Here is an excellent analysis of the dangerous, short-sighted strategy being espoused by complacent "Anybody But Bush" liberals (calling themselves progressives, of course), who continue to insist everyone hold their nose, gag, and vote for Kerry.

The author, Greg Bates, says:

"I find myself in awkward opposition to Dave's (a fellow writer and colleague of his) call for all progressives to gag but nonetheless vote Kerry, saying that a vote for Nader is no more than a dangerous protest. (Counterpunch, September 27, 2004) Behind every plea of this ilk is a simple demand: THINK STRATEGICALLY! Okay, let's get real."

He then goes on to talk about the hysteria surrounding the strategic thinking of many progressive leftists (like Bobert, for instance), who are planning on voting for Nader or Cobb in "safe states" where Bush is considered a sure win. They too are being admonished by the hysterical Democrats, in an attemt to shame and guilt trip EVERYBODY who isn't a gung-ho Republican, into voting for Kerry. In other words, the Anybody But Bushites are now claiming there are no safe states, and there is no safe vote for non-Repubs to cast, except one for Kerry. Fear mongering for Kerry is the order of the day.

Bates goes on to say:

"The value of a vote for Nader in a safe state is obvious: a growing protest vote, or even a steady one in these times, would show that the politics of fear may not be enough to keep progressives in line, and that to win, real policy change may be needed to head off a bigger vote next time.

Let's turn to consider the logic of Dave's position that we should all vote Kerry and reserve our protests for the streets, confining any progressive presidential electoral strategy to working inside the party during primary season. He writes:

"Voting for Kerry is only the first step. Any progressive who casts a vote for this unprincipled, calculating, Democratic Leadership Council member needs to simultaneously take a vow to remain active-no, to become even more active--in pushing for a progressive, anti-war agenda after November 2. A President-elect Kerry must be confronted with a million anti-war demonstrators at his inauguration ceremony. He must face a one-million-member jobs march in April 2005."

But wait a minute. Part of the punch of the street protest is an implied threat: change your policies or we will vote you out of office next time. March loudly and carry a big ballot. Dave would change the deal: We protest what you are doing, but don't worry; we'll vote for you no matter what you do. True, protests exert pressure in other ways besides threatening a politician's re-election. But taking that electoral tool completely off the table-or relegating it to local elections, as Dave is in effect advocating-robs movements of essential thunder.

Dave would confine progressive electoral politics on the presidential level to the primaries. How can any serious progressive argue this on the heels of what the Party did to the platforms of Kucinich, Dean and others? This in effect says: don't worry about the fun we are having in our progressive sandbox in the spring, we will vote for whoever you nominate. As I have pointed out elsewhere, reformers inside the party need progressives outside the party to demonstrate that, if the Democrats don't move left, we will walk. Otherwise, why would the party, drunk with corporate cash, hand over