the highest office in the land?
Xenophobia is essentially fear of the other; from Collins: “hatred or fear of foreigners or strangers or of their politics or culture.” While believing that in the 21st century more than half of the human race could be considered foreigners or strangers, the status and treatment of women through history makes a very convincing case.
You mean like Fred Smith, Richard Carroll, John Eder, Audie Bock, Margaret Flowers, Arn Menconi, Joseph DeMare, Vanessa, Tijerina, Barry Hermanson, Cliff Willmeng, Gary Stuard, &c.?
Jeff Hess
Have Coffee Will Write
hyphenman @ # 17 -- Lemme give ya two hints: 2016 ≠ 1860; Jill Stein ≠ Abraham Lincoln.
And your stretch to equate women with foreigners definitely qualifies you for the World Yoga Championship, and the Reed Richards role in the next Fantastic Four movie.
Your listing of Greens, plugged into a search engine, produces exactly one result. GP really needs to get better at this wave-making business…
Um, Pierce, when you ask someone for historical examples, objecting that the example provided is historical is an odd response.
@ Pierce R. Butler, No. 18,
I’m interested in honest discussion. Clearly, you’re not, so I’ll leave you to enjoy the last word that others might read, but that I won’t. Have fun.
Jeff Hess
Have Coffee Will Write
@John Morales, No. 19
Thank you.
John Morales @ # 19: …, objecting that the example provided is historical is an odd response.
hyphenman’s “historical” example does not fit the present situation: he might just as well, maybe even better, have cited Joan of Arc.
Pierce, your objection would apply to any example which was not from 2016 and did not feature Jill Stein.
PS ‘historical’ is an adjective, ‘history’ is a noun.