Worldview Politics

Voting for a Third Party Makes Sense
12 July 2008

Yesterday, I posted the following two paragraphs as an update to my article called To Hell with Obama. Here, I would like to pursue the important question of whether voting for a third party in our rigged system is counterproductive. Perhaps it is the only way to bring about meaningful change! This article should be read in conjunction with my previous article on establishment lies regarding US public opinion. There is no point proposing a third party if the public is as clueless as the elites would have us believe. Fortunately, there is evidence that this is not quite the case.

Vote, but Not for the Establishment

POSTED (11 July 08): The comments on progressive blogs suggest that many readers are disillusioned with Obama, and some say they will not vote at all. It is always a mistake not to vote. You simply turn yourself into a political zero with no power at all. Moreover, failing to vote may confirm the appearance that the winner is truly popular and has a mandate. Now, many think it is also a waste to vote for a third-party candidate with no chance of winning. I used to feel this way, but now I disagree. For instance, if Obama barely loses, and a large bloc of voters go to Nader, then the Democratic party will eat its heart out that it lurched to the so-called 'center'. This may be the only way to change American politics. Moving to the 'center', under the premise that the left has no choice and must always vote for the 'lesser of evils', guarantees that the bipartisan imperial establishment lasts forever (or until our economy collapses). It's part of the elite's game.

As for those who predict cataclysm if the right wins under McCain, I say this. There is always some emergency, and it isn't clear that Obama would really be any safer than McCain. Both have promised to do 'whatever it takes' to keep Iran from getting a bomb, presumably including tactical nuclear weapons. Obama has even threatened to invade Pakistan, and all his talk of diplomacy amounts to little if he prostrates himself to AIPAC and to the War Party. In fact, as discussed by Tom Englehardt in some detail, the US may not be able to attack Iran now, due to the catastrophic effects involving oil prices and our over-stretched forces. Besides, we mustn't just look at the 4-year presidential cycle but also at the 2-year congressional cycle. A huge protest vote for Nader and Bob Barr (or Ron Paul) could send a powerful signal to Congress and possibly embolden the electorate to put a lot of third-party congressmen in office in 2010. Change will not happen if we are obsessed with the next election. That will only drive the voters to the mythical 'center' fabricated by the establishment to split the difference between its two wings.

Dissidents Lack Serious Parties

As I look around for anyone but a Republicrat to vote for in the upcoming presidential election, it seems that good old Ralph Nader is my best choice. To be sure, I have a lot of respect and even affection for the kind of libertarians who appear on my favorite website, Antiwar.com, but my gut instincts remain to the left (e.g. on healthcare). However, if I thought he could win, I would be quite willing to vote for a libertarian like Ron Paul, despite his views on abortion and economics, because he is so obviously sincere about chastening American foreign policy and preserving the Constitution. These are certainly the top priorities at the moment, overshadowing all social issues. Besides, at this point, the main objective is to rattle the establishment by voting for anybody but a Republican or a Democrat (provided we are not talking about neo-Nazi groups and the like).

Now I will be the first to admit that Nader does not have the personality to be a good president. I once read a story about him droning on with a speech to his followers on French philosophy, or something like that, which would certainly be the kiss of death with the American public. I have not studied him in detail, but his ideas seem to be progressive in a way that I like. To tell the truth, I was amused at the recent libertarian conference in Reston, VA, when Alex Cockburn, who also likes Nader, poked fun at him by announcing that the Corvette is 'a perfectly good car' and that Alex drives one himself! (Cockburn is also a global-warming skeptic, much to my delight, which takes a bit of courage if you are on the 'left' of the political spectrum.) In general, Nader has been criticized for being too self-absorbed. It's 'always about Ralph', I have heard it said.

The real problem, though, is that Nader never formed a serious party, which seems to confirm that it's too much about Ralph. Indeed, what is the 'Progressive Party'? Tellingly, Wikipedia informs us that 'the name Progressive Party has been assigned to a collection of parties in the United States over the past century or so'. In other words, this or that 'progressive' personality arises and tries to wrap a party around himself, but it doesn't last. We are going to have to do better than that!

Unfortunately, the libertarians seem equally divided. Evidently, there is now a split among the libertarians between those who favor the usual American foreign policy, and those, like Ron Paul, who want to get back to the days when we minded our own business and simply traded with others. Since the issue of war and peace is so fundamental, this is a serious problem afflicting those libertarians who are inclined towards peace. I remember how Ross Perot came and went, like a flash in the pan. He was also from Texas, like Paul. The media managed to make fun of him in a way that they wouldn't be able to with the much more experienced and affable Paul. I do like Ron Paul!

