Why are Third Parties Important?

NOTE: This only at this current stage, applies to federal level elections(barring a very strong Green party or progressive independent downballot candiate).  I noticed how the Bernie Sanders campaign has spurred Berniecrats like him to run for office.  As a result, my belief is that in downballot initiatives, they should support Berniecrats running for office against establishiment democrats, establishiment Republicans, and alt-rightists.  However, progressives should vote for Stein on the federal level and from there, work to ensure that states allow for more alternatives on local elections.

The 2016 election is shaping up to be easily the most unpopular election in American history.  Both Trump and Clinton net unavailability ratings on a massive scale.  Both candidates are viewed to be not only unlikable, but also untrustworthy.  Under these conditions, it is time to consider the importance of third parties and how they may prevent American democracy from being dominated by "the candiate" the populace hate the least and the rule of "voting the lesser evil" to prevent the greater evil from emerging.

Some say that it is impossible for third parties to make a dent on America, that all they would do is split the vote and allow the greater evil to win.  While some may argue that from a right-wing libertarian or moderate prespective, building a third party has a good chance of bearing fruit this election, it seems to be harder to justify progressives building the Green Party in the wake of Gary Johnson's growing chances electoral success that Jill Stein and the Green Party does not seem to share.  This blog entry will discuss some of the reasons to vote Third Party, framing it in the context of the Green Party's struggle for electoral breakthroughs.  It ultimately argues that in an election with the most derided candidates, 2016 offers the best opportunity to start building an alternative to the two party system.

Apologies for the Delay

Hello, Daniel here, and I apologize for the delay.  Watching the Olympics, taking all the beautiful No Man's Sky pictures as well as preparing for my grad school program in September seems to have drained quite a bit of time from me.  Neverthless, this sociopolitical blog is still on, I am not quitting my bloggers' chair any time soon, and will have my next article up as soon as possible.

But first, a quick note on the Green Party Town Hall that occured yesterday.  I was more excited for the Green Party town hall to say the least then any of the upcoming Hillary vs. Trump debates.  As I feel the 2016 election will not be a progressive campaign pitted against a alt-right one, but a business-as-usual neoliberal establishment campaign pitted against an alt-right one.  Despite Bernie's efforts to inject left wing discourse into American politics, it seems that politics remains wedded to the notion of lesser of two evils.  And Hillary looks to be shaping up to be business as usual, seemingly abandoning the most progressive democratic platform in history.  The Green Party Town Hall with Jill Stein and Ajamu Baraka is thus a refershing alternative to dead-end politics where voters have to pick between the maintaining of neoliberal policies or give way to the far-right and the dangers it might entail.  The dominance of the political duopoly is even more jarring considering a large percentage of young people want a third party to represent them.

The DNC: Democratic Disunity?

The theme of the Democratic Convention is "Unity".  In this case, unity against Trump and the GOP.  Yet, recent events have shown that unity be out of their reach.  This apparent disunity is because of the revelation of the Democratic Party's disenfranchisement torwards its progressive wing, represented by the supporters of Bernie Sanders.

The cracks were already showing before the convention.  An earlier article I've written discussed ways that Hillary had withdrawn on her promise of a more progressive platform even before Sanders' misguided endorsement of Clinton.  The retreat from fighting for progressive policy and a return to Third Way policies further intensified with Clinton's appointment of Tim Kaine as her Vice President pick.  This is because Tim Kaine has expressed support for the TPP as an "upgrade for labour standards"(he was one of the 13 senators that wanted Obama to fast track this act through Congress), as well as pro-fracking positions and support for the Hyde Act.  The Hyde Act prohibits federal funding for abortions under Medicaid — the repeal of which is called for in the Democratic Party’s own platform promising unlimited federal funding of abortions.  Kaine was also known to support "tough on crime" policies such as  Project Exile, which gave long prison sentences to thoseconvicted on illegal firearm ownership.  This law has bee accused of targeting the black population and feeding the prison-industrial complex.  Thus, it is contradictory for Hillary to promise a leftward shift, yet have a center-right neoliberal VP with policies contradictory to all her promises.

Thoughts on Bernie Sanders' endorsement of Hillary Clinton

On July 12th, 2016, Bernie Sanders endorsed Hillary Clinton in Portsmouth, New Hampshire.  He concedes the nomination to Hillary Clinton.  He congratulates her on the nomination and states he will do whatever it takes to allow her to become president to ensure a Democratic victory on November 8th.  He praises Hillary's supposed promises to create a living wage, as well as to rebuild crumbling infrastructure.  This will of course contrast with Trump's plan to nominate a right-wing Supreme Court Justice and to cut minimum ages.  

While this move has finally ended Bernie Sanders' conflict with the Democratic Party, it has split Sanders' progressive base.  Some believe that Sanders made the right decision, rooted in his earlier promises that he will endorse Clinton to defeat Donald Trump.  They believe that the threat of Donald Trump and the alt-right eclipses any sort of protest that could be achieved by voting Third Party.  Thus it is wrong to support Green Party presumptive nominee Jill Stein because all that would do is take away votes from Clinton, viewing Trump's plans to be detrimental to a progressive America because of his far-right polices.  Others believe that the Sanders' "Political Revolution" laid the grounds for genuine independence from the Democratic Party through an independent Left.  Consequently, they view Sanders' endorsement as a sell-out or a betrayal.  When looking at these arguments, I feel that, while Bernie Sanders may not have sold out(at least in my opinion), the latter camp is in the right, and that it was wrong for Bernie Sanders to have endorsed Hillary at this stage of the campaign.   That is because Hillary's behavior often makes it hard to believe that she would stay true to fighting for a progressive campaign, and this was in fact reflected in certain campaign decisions that was made by her as the convention neared.  Likewise, if she becomes president, it would not be guaranteed if she would actually move to implement more progressive policies because of the supreme court of whatnot as, much of which has come about as progressive policies was due to grassroots activism.  

It also bears noting that this endorsement could actually benefits the alt-right, whom would use Bernie's endorsement to paint Bernie as "corrupt" or no different than the rest.  This will be contrasted with Trump, who would be seen as "incorruptible" and the only one to "deliver" America from corruption.