A paper copy of the Guardian Weekly always advances ones knowledge of the world; and the opinion pages are diverse and stimulating.
I hope though that George Monbiot's latest column doesn't get printed.
Monbiot's argument is that a vote for Nader is a vote for democratization in the American political system. The more votes Nader gets the more pressure there will be to reform the way politics is debated in the media, and the way citizens are involved -- or not -- in the political process.
Now, even discounting the fact that Ralph Nader is a poor vessel for advancing this process -- the man is not unconcerned with himself and his own importance, shall we say -- the most significant flaw in the argument is this:
He won't be elected in November, of course, but that's not the point. The point is that if you want to change a system, you have to start now, rather than in some endlessly deferred future. And the better Nader does, the faster the campaign for change will grow.
You don't change the flaws in American political culture by running for President; you run for the school board and the parks board, and the city council, and you work for a change in the voting system at the municipal level, and then you run for state legislature or state senate, or mayor; then for Congress or the Governor's office.
This is not only the democratic thing to do, it's the republican thing to do by having citizens contest elections and serve in public office at multiple levels throughout government.
Believing that change will come to a political system by running for the one office that because of its ratio of electors to office holders (over a hundred million to one) must depend on the mass media for contact with the electors is lunacy.
The President is the elected King, with all the flaws and concentration of power in one man, that that implies.
Suppose, in all the wildest flights of fancy that this supposition involves, that Nader was elected President this November, but that no-one else besides his Vice President was elected. Without an effective party organization, without the time once in office to build one, the impact of a 3rd party president would be transitory. Oh, for sure, it would have shock value, and both Congressional houses would have to compromise to work with him. But the long-term impact would be fleeting without a party organization to carry on the work.
Moreover, all this yammering about the need for a third party seems to wilfully ignore the hard fact that a plurality voting system in geographic districts makes it difficult for a third party to break through to meaningful electoral competition.
If the voting system were different, then voting for a third party would make sense. Until then, if you are concerned with actually advancing a political program -- rather than seeing your vote as a philosophical statement, a legitimate choice in itself -- it makes more sense to work within one of the existing main parties.
Advocates for third parties also seem to ignore the reality that the American party system is unusually open with its system of caucuses and primaries. The barrier to participation is not high.
The tragedy of many of these arguments is that the people that make them are intelligent and have reasoned principles that lead them to considering voting for a third party, but that they do not apply that same intelligence to considering how the voting system actually works.
Kerry may not be an inspiring choice to people whose beliefs are close to those stated in the Guardian's editorial positions, but he represents a realistic possibility for actually achieving now something a lot closer to those positions than George Bush ever will deliver.
By all means, make a start on changing the political system, but don't kid yourself that that means voting for Nader. It means running for office in your own town.
Posted by robe0419 at August 18, 2004 1:32 PM