But as I have said several times, the important thing now is to rattle the establishment by casting votes for anybody but the Republicans or the Democrats. This would amount to a popular rebellion against the status quo, and the beltway bastards would realize that it was only a matter of time before some charismatic leader would take advantage of the situation to overthrow our militaristic, corporate regime. We thought we found this savior in Obama, but it turned out that he was just another triangulating Democrat, and a particularly shameless one at that. Verily, we must turn our backs on both parties. It is past the point of no return. If a truly viable Progressive Party were to form, then we could probably count on massive defections from the best of the Democrats, who are no doubt appalled at what their party has become. And if this new Progressive Party were wise enough to meet the peace-loving libertarians half-way, e.g. by being friendly to small businessmen, then we might have a juggernaut for political reform! (Hey, those small businessmen might be secretly pleased with some form of universal healthcare, if it helps them to compete with all the other countries that have it.)

UPDATE (13 Jul 08): In this interview with David Sirota, some commenters mention the Green Party as an alternative to Nader. I don't know much about this party yet, so I can't endorse it. As I said before, I am a global warming skeptic, so I am already uncomfortable with the idea of a party centered on the environment. We need to think bigger than that. Also, I don't want trillions wasted on bogus science anymore than I want them wasted on empire. We need the money for real needs, like healthcare, and we also need to get our fiscal house in order, whether we like it or not. Nader is clearly the thinking man's choice. (Now you see why 'progressives' can't organize!)

More Evidence Obama No Safer Than McCain

POSTED (15 July 08): Today, Pat Buchanan has an article on the phony crisis with Iran. Iran tested some missiles recently, which made dramatic pictures in the global press. The US retorted, promising to 'take any action necessary to defend friends and interests in the Persian Gulf'. The price of oil went up; Iran got richer; President Ahmadinejad's position was strengthened. The missile photos turned out to be doctored, and the missiles were of an older variety that could not reach Israel, says Buchanan. 'The bottom line is that the Iranians are tweaking our noses', said Charles Vick, an expert on Iran's missile forces. Undersecretary Nicholas Burns also 'splashed cold water' on recent alarming reports of Iranian progress with nuclear technology.

Nevertheless, the Democratic-controlled Congress, under Speaker Nancy Pelosi, has endorsed House Concurrent Resolution 362, with a majority of 220 members signing on. This resolution 'demands' that President Bush initiate a naval blockade of Iran that is tantamount to an act of war. Specifically, the blockade should halt all Iranian imports of refined petroleum products and impose 'stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran'. As Buchanan puts it, 'a Democratic House that came to power denouncing the rush to war on Iraq is about to vote to demand that Bush commit an act of war against Iran'.

Of course, Obama is going along. Not a peep from him in dissent. If the Democrats, under pressure from AIPAC, are so willing to risk a wider war that promises to be even more costly than Iraq, then how is Obama safer than McCain? A wider war with Iran may not only be more costly, it may be a true global catastrophe, with skyrocketing oil prices, economic collapse on top of the current bank fiascos, and so on. Yet the Democrats are willing to risk all this even though Iran is not a real threat. How reckless and irresponsible can a party be? Why on earth vote for Obama? How is he any better than McCain? I hope that masses of Americans vote for a third party instead, and send a powerful message to our corrupt and militaristic bipartisan elites.

According to a report by Jim Lobe, Obama may soon stress fighting the war against terror in Afghanistan rather than in Iraq. At some level, this is more rational than being fixated on Iraq, since the Taliban has been harboring Al Qaeda in the Pashtun areas of Afghanistan. But it could still be a very dangerous and counterproductive strategy. Taking on the Pashtun tribes could be a disaster, as reported by Eric Margolis. They would provide a 'guerilla insurgency' every bit as bloody as in Iraq (and perhaps much more so — the Brits had a horrendous experience ca. 1880). As I wrote a year or so ago, I don't think it matters much that Osama may have a sanctuary in Afghanistan. He is not building up an army, and terrorism like 9/11 could be planned anywhere, say, in a New Jersey basement. Flight schools run by idiots here in America were far more instrumental to the 9/11 hijackers than far away camps. Invading Afghanistan and infuriating millions of Pashtuns will increase the ranks of terrorists while doing little or nothing to make us safer. Anyway, we would have to seize and control the place with an iron hand in order to track down Obama, something we cannot even do in Iraq, with its more military-hospitable geography. On military grounds alone, an invasion would be reckless.

