AlterPolitics New Post

Rebuttal To Sam Seder’s Insistence That Voting Third Party Would Setback the Progressive Cause

by on Friday, November 2, 2012 at 1:03 pm EDT in Election 2012, Politics

Sam Seder recently invited veteran activist and Naked Capitalism Contributing Editor Matt Stoller onto his radio show to discuss his recent piece on Salon, entitled “The progressive case against Obama.” The discussion turned a bit testy as they battled around the logic behind voting for a third party Presidential candidate. You can listen to their debate HERE (begins around the 12th minute).

As a follow up to that debate, Seder posed the following question to Stoller, Chris Hedges, and everyone else who believes that the best way forward for progressives is to support third party candidates:

How does voting for Jill Stein or Rocky Anderson speed up the building of a movement that is a counterweight to corporate power?

Seder contends that progressives became more conscious of the struggle between the people and corporate powers under a Democratic President (Obama) than they had under a Republican one (Bush). That these 99% vs 1% lines were essentially drawn BECAUSE we had a Democratic President, and that another term for Obama would only help to grow this populist movement. He adds that if Romney were to become President the “economic injustice” movement would just transform into an “anti-Republican” one.

I disagree with Seder’s arguments. I would contend that the party of the sitting President was irrelevant to the occupy movement. Rather, the timing of the movement was driven entirely by the economic pain, as it spread across the entire industrialized world.

It makes perfect sense that the movement formulated during Obama’s term, because the financial meltdown occurred in the final months of the Bush Administration. During those last few months, Hank Paulson terrified Congress into signing TARP, and the monthly unemployment numbers skyrocketed in a way not seen since the Great Depression. And as State tax revenues began to dry up shortly thereafter, severe austerity measures were imposed at the local level — resulting in laid off school teachers and other government workers. I.e. It took a couple years for the economic pain to spread and manifest into that progressive populist movement.

Though this movement against economic injustice would have happened regardless of which party occupied the White House, if there had been a Republican President, the crowd numbers would likely have been even twice as large. Why? Because THERE ARE many Democratic partisans whose entire socioeconomic POV fits nicely and neatly within the Democratic-Republican paradigm. These types would protest for any liberal cause — just as long as a Republican President or Governor could be linked to the blame. Many of these Democrats belittled occupy’s efforts BECAUSE they couldn’t co-opt the movement for Obama. This would have been a mute point if a Republican were in power.

For proof, one must look no further than the hundred thousand protesters who stormed the Wisconsin State Capitol under Republican Governor Scott Walker in protest of that Republican-dominated state legislature’s assault on collective bargaining.

As far as Seder’s central question: “How does voting 3rd party speed up the building of a movement that is counterweight to corporate power?” — what he refuses to acknowledge is that the populist ‘movement’ he speaks of has NO political representation in Washington. NONE. ZERO.

In fact, many in support of the movement he cites actually helped to usher Obama into the White House in 2008, and are now fully cognizant of the fact that Obama has been 100% complicit in the destructive policies that have rewarded moneyed interests off the backs of the American people.

The important question — the one that Seder does not want to ask — is how does a movement go about making a non-representative government more representative? Especially, when the party traditionally allied to that movement’s ideology — the Democrats — now operate with the understanding that there are no voter repercussions for anything they do — an understanding spawned by Seder’s very own “lessor of two evils” mindset.

Take Obama’s entire first term. He broke promise after promise — selling out to corporate interests, degrading our civil liberties, declaring war on whistleblowers, etc — BECAUSE of the calculations he made with regards to progressives having nowhere else to go. So, if voters reward Obama for having made this insidious calculation against them, how would that actually work to change his or future Democratic Presidents’ behavior?

It wouldn’t.

It would achieve the very opposite by reinforcing the idea that Obama’s strategy in deceit is not only a winning one, but actually minimizes political risks. Why? Because unlike voters, the entrenched corporations — with hundreds of millions of dollars at their disposal — do have somewhere else to go. Republican, Democrat, … makes no difference to them.

The message an Obama victory would send to all future Democratic Presidential Candidates is: run and win on a popular progressive platform, and then, like Obama, pull a ‘bait and switch’ — with the goal of building up your campaign war chest in corporate money, and with impunity since progressives have nowhere else to go.

So my question to Seder would be: How successful can any peaceful populist movement be if it remains completely loyal to a political party that feels free to cavalierly ignore their wishes, while reaping tens of millions of dollars in political donations for having done so? 

Politicians must be conditioned to understand that there is a political price to be paid for selling out the voters’ best interests. This underlying principle is the essential cornerstone for all representative democracies. If the voters are too timid to punish the politicians for betraying their interests — as Sam Seder argues they should be — then politicians will naturally continue to betray their interests.

Seder’s strategy of voting Democratic, no matter what, trades away all long-term progressive opportunities for little more than a slight reduction in speed of this nation’s rightward acceleration. Like a CEO forever focused on meeting next quarter’s earnings estimates, while paying no attention to the overall degrading health of the organization he runs.

