Joyce L. Arnold, Liberally Independent, Queer Talk, equality activist, writer.
UPDATE at end.
The Green Party presidential candidate is Jill Stein. The Libertarian presidential candidate is Gary Johnson. In the world of the Duopoly, these candidates play, at best / worst, a “spoiler” role.
From the The Green Party: “Another U.S. is possible. Another party is necessary.”
From the The Libertarian Party: “Minimum government, maximum freedom.”
Both, obviously, exist and function within our electoral system, both challenging the Duopoly from within. The SCOTUS decision regarding the Affordable Care Act, or more fundamentally, the whole ACA / Obamacare / Romneycare / Health care as taxable, mandated product fiasco, brought negative responses from Stein (who is a physician, and long time advocate for “single payer.”) and Johnson.
From Jill Stein.org:
Romneycare and Obamacare are class warfare and failures, says Stein; calls for ‘real solution’ of Medicare for All. …
Stein noted that ‘Obamacare is based on Romneycare, and as with so much else, Obama implemented a Republican scheme to impose mandates that are a regressive tax on working people.
From Libertarian.org:
A President Mitt Romney would not undo ObamaCare. He’ll make it permanent. …
A first-term President Mitt Romney would be far more dangerous to small business, the private sector, and taxpayers than a lame-duck President Obama – no matter what the Supreme Court decided.
On the Two Party System in general, both Green and Libertarian parties are clear.
The Green Party:
Why does the Green Party run presidential candidates, when it’s so unlikely they will win on Election Day?
The most important reason is that Americans deserve a real choice on Election Day. Voters deserve the right to vote for whichever candidates best represent their interests, ideals, and values – without being told that their choice is restricted to two candidates. The Democratic and Republican parties together represent a narrow range of ideas and policies. Both established parties and their candidates accept millions of dollars in contributions from powerful corporate lobbies. The Green Party and Green candidates accept no corporate money.
The Libertarian Party:
The two-party system is broken and both parties now support big government policies that are driving us to bankruptcy and eroding our Personal freedoms.
Johnson will be on all fifty states and DC ballots. Stein is currently on ballots in: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawai’i, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Delaware. There are ongoing petition efforts in: Alaska, Alabama, Connecticut, Iowa, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia. Both Libertarian and Green presidential candidates (a first for the Greens) will receive matching federal funds
Of course, the chances of media giving anything but passing and sporadic attention to either party, or any of the other “third” or “fringe” parties, is small. And when a “third” party candidate does get much attention, it’s usually in the “spoiler” role, a framing which assumes that anything that actually presents a challenge to a legacy party candidate is a bad thing. Silly voters, thinking they need, or will be allowed, more than the two Established choices.
In an interview with Matthew Rothschild, Editor of Progressive Magazine, Stein addresses some of the usual questions asked of most everyone except Republican and Democratic candidates. Obviously she’s speaking from the Green perspective, but the underlying arguments can apply for Libertarian and other non-legacy parties challenging the Duopoly. (Transcript via FDL).
‘Rothschild: What is the effective response? Would it be better to raise these issues within the Democratic party? Nader had name recognition, and only got 3%. What is the use?
Stein: That is the question isn’t it?
If an effort isn’t made, it’s clear what direction we are going in. The solutions are only getting further away. An effort has already been made to do this within the Democratic party; it’s not a question of if it should, but as a practical matter, it’s just not going to happen.
Many good people have tried a debate within the Democratic party; but the party has been so moribund that there is no prospect of debate on these issues, or salvage from within. …
We need to be there as the old paradigm is falling apart, and as it continues to fall apart. …
Rothschild: What about the spoiler question that comes up; that you are going to elect Romney … & (he) … will be worse than Obama.
Stein: That argument does not stand the test of time.
The politics of fear have brought us everything we were afraid of.
Obama has embraced or intensified all of our worst fears of George Bush. We have learned that silence is not an effective political strategy. …
The question is do we bring back democracy here? And if we absent ourselves right now, and by ‘we’ I mean those who are not corporate sponsored or Wall Street, if we disappear right now, we are going to get more of the same.
We have to at least engage the fight … . If we don’t … it’s all over… .
And when you talk about ‘spoiling,’ in the eyes of most people what’s being ‘spoiled’ is their healthcare, their education … .
They are not thinking about ‘spoiling’ some politician’s career … .
For any hope of ending the choke hold of these Two Corporate Parties, challenges from within the existing political / governance systems – like the Libertarian and Green parties – and challenges from without – like Occupy – are essential. I’m quite happy with efforts to “spoil” the Two Party Front for the Oligarchy’s reign.