Our only hope against terrorism is vigilant police action that preserves our civil liberties, combined with a more sober foreign policy that leaves Muslims alone. There is little sign that Obama will advocate any of this. Thus, there is no good reason not to vote for a third party. Obama's perceived moderation compared to McCain is largely an illusion. It is more important to challenge and demolish the imperial establishment. This cannot happen if we always vote, blindly, for one of its two parties, assuming the 'lesser of evils'. And it's not just the parties: McCain is a maniac and Obama a con artist.

The 'Commander in Chief' Ploy

POSTED (20 July 08): Michael Hirsh of Newsweek makes the tired old argument that Obama must show he is tough enough to be Commander-in-Chief. Unfortunately, he's got some numbers to back him up: a new Washington Post-ABC News survey shows that only 48% of Americans think Obama would make a good Commander-in-Chief compared to 72% for John McCain. And 'head to head, McCain was judged as the one with greater knowledge of the world by more than 2 to 1', the Post reported. This is absurd! Recently, McCain showed his appalling ignorance by linking the Iranians with Al Qaeda, publicly, and he had to be corrected on the spot by Senator Lieberman. Evidently, many Americans buy McCain's militaristic image, which they confuse with leadership, authority and worldliness.

The last thing we need is a president who behaves like a movie star general or cowboy. We just got into a heap of trouble with the current president for precisely this reason, but it appears that much of the public just can't connect the dots. Our security doesn't depend on a president who thumps his chest at enemies. With our massive military, we hardly need to engage in such gorilla games. Rather, we need a president with the wisdom, knowledge and caution to use this force properly. It is far more important that he have a good intellectual understanding of the world's problems, including an honest assessment of our contribution to those problems. Saddam had nothing to do with Al Qaeda. 9/11 was blowback for our past meddling in Muslim countries, not an attack on our values. The Israeli settlements and refusal to accept the 1967 borders are a major contribution to Middle East chaos. And so forth. McCain shows no understanding of this. Obama showed a glimmer, way back when, but that has long since been extinguished by political expediency.

Hirsh faults Obama for belatedly acknowledging the 'success' of the surge. But this only shows that Hirsh is yet another pundit who has swallowed the establishment propaganda. The surge has 'worked' insofar as Iraq has been ethnically-cleansed, but there is no sign that the Shiites will share power with the Sunnis, so that the 'success' of the surge is really just a temporary stalemate. But Hirsh and so many empire-enabling pundits love to portray a 'strong' president as one who uses force successfully, i.e violates the Geneva Conventions and invades countries on flimsy pretexts. Such war crimes are justified in the end if there is some kind of 'success'. The same pressure to be 'strong' pushed Kennedy and LBJ into escalating the Vietnam War into a bloody and futile mess, which ended in disaster for us. And now we are trading peacefully with the victorious Vietnamese Communists!

Do we ever learn from our mistakes? This is precisely why talk about 'strength' can be disastrous and quasi-fascist, leading to unnecessary and unjustified bloodshed. The Greeks called this 'hubris', but our self-righteous and ignorant establishment has nothing to learn from the Greeks, notwithstanding that its members went to the most expensive schools. True strength consists of wisdom and knowledge, as well as the judicious application of force in accordance with International Law, when we have a clear case not based on hypocritical double-standards and paranoid theories about 'dominos' or 'Islamofascism' or other concocted threats.

Naturally, Hirsh applauds Obama's emphasis on extending the conflict in Afghanistan. I just described why that is futile, but as often happens with American presidential candidates, Obama feels the need to fight some war somewhere, in order to appear 'serious' and 'tough'. Hirsh also applauds Obama's call for diplomacy and foreign aid, but he fails to acknowledge that even this 'soft power' is frequently used not for true justice but simply as another means to advance our self-serving interests and double standards. Diplomacy and foreign aid are not good, unless they are backed by wisdom, knowledge and an impartial sense of justice. Our presidents always fail in these qualities, because of the pressure to be 'tough', and pundits like Hirsh are bit players in the bipartisan imperial establishment's long tradition of bellicosity and self-righteousness. Enjoy your fancy digs, Hirsh. Was it worth selling your soul? (Read Radar magazine's classic expose on how various pundits were rewarded for their prewar positions.)