Voting third party is a strategy that works to re-align the interests of elected officials with the interests of the people, by making them understand that progressives do in fact have somewhere else to go. Governments which believe themselves to be unaccountable to the people they govern are not democracies. And that is the crisis we face.

Expand The Debate: Jill Stein VS Obama On Stopping The Outsourcing Of American Jobs

by on Thursday, October 18, 2012 at 11:26 am EDT in Economy, Election 2012, Labor, Politics, Trade Policy

During a time when tens of millions of Americans find themselves unemployed, and hundreds of thousands of American jobs continue to move to low-cost labor countries, there is perhaps no single issue more important to America’s economic viability than outsourcing. 

Obama, as a Presidential candidate in 2008, was consistent in naming what plagued the country’s job crisis: Free Trade deals.  

In 2008, candidate Obama pledged to rewrite NAFTA and explained the problems of Free Trade:

About NAFTA, Sen. Obama said in a Democratic primary forum in 2007: “I would immediately call the president of Mexico, the president of Canada to try to amend NAFTA because I think that we can get labor agreements in that agreement right now. And it should reflect the basic principle that our trade agreements should not just be good for Wall Street, it should also be good for Main Street.”

About free trade, Sen. Obama said at the same 2007 forum: “… people don’t want a cheaper T-shirt if they’re losing a job in the process. They would rather have the job and pay a little bit more for a T-shirt. And I think that’s something that all Americans could agree to.

As a Senator in 2005, Obama voted against Bush’s Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), citing the following as his reasons:

“There are real problems in the agreement itself. It does less to protect labor than previous trade agreements, and does little to address enforcement of basic environmental standards in the Central American countries and the Dominican Republic…

“So far, almost all of our energy and almost all of these trade agreements are about making life easier for the winners of globalization, while we do nothing as life gets harder for American workers.”

But then Obama was elected President and, despite his promises, made no efforts whatsoever to renegotiate NAFTA. Instead he pushed through THREE job-killing ‘Free Trade’ deals of his own — the kinds he always criticized. The Korean ‘Free Trade’ Deal alone is expected to cost 159,00 American jobs. These agreements were opposed by a major majority of Congressional Democrats, and Obama could only get these NAFTA equivalent deals passed with the help of the Tea Party GOP Freshmen in Congress.

The days of Obama assigning blame to ‘Free Trade’ agreements for the outsourcing of American jobs are long gone. In the Hofstra Presidential Debate, Obama blamed tax loopholes that provide incentive for corporations to outsource. Fair point, but keep in mind that he made this same argument repeatedly as a Candidate in 2008, and did absolutely NOTHING as President to push any bills through Congress to address this offshoring tax incentive.

So it was refreshing to hear Jill Stein speak to this issue in Democracy Now’s ‘Expand The Debate’ series:

So, if the question is how to stop the outsourcing of our jobs, it is very clear we need to stop expanding the Free Trade Agreements that send our jobs overseas, and which also undermine wages here at home by effectively threatening workers that if they don’t drop their wages and their benefits that their jobs are gone.

We saw the first Free Trade Agreement NAFTA enacted under Bill Clinton, a Democrat. We saw it carried out under George Bush. But then we saw Barack Obama expand three Free Trade Agreements, and is now negotiating a secret Free Trade Agreement — the Trans Pacific Partnership — that will continue to offshore jobs, undermine wages, and as well, this time compromise American sovereignty with an international corporate board that can rule on our laws and regulations and say whether or not they pass muster. 

This is an absolute outrage against American sovereignty, democracy, and our economy. We need to turn the Free Trade Agreements into Fair Trade Agreements.

And again, the Green New Deal will create the community-based jobs we need here supporting small businesses, worker cooperatives, public services, and public works to put people back to work right now for less than the cost of the first stimulus package.

When you actually assess Obama’s statements on trade, while factoring in his record as President, it is clear that he will continue to push job-killing ‘Free Trade’ Agreements — as will, of course, Mitt Romney. Jill Stein, conversely, intends to actually confront this most pressing crisis.

WATCH (Jill Stein starts at the 2:55 mark): 

YouTube Preview Image

Debate Spin Room VIDEO: An Angry Wasserman-Schultz Fields Questions On NDAA And Obama’s Kill List

by on Wednesday, October 17, 2012 at 3:52 pm EDT in Election 2012, Justice System, Politics, War On Terror

Here is a perfect example of how political elites from the Democratic Party respond when they are subjected to questioning on Obama’s egregious Civil Liberties record. 

In the spin room, following the Hofstra University Presidential Debate, Luke Rudkowski from WeAreChange approached Chair of the DNC Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, who was there serving as one of Obama’s Congressional spokespeople.

Rudkowski began by asking her about the President’s record on NDAA:

Rudkowski: How does Obama justify his flip-flop on the National Defense Authorization Act, especially the Indefinite Detention Provision, which he said he never wanted, but he is now — the Administration is appealing the order?

Wasserman-Schultz: I didn’t hear that as a subject of the debate tonight.