UPDATE: An excerpt from Jill Stein’s victory statement on matching funds:
… The surge of support in the matching funds campaign arose despite the constant diet of Obama/Romney that the corporate media is feeding the American people. People are hungry for alternatives – they want to hear about the solutions that are being kept off the table by the establishment parties – they want real debates, not stage-managed squabbles between two defenders of war and Wall Street. They want the truth. …
I’m quite happy with efforts to “spoil” the Two Party Front for the Oligarchy’s reign
As am I. And though I realize that there will not be a short-term victory regarding the next presidential election, it is clear that voting Democrat (and Repub, as well, though that was never an option for me) not only does no better, but actually makes matters worse.
Jill Stein has achieved something no other Green has ever achieved; she has earned the right to matching funds. This is a big deal. If we had a media that represented the people rather than the one percent she would have a fighting chance. Having independant media is just as important as having third parties. The greens still need donations for the on going fight to get on the ballot in the remaining states. I urge all who can to support them. It may not make a difference this time around but it is an important moment for a third party candidate.
If Rocky Anderson doesn’t make the ballot in Maryland, I’ll vote for Ms Stein. Someone, someday will be able to explain to me what is “Democratic” about the two party system setting rules which keep the other parties off state ballots. Sounds more like collusion leading to to dictatorship of the duopoly to me.
Great post. I am going to look into and hopefully vote for Jill Stein. Right now the Charlie Sheen and his “Legalize Everything” and “Occupy Mars” platform is not starting to look as good. If the Green Party candidate has something better to offer, I will vote for her!
Good for you, Joyce.
So enjoyed this one, obviously loving a column on the only female running for president, Jill Stein.
Gary Johnson could teach Ron and Rand Paul the true meaning of libertarianism, because neither of them have a clue.
I will vote for either Jill Stein or Gary Johnson if they are on the ballot where I live. I am in the spoiler group and proud of it. I refuse to go along with the lesser of two evils again.
No surprise to anyone here, I know, that I’m in the “spoiler” group, and have been for quite some time.
“Winning” often comes in steps, like getting federal funding; getting on more state ballots; getting more people to pay attention.
I’ve never embraced the “spoiler” label, Joyce. You and others are voting your conscience, just like partisans of the big two. But I sure understand you embracing the title, which now I see comes with some pride. Democratic and Republican partisans have made a point to try to make people feel guilty about not voting the big two for a long time.
Hope you do more posts on Jill Stein.
It’s the Democrats and the Republicans who are doing the Spoiling.
People like RAJensen would rewrite the fairy tale so that the child who yells “the Emperor has no Clothes!” would be branded an extremist, radical progressive fringe dreamer so that the crowd could get back to applauding the Emperor’s awesome new, non-existent outfit.
The Libertarians and Greens represent the fringes of extremism that have been rejected by the electorate for more than a hundred years. The Libertarians argue for the complete de-regulation of the free market and the repeal of Social Security, Medicare, the Affordable Care Act, the Civil Rights Act and the Voting rights Act. The Greens stand for the government control of the free market, environmental regulations and the social safety network without compromise.
The American voters continue to reject these fringe extremist groups and will continue to do so.
I can just see you stamping your foot.
It could not be more obvious to me that the only thing it takes to be on the “fringe” or an “extremist” in your eyes is to reject the Democratic Party. You can be pro-gun an anti-choice (like Joe Manchin,) but that’s ok, because your a Democrat. You can be in favor of medial marijuana and reasonable tax rates which take the pressure off the middle class, but only if you are a Democrat. If you believe in those things but the Democratic party no longer does, then YOU are suddenly “on the fringe” and an “extremist” and worthy of RAJensen’s derision.
If you were capable of self-reflection, you’d realize that calling people who stick to their principles while the parties move away from them “extremists” just makes YOU a loopy Follower who cares only for labels and who has no principles of his own (at least, no principles he isn’t willing to toss overboard for the sake of party loyalty, should that be required in the future.)
You want to click your heels, bleat “Democrats Good, Republicans Bad!” as the Democratic party turns into the Republican party of the 1970s, go right ahead. But please stop whining that some of us refuse to go along, because you come off as a petulant little Follower, not to mention the kind of guy who probably thinks that those Memory Holes in “1984″ were a really good idea.
perfectly put
Ditto. It’s amazing to me that people like RAJensen will continue to define a large portion of the population as extremists, via selective attention to what polls tell them. The progressive position on health care, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, regulation of financial institutions, and many aspects of environmental policy, are the majority opinions in at least some aspects. Even when they’re aren’t the majority opinions, they are often supported by a large number of people. To define them as “extreme” is to ignore what the word means.
It also means that the parties get to define what “extreme” means- “whatever we don’t approve of.” They also get to set the standard for “mainstream,” where RAJensen and his ilk obsessively keep themselves. When the “mainstream” shifts, they shift along with it- and those who do not suddenly find themselves on the “fringe.”
You would have made a wonderful supporter of McCarthyism.