Do Americans really think in such hackneyed terms as a strong, chest-thumping Commander-in-Chief when they enter the voting booth? Do they have no understanding of our role in aggravating world problems and in looking out for our selfish interests at the expense of others? And of the resulting anger and blowback? Are they really so blind and naive? We are talking about basic decency here — in effect the Golden Rule: 'Do not bomb others if you would not like them to bomb you — especially if your justification is bogus.' Didn't Jesus say something like that, though perhaps more elegantly? If Americans are so piously Christian, then they should surely understand this concept. It doesn't help that the establishment has a powerful instrument for brainwashing the public in the compliant mainstream media. Even so, Americans could gain some glimmer of the truth if they wanted to. The absence of WMD in Iraq is one clear sign of disastrous failure on the part of the bipartisan establishment. The fact that 70% of Americans are against the Iraq War suggests that they are not so dumb. So Hirsh's 'mature' and 'responsible' warning seems like bloviation to me, perhaps intended to sway only some swing voters, who are not very bright. I can understand the public's misgivings over Obama, given the latter's transparent insincerity of recent days, but why do they respect McCain? Maybe they are simply fooled by his image, even though they sense that the war was a big mistake. I'll admit that this kind of foolishness is pervasive and does present problems for a responsible third party. Fortunately, there is a cure for ignorance called education. All we need is a multibillion-dollar media outlet.

A Potential Network of Netroots

POSTED (20 July 08): I spoke earlier of the disorganization of 'progressives' and how this results in political impotence. Well, an article in Common Dreams proposes a solution called the Grassroots-Netroots Alliance, or GNA for short. This alliance builds on the success that Moveon.org had in raising money and support on the internet, while rejecting Moveon's capitulation to the Democrats on continued funding of the Iraq War. GNA seems like a good idea, or at least a good start.

Unfortunately, one problem that already jumps out at me is GNA's rather lengthy platform, particularly regarding global warming. As I said, I am a global warming skeptic, and I think that a rash anti-global warming program involving billions or trillions of dollars would be a devastating diversion of money from pressing social needs such as healthcare, not to mention balancing the budget. Couldn't we have one alliance that focuses on preventing war, and another on environmental issues? That way, the public's freedom of choice could be respected. Of course, a political candidate is supposed to present a comprehensive platform, but the same is not required of a lobby. Indeed, lobbies function more effectively if they focus on a single issue. GNA may already be shooting itself in the foot, due to the religious fervor that much of the left feels for the environment, which has led to a regrettable suspension of critical faculties regarding the global warming hysteria. (There is NOT a scientific consensus. A small cabal of self-serving researchers has exaggerated the reliability of their controversial research, and the incompetent press has failed to pick up on this, just as it failed on Bush and his bogus WMD intelligence.)

Another potential problem with such left-leaning alliances is that they may be dominated by ex-hippies and doctrinaire loudmouths, which tends to turn off the public. All too often, the lefties are more in love with their own scruffy identity than with working constructively towards pragmatic solutions of political problems. Lefties also tend to be deficient in regular-looking guys, who drink beer and watch football and otherwise present an image that reassures the general public. (Now David Sirota is a promising exception, and his books are great. Naomi Klein also presents an attractive and well-dressed image, which charms even Fox News, but her theories are a bit, er, speculative.)

The lefties would do well to work with the antiwar libertarians such as found at the Antiwar.com website. Not only would this increase the numbers of the antiwar alliance, but the libertarians tend to appear more 'professional' and middle-class, since they are often small businessmen. Most importantly, they tend to be more erudite and sophisticated when it comes to foreign policy. Certainly, the intellectual level of Antiwar.com is much higher than on most of the so-called netroots websites. That is why the excellent left-oriented civil libertarian Glenn Greenwald showed up at the recent libertarian convention in Reston, VA and not at the Netroots Nation convention in Austin. A netroots alliance won't sway the public if it seems to be just a bunch of kids, computer geeks and aging hippies. (Note: I'm pretty much a computer geek myself. My point is that a successful antiwar coalition must have mass appeal.)

