Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Anemic Hopes
I was asked to be a contributor to a blog of a local organization that regularly talks about social justice. I know many of its members and they talk about revolution regularly. This morning I posted about McCain trumping the Democrats on being the "worker" representative. I even pointed out how anyone who knows better would see through this. There was an attempt to make it sound like a McCain endorsement and then of course the cheap shot at multi-party democracy - calling it an anemic hope.
In 1912 the Socialist Party was able to garner 6% of the presidential vote with their candidate in jail. They came in fourth. The Progressive Party came in second after the Democrats with the Republicans in third. The Prohibitionist Party was fifth, and the Socialist Labor Party 6th with 0.2%. The Socialist Party under Debs garnered 16% in Oklahoma and Nevada! And 5.9% in NM.
An important question may be what happened to the multi-party system that was once viable in the US? This is not to say there are not good candidates registered as members of corporate backed parties. But why would you talk about economic and social justice and support a corporate political party system?
I can see working for candidates here and there, but supporting the system itself seems like an anemic attempt at justice.
Maybe we all need to read about the Non-Profit Industrial Complex.
Now, I support local Dems, at least until I find out they have some corporate support. Because the reality is that is usually the option vs. Republicans. Do I register Dem? No. Do I vote third party when possible? ABSOLUTELY! Because then I am voting for my values.
KEEP LEFTING!!!
In 1912 the Socialist Party was able to garner 6% of the presidential vote with their candidate in jail. They came in fourth. The Progressive Party came in second after the Democrats with the Republicans in third. The Prohibitionist Party was fifth, and the Socialist Labor Party 6th with 0.2%. The Socialist Party under Debs garnered 16% in Oklahoma and Nevada! And 5.9% in NM.
An important question may be what happened to the multi-party system that was once viable in the US? This is not to say there are not good candidates registered as members of corporate backed parties. But why would you talk about economic and social justice and support a corporate political party system?
I can see working for candidates here and there, but supporting the system itself seems like an anemic attempt at justice.
Maybe we all need to read about the Non-Profit Industrial Complex.
Now, I support local Dems, at least until I find out they have some corporate support. Because the reality is that is usually the option vs. Republicans. Do I register Dem? No. Do I vote third party when possible? ABSOLUTELY! Because then I am voting for my values.
KEEP LEFTING!!!
Labels: Hell In Handbasket, Real Democracy
Comments:
<< Home
Cuerpo.
I commented on it. SWOP didn't write it. SWOP is non-partisan and doesn't support any corporate party or any party for that matter.
1912?
It's not about supporting a corporate party system, it's about reality. It is closer to 2012 than 1912.
I've read about the so-called non-profit industrial complex schtuff. I am in the Bay Area, where the book was written. I think it's silly and misses the point completely.
When we invented using non-profit status for movement and institution building, it wasn't about stopping folks from doing work outside of it. Rather it was to build long term movement institutions to support local grassroots organizing and activism during "good" and "bad" times.
If folks think they need to tear down the non-profit system for a "revolution" to happen, they're surely missing the point.
They can do it whenever they want.
SWOP's and others' status has nothing to do with that. And SWOP can provide some support and infrastructure as a movement institution.
"...love (or hope) without power is sentimental and anemic."
That's what I was paraphrasing.
There just isn't the powerbase to hope for multi-party democracy right now. It's just a reality. Not a political statement.
I hope you continue to contribute to the blog...by my count it's getting people talking.
Post a Comment
I commented on it. SWOP didn't write it. SWOP is non-partisan and doesn't support any corporate party or any party for that matter.
1912?
It's not about supporting a corporate party system, it's about reality. It is closer to 2012 than 1912.
I've read about the so-called non-profit industrial complex schtuff. I am in the Bay Area, where the book was written. I think it's silly and misses the point completely.
When we invented using non-profit status for movement and institution building, it wasn't about stopping folks from doing work outside of it. Rather it was to build long term movement institutions to support local grassroots organizing and activism during "good" and "bad" times.
If folks think they need to tear down the non-profit system for a "revolution" to happen, they're surely missing the point.
They can do it whenever they want.
SWOP's and others' status has nothing to do with that. And SWOP can provide some support and infrastructure as a movement institution.
"...love (or hope) without power is sentimental and anemic."
That's what I was paraphrasing.
There just isn't the powerbase to hope for multi-party democracy right now. It's just a reality. Not a political statement.
I hope you continue to contribute to the blog...by my count it's getting people talking.
<< Home
