CommunityMy FDLSeminal

Jon: We should support the SEIU’s efforts to create a third party and here’s why.

I wrote this as a comment to Jon’s piece here. It just struck me as a good diary as well. I’ll post it at Open Left as well.

Love your analysis Jon, but I think you’re wrong on this one. Your thinking is based on what are a number of flawed theories about third party runs and the Ralph Nader presidential run.

First, I totally and wholeheartedly support labor if it decides to make third party runs at the congressional level. The easiest and quickest way for third parties to make a splash is running at the congressional level. Labor should have its own party, period. Especially now.

Misconception one: Third party runs are always losers.

They say that about primary runs, too. And you’re right if Bill Halter raises 25000 grand for a primary run against Blanche Lincoln then its a waste of time. If he raises 1 million and counting he’s gotta helluva shot. Use your imagination and apply this same logic to independent third party runs.

Let’s say the SEIU runs a third party campaign against Jason Altmire, who hasn’t attracted a primary candidate as of yet and probably won’t. Its too late. There are two ways you can run a challenge to a third party. Here’s the Green Party way: raise two thousand dollars and make a run against Mike Doyle, who’s actually a pretty dependable liberal democrat. Okay, then you’re running as a spoiler.(True story by the way.)

But what if you raise about 300000 grand for the candidate and recreate the American Coming Together canvas for four months? That’s a run that would have a real shot. Rich people like Lamont and Bloomberg aren’t viable candidates because they’re charismatic. They win because they have money. The SEIU has the same resources to make candidates “viable”. They could probably blow their noses and find 300000 grand either in direct funding or campaign staff/doorknockers. I think you could win with just doorknockers.

Misconception two: People just love the two party system.

There needs to be a party that challenges the two party system. One of the things that’s disturbing about the republican attack against the plan is that they’re fundamentally unable to attack the worst part of the plan: forced mandates and IRS enforcement. I just think they’re incapable of making that kind of argument, especially as the party that prides itself in shilling directly for corporate interests that screw the public. I think the republicans are mad that they couldn’t deliver on NAFTA or forcing every single american to buy a product so that it will widen the pool and hopefully lower rates. (ha ha ha.)

A third party can do that. Not that its a guarantee that a labor party would be consistently progressive. I would watch all labor candidates on both the choice and environmental issues…but it would be better than conservadems and republicans. I’ll try a different pain I guess

Misconception three: A third party has to win every single seat in every single race to be effective.

That’s false. I will air my plan again. You need to contest 5 senate seats/25 house seats to have a say on most issues that are before the congress. We could start in 2010 and be ready by 2012. It would be nice if those 30 or so people were hard negotiators like Bart Stupak. You need 300000 to run a viable house campaign and you need 2 million to run a viable US Senate race. The SEIU could easily do this.

Misconception 4: Progressives can only win within the Democratic Party.

Jon, go reread your own work. Or read Glenn on civil liberties. Or read Jane’s recent comments on the choice issue. We need to leverage our position with viable third party runs. This is what Rahm meant when he said don’t worry about the left and how fucking retarded we are.

This is a really a combined sentence. He really meant “Progressives are fucking retarded because they’ll vote democrat no matter what evil policies we pass.” Frankly, if this is his thinking, he’s completely correct. I mean, your position is “Screw me hard and dry, Rahm and Barry. I’ll vote democrat anyway and criticize the SEIU if they look for a way out…”

Philip Shropshire
http://www.examiner.com/x-10379-Pittsburgh-Progressive-Examiner

PS: One more thing about Nader: Democrats lost in 2000 and 2004 because republican secretaries of state essentially caged and stole the vote. Nader didn’t help but there’s a very good chance that the republicans would have won anyway. The fix was in and both Gore and Kerry should have fought long and hard just like Norm Coleman to make sure every vote was counted. Kerry might have won if he had simply requested a recount, at the very least the theft would have been more obvious…

Previous post

Ground Control To Major Rahm . . .

Next post

CNN Completes Its Fall By Hiring Erick Erickson Of Red State

Steelydan3 (Philip Shropshire)

Steelydan3 (Philip Shropshire)

I have worked as a reporter, media watch columnist, ran a consumer group for three years and been an occasional pro se attorney. I've sold everything from vacuum cleaners to satellite dishes to computers. I am a huge fan (literally, I'm 6' 5") of comics and science fiction and am a Pop Culture addict in general. I am also an English Major

16 Comments