So OK, Hillary Clinton in 2016.

The Republicans will no doubt run someone who can't win, like they did in 2012, because, well, because...

 

Here, let me borrow the voice of Matt Stoller for a bit.

The Fake Election: 10 Arguments The Republicans Aren’t Making

Matt Stoller is a fellow at the Roosevelt Institute. You can follow him at https://twitter.com/matthewstoller and he can be reached at stoller at gmail.com.

Even authoritarian systems require legitimacy to retain the support of the governed, and the new authoritarian America is no exception.

In short, the 2012 election was a sham, a game to keep the authoritarians in power. The Republicans voted to keep the Democrats out of office, the Democrats voted to keep the Republicans out of office, and only the elites got what they wanted. Here's the meat of Stoller's piece:

The Republicans don’t want to discuss tax cheating, offshoring, corruption, inequality, dissent, the rule of law, endless war, or Wall Street criminality. They’d rather lose. It’s not that they want to lose in 2012, it’s just that they aren’t going to go after every vote. It’s the same reason no one talks about how Romney is a flip-flopper anymore, or points out that Romney is the architect of Obamacare, or was a moderate Republican governor in Massachusetts. Those arguments are worse for the political class, and better for the public. And that is how elections operate in authoritarian America. The secondary goal is to win the election, the primary goal is to keep the public out of the deal-making.

I think it's fair to assert, at this point, that the Democrats and the Republicans are going to try to pull off the same sham election, again, in 2016. It seems fair to say at this point that 2012 will be the new normal for at least the next twelve years. Why mess with success? The Democrats will nominate Hillary Clinton, and the Republicans will find someone who will lose gracefully while keeping their political figures in the career game. After all, the point of Presidential elections is not to win the Presidency, but to continue to "keep the public out of the deal-making." And for the next eight years thereafter, everyone will be quiet about how Hillary Clinton did nothing to improve the employment-population ratio or to mitigate global warming or to deal with the out-of-control military-industrial-academic-surveillance complex, just like they're not doing anything about these things now and so few people complain. And we will all suffer silently, especially the historically oppressed among us, because omigod the first woman President, just like we suffer silently today because omigod the first Black President.

So here's my question. Is VOTS going to endorse a third-party candidate for President if Hillary should win the nomination in 2016? Maybe VOTS could start looking for that candidate now?

Topic: 

Column: 

Tags: 

Rating: 

3
Your rating: None Average: 3 (6 votes)

Comments

That is a great quote.

geomoo's picture

The secondary goal is to win the election, the primary goal is to keep the public out of the deal-making.

Nice deal they've got going there.  The left is kept out of the picture, ignored when possible and mischaracterized and ad hominized into incoherency when necessary.  Meanwhile, an insane right developed and nurtured by corportations makes it appear that authoritarianism is centrist.

My vote is for VotS to ignore the sham election and discuss and identify the third party (or miraculously honest Demcratic) candidate that we, um, well, "throw" sounds too strong.  Perhaps the candidate that we "flick" our support behind.  But I suggest we not think about this until closer to the election.  The endless campaigning is replacing actual politics.

3
Your rating: None Average: 3 (4 votes)

Personally I feel we should have a Just Don't Vote

Big Al's picture

movement trying to get people to not vote for either of the two duopoly candidates.  It's no use anyway, the lesser evil thing is bullshit, Obama the war criminal has proven that.  Hillary, the war criminal, Clinton would only provide added proof. 

Why not?  All options should be on the table, no guts no glory.  

3
Your rating: None Average: 3 (3 votes)

Its the Presidential election ...

BruceMcF's picture

... to elect the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, plus other subsidiary things ...

... and unlike the election of a new Congress or even the election of a new Senate, its winner take all.

I understand that there are those on the left whose role it is to analyse what is going on in our thoroughly corrupt electoral system, which includes Presidential electoral politics ...

... but for most, excessive focus on Presidential politics is surely buying into the establishment frame, by which we never pay attention to the recruitment of candidates for State Legislatures and Congressional races until it is too late to do anything about it, and rarely pay attention to primary elections until it is too late to do anything about it, and then rend our garments and rip out our hair when we analyse the choices available in the General Election.

3
Your rating: None Average: 3 (2 votes)

Here is an idea I have had for some time

geomoo's picture

It is that we should be much more proactive.  We should have committees of citizens who draft candidates from local people we know to be competent and of high integrity.  We would then convince some of these relunctant people to step forward out of civic duty, not for a lifetime but for a while, then we organize their campaigns.  This would create the proper relationship from the beginning between the candidate and the constituency and it would avoid the current self-selection on the basis of ego and love of power.  Of course, such a system requires self-actualization, a likely problem in 21st century America.

3
Your rating: None Average: 3 (3 votes)

Yes, but on the other hand ...

BruceMcF's picture

... the side effect of the egregious gerrymandering of Congressional districts and many State legislative districts are large numbers of districts where winning the primary is winning the election.

To a substantial extent, what you are suggesting is the recreation of the traditional membership-based political party.

3
Your rating: None Average: 3 (1 vote)

That's the name for the "we" that you refer to.

BruceMcF's picture

We should have committees of citizens who draft candidates from local people we know to be competent and of high integrity. We would then convince some of these reluctant people to step forward out of civic duty, not for a lifetime but for a while, then we organize their campaigns.

In order to be a "we" capable of pursuing such ongoing action, "we" would have to be an organized group of people.

If there is an organized group of people convincing people to run for office, for some period of time if not as a career ...

... then in US English, that is a political party, even if it is nor organized along the same lines or run in the same way with the same basic careerist goals as today's political parties.

0
No votes yet

A third party that runs people ...

BruceMcF's picture

... to township commissions and the school board and wins some of their elections is a more genuine political party than a group of people whose target is to gain 5% of the national Presidential vote to qualify for federal matching funds that they can spend to try to hold onto 5% of the national Presidential vote to continue to qualify for federal matching funds that they can spend to try to hold onto ... (and etc.)

0
No votes yet

In my small town, third

neroden's picture

In my small town, third parties have been created and have won on the local level.

School boards are (a) explicitly nonpartisan, (b) staggered like corporate boards, and (c) oversized with 12 members, so I concluded pretty quickly that they're hopeless -- you need 8 people willing to push for 4 years to get ANYTHING done.

Worse, the school board electorate is easily swayed by *really* stupid arguments because *almost none of the people most affected by schools are allowed to vote*, being under 18.

Town boards are different.  You can get serious traction on a single issue, and people will actually understand what you're talking about. (Unlike with schools, where if you bring up a real issue which concerns students, the majority of "parents" will pretty much just ignore you and focus on something completely bogus.)  Town boards and city councils and county boards (and water commissions, and so on) are probably the most critically important place to start.

3
Your rating: None Average: 3 (2 votes)

i would support

nemesis's picture

A Justice Party endorsement, but not a candidate.  That party is small enough for folks like us to have some.influence.  Greens? Meh.  

 

Since we are not about the horse race, I think endorsing a candidate makes us a green and yellow DK.  

3
Your rating: None Average: 3 (2 votes)