A Progressive on Why to Vote for Obama

POSTED (23 July 08): In response to this article by Bruce Dixon, reader 'Kolea' argues as follows in favor of voting for Obama:

Kolea, July 23rd, 2008 1:50 pm
I have not always agreed with Bruce Dixon, but I have always found his writings to be well-reasoned, courageous and challenging.
Obama's cheerful acceptance of Israel's policies are offensive to me. And a particular disappointment, as he has demonstrated a sympathy towards the treatment of the Palestinian people just a few years ago and I was hoping for more from him on this issue.
The dishonesty on Israel is not particular to Obama, or the corporate media. It pervades American society. Only a very few politicians at the national level have been able to freely criticize Israel and remain in office.
The difficulty is not limited to mainstream, electoral organizations. Liberal and progressive organizations have similarly had difficulty discussing the issue without falling apart over internal fighting and/or the withdrawal of funding. A few years ago, the MoveOn leadership attempted to use its structure to promote education on the issue among its membership and ran into a firestorm of internal and external attacks, which threatened the existence of the group. They were forced to drop the effort.
I have personally spent a great deal of time on working on the issue in my community and have felt the pressure firsthand. But I have never run for office.
Nader and McKinney have the freedom to speak honestly on this. They are able to speak freely because they are marginalized AND they have been marginalized because they speak freely. Dennis Kucinich is a rare congressman who has survived, but Dennis is also, unfortunately, fairly marginalized. Obama is not auditioning to be a prophet at the fringe of American politics. He could not speak the truth on the Israel-Palestine conflict and attain the office of the President. Our wishing it to be otherwise is not an adequate reply to the problem he faces.
Obama is not just 'wrong' on Israel or FISA or NAFTA. Progressives will find he is 'wrong' on a wide range of issues because he is not seeking to be a part of the 'progressive activist' subculture. He is seeking to be president of the United States and that requires compromises and choices not faced by Nader, McKinney or Kucinich.
The choice facing progressives is whether an Obama administration will be less agressive, less destructive and more reasonable Bush or McCain on a wide range of issues affecting the lives of Americans and the people of the world. I am not eager to 'spread illusions' about the man, but I think the answer is unambigously 'Yes!'
The act of voting means different things to different people. Some people feel they must adore the candidate in order to vote for them or they will be compromising their own integrity. I take a more 'pragmatic' view and think my personal vote is only one of millions trying to nudge this country into a slightly better direction.

This is an articulate version of the standard 'pragmatic' reason to vote for the 'lesser of evils'. I do not fault people who feel and act this way. It is understandable. But let me make two points. First, an extreme example shows that the argument has limits. Suppose the two mainstream choices are 'Nazi' and 'Nazi lite'. Obviously, it will not do to vote for either. Now ask those Iraqis, who had their lives destroyed because Saddam had nothing to do with Osama bin Laden, how they feel about our two mainstream parties. The second point is one I've made already, namely that voting for the lesser of evils guarantees that the fictious 'center' never progresses, and we remain mired in bad policies. As I've argued above, is McCain really that much worse? And if he is, perhaps even that will turn out for the best as he drives the empire into the ditch. Of course, the collateral may be horrendous, but the same would be true over a longer stretch of time if some temporary smiling-face band-aid keeps the empire going and allows it to recuperate, which seems likely enough with Obama. It does seem rather shocking to me that Americans are not more informed about these issues. It's a difficult question how much to blame them.

McCain's Support is Sobering

POSTED (1 August 08): A Gallup Poll came out today, showing that Obama is again tied with McCain among registered voters. Actually, they have always been pretty close, as is common in US presidential elections. The fact that such an overt militarist as McCain enjoys so much support is sobering. It suggests that those who advocate anything remotely resembling a third-party antiwar candidate are simply wasting their vote, notwithstanding all my arguments above. The electorate is evidently divided rather evenly between those who respond favorably to militaristic nationalism and the rest. And the 'rest' may not be firmly antiwar; they may include many confused or wavering people.

Hence, it may seem irresponsible to split this 'rest' between Obama and the third parties, thus guaranteeing a McCain win. In other words, the only viable choice is between an outright militarist and a triangulating, fence-straddling charmer, who seems marginally more likely to preserve peace. This may simply be the unfortunate truth about American politics. The reason that militaristic policies prevail in this country is because half the electorate loves militaristic nationalism. We have seen this before, in this country and elsewhere. Militaristic nationalism may simply be human nature, sometimes thinly disguised, but never far from the surface.

