Vote Green and Move Country Right
Problem: this risks moving the country right — the opposite of what they want.
In parliamentary systems you can vote as far left (or right) as you want, without harming your cause, because winning is proportional.
If 25% vote Green and 26% vote Democratic, then Parliament is 25% Green and 26% Democratic — and the left governs with a 51% majority.
But the US is “winner take all.”
In the US if 25% vote Green and 26% vote Democratic, and another 40% vote Trump, you get Trump.
Split the left and get “W,” Reagan, Nixon… and Trump?
Splitting the left has boosted the right too many times.
In 2000 when Ralph Nader ran Green Party, a sliver of voters threw the election from Al Gore to George W. Bush.
And the world became less Green.
Work on climate change stalled. And we got a reactionary Supreme Court for a generation.
The Reagan revolution was similarly boosted by intra-party fighting when Ted Kennedy idealism undermined Jimmy Carter.
Liberal discontent helped Richard Nixon beat Democratic nominee, Hubert Humphrey.
A liberal circular firing squad is what essayist and author Kevin Baker calls it, as the far left takes on the talking points and perspective of the far right in attacking HRC. Mr. Baker voted for Sanders in the primary, but now he worries:
What is arguably the most successful left campaign in the nation’s history (Bernie Sanders) stands in danger of being undone by an infantile fraction of its own supporters.
… the growing desire of some in the (Sanders) campaign, both on its periphery and at its core, to walk away from the real prospect of building left power by refusing to work with allies and potential allies in the Democratic Party — all these now threaten the campaign’s potential to bring lasting change to American politics.
Harold Meyerson, vice-chair of Democratic Socialists of America warns against self-indulgence and self-righteous on the left.
I’m with him.
And I’m with her.