No, she is right, the two duopoly parties would never allow such an important question on this Administration’s ‘police state’ policies anywhere near their staged debates.

A while later he asked her about Obama’s Kill List — the program Obama created to assassinate people, including American citizens, based on mere suspicion:

Rudkowski: If President Romney becomes President, he is going to inherit President Barack Obama’s secret Kill List. This is going to be debated. How do you think Romney will handle this Kill List and are you comfortable with him having a Kill List?

Wasserman-Schultz: I have no idea what you are talking about.

Rudkowski: Obama has a secret kill list which he has used to assassinate different people all over the world. 

Wasserman-Schultz: I’m happy to answer any serious questions you have. [she glares at him as if he is crazy]

Rudkowski: Why is that not serious?

Wasserman-Schultz: Because I have no idea what you are talking about. [she stomps off]

Rudkowski: Of course you don’t.

I mean, the audacity of that young journalist to ask questions regarding Constitutionally-protected rights of U.S. citizens to this so-very-important political elite! If he attempts to pull off this ‘journalism stunt’ at the next debate, he might find himself handcuffed to a chair for eight hours, alongside Presidential Candidate Jill Stein.

WATCH:

YouTube Preview Image

Recommended reading material for Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz: via ProPublica, or any of Glenn Greenwald’s excellent coverage.

The Debate: A Masterful Liar Defeats a Man Without Conviction (video)

by on Friday, October 5, 2012 at 12:44 pm EDT in Election 2012, Politics

Sr. Editor of The Real News Network Paul Jay invited York University professor Leo Panitch onto his show to discuss the first Presidential Election Debate, and why President Obama was virtually incapable of countering any of Romney’s gross misrepresentations: JAY: So my headline take on the debate was Masterful Liar Beats Man without Conviction. What was your […]

VIDEO: Green Party’s Jill Stein: Romney Is A Wolf In Wolf’s Clothing, Obama Is A Wolf In Sheep’s Clothing

by on Saturday, August 11, 2012 at 5:56 pm EDT in Election 2012, Occupy Wall Street, Politics

Green Party Presidential Candidate Jill Stein sits down with RT America to discuss the current state of the nation and the systemic forces that work against all efforts for real progressive reform. The video proceeds the following transcript highlights: Stein explains how the 2-party political establishment works to marginalize all political opposition: RT: You’re going to be on […]

Green Party Presidential Candidate Jill Stein: U.S. policy to Israel, Palestine must change

by on Wednesday, May 16, 2012 at 12:21 am EDT in Election 2012, Middle East, Politics, World

Dr. Jill Stein, the prospective Green Party presidential nominee, just released a policy statement regarding Israel / Palestine on her website (which follows below). For those who have longed to hear a U.S. Presidential candidate bravely step up with a Middle East policy platform grounded in international law, human rights, and equality and justice for ALL, her statement will not […]

VIDEO: 2012 Third Parties Presidential Debate, Featuring Jill Stein, Rocky Anderson, Roseanne Barr, and Others.

by on Saturday, April 28, 2012 at 4:04 pm EDT in Election 2012, Politics

On Saturday, April 21, 2012, The Maggie Phair Institute hosted the American Third Parties Presidential Debate in Los Angeles, CA. The six participants included (in order of their opening statements): Justice Party nominee Rocky Anderson, Green Party candidate Roseanne Barr, Freedom Socialist Party nominee Stephen Durham, Party for Socialism and Liberation nominee Peta Lindsay, Green Party candidate Dr. Kent Mesplay, and Green Party candidate Dr. Jill […]

VIDEO: Green Party Pres. Candidate Jill Stein Discusses Iran And The State Of The Democratic Party

by on Friday, March 30, 2012 at 1:53 pm EDT in Election 2012, Politics

The Green Party Presidential Candidate, Jill Stein, appeared yesterday on The Real News Network, where she explained to Senior Editor Paul Jay why she chose NOT to run as a Democrat. In addition, she revealed how her position on Iran differs from President Obama’s, and then she delved into the details of her Green New Deal, […]

Noam Chomsky Endorses Green Party’s Jill Stein For President Of The United States

by on Thursday, March 8, 2012 at 12:18 am EDT in Election 2012, Politics

MIT Professor Noam Chomsky: “Dear friends, I hope you’ll take the opportunity of the March 6th Green-Rainbow primary to cast a vote for resurgent democracy. A democracy that thrives outside of the Democratic and Republican Parties that are sponsored by and subservient to corporate America. And I hope you will consider joining me in supporting […]

VIDEO: Green Party Presidential Candidate Jill Stein Explains Her Green New Deal To Thom Hartmann

by on Friday, February 24, 2012 at 7:01 pm EDT in Election 2012, Politics

The following is last night’s Thom Hartmann interview with 2012 Green Party candidate for President, Dr. Jill Stein. In it, Stein breaks down her FDR-style Green New Deal, her reasons for transitioning from medical doctor to politics, and why America is now ripe for a third party, like the Green Party, whose policy positions, unlike the two […]