But is this really true? What exactly is the basis of McCain's support? My feeling is that the great white masses may simply feel more comfortable with one of their tribe. They don't necessarily want to bomb foreigners, but they tend to defer to their great white tribal leaders on military matters, and those leaders always have a good excuse for war. After all, almost everyone who ever went to war did so in the name of 'defense'. It's easy! All one needs to do is to portray the Iranians as maniacs hell-bent on nuking Israel and the USA, while ignoring the historical context of their anti-US and anti-Israel anger, which I have already described in detail. The great white masses, who are poorly informed, will probably just listen to the sound-bites of their trusted tribal leaders. As for the picky little fact that Israel has 200 nukes, well, that is easily taken care of by demonizing the Iranians, while portraying the Israelis as poor, beleaguered Davids fending off hordes of crazy Muslims who threaten their existence. (Never mind Israel's ongoing ethnic cleansing in the West Bank, or the fact that no Arab nation has attacked her in decades. As for crazy Ahmadinejad, he has no power and the mullahs have not attacked another nation since taking power — unlike the USA or Israel.)

Actually, it may be naive to suppose that most of the voters care that much about war &mdash either the one in Iraq and the coming one with Iran. The general American public has been insulated from the horrors of war since living memory. Our civil war was over a century ago, and 9/11 was the only time the mainland was bombed by foreigners since the British were here in 1812. Today, the draft no longer exists, so that only a small slice of America even has a soldier in the family. The huge costs of war remain invisible, until the whole economy gets sick, for a multitude of reasons, such that nobody knows whom to blame. The public displays an appalling indifference to the foreigners we have killed, whether at Hiroshima or in Iraq today. Many voters care a lot more about petty identity politics than about stopping the carnage. Our establishment operates like an imperial elite, from which our public feels as divorced as the Roman plebeians did from their empire. Still, I blame McCain lovers for embracing his militaristic image. Clearly, the pious Christianity of so many Republicans is sheer hypocrisy. And Obama is doing little to educate the public, preferring to take the low road of blather, rhetoric and ambiguity.

Tell the Truth No Matter Whom You Vote For

POSTED (28 August 08): The Democratic Convention has just finished, and all the lying PR rubbish has reminded me of a simple but key point. Even if you vote for the Democrats as the 'lesser of evils', you must do so under no illusions and while telling the truth. The temptation is great to put the best face on your candidate, so that he may win, but the unacceptable cost is that most people will believe the PR and will never learn the truth. How many Democrats know that underneath the smiley face of Joe Biden is a virtual neocon, who greatly facilitated the prewar intelligence charade that got us into Iraq? No 'liberal' blog with any intelligence or conscience should be airbrushing the Democrats. Even if you advise voting for the Democrats after all, it should be with palpable reluctance, and with a full exposition and condemnation of all the bipartisan lies, especially regarding foreign policy. The widespread illusion that the Democrats are the party of peace has done untold damage to our foreign policy, since the entire discussion is then shifted in a sharply hawkish direction, and anybody advising more sanity than the Dems seems on the fringe. But instead of focussing on this unfortunate reality, the Dems are more concerned about not being painted as 'weak' by the Republicans, despite the manifest disasters bequeathed by the latter. So due to their cowardice and unwillingness to tell the truth, the Democrats not only shift the discussion towards more militarism, but by this very act of surrender, they become vulnerable to further Republican slander. That is, by shifting the whole discussion towards militarism, the Dems are painted as weak if they don't espouse even more militarism like the Republicans. Militarism becomes a virtue, so that the more of it, the better. Obama has fallen right into this trap. He was surely smart enough not to, and he virtually promised not to, so he must be considered a seducer and a liar. And this must be told.

Only 25% of the Nation Votes for the President

POSTED (08 September 08): I was recently reminded that, with only about half of eligible adults voting, and with the presidential election generally very close, it follows that the president is usually elected by only about 25% of the adult population, even when there is a 'landslide' in the Electoral College. Is this really democracy? And I'll bet that when the Republicans win, that 25% represents pretty much the most affluent of Americans (combined with religious zealots). We really need to know just who are the approximately 50% of Americans who do not vote. Are they the lower-income Americans, who are barely surviving on 2 or 3 jobs, and who simply can't find the time to vote? Or are many of them folks who are more educated and more affluent, but who have given up on the election, because they realize that the system is rigged, with two parties that are different wings of the Big Business Party? I would really like to know. The consequences are potentially explosive, or at least radical. What would happen if a credible progressive party came along? Unfortunately, past American history isn't very reassuring. We once had a so-called Progressive Party, in the years before WWI, but it split over the war. That may be another reason the power-that-be keep getting us involved in wars. It ignites patriotic fervor and helps to quench social progress.

Online Articles

Mike Witney: The Democrats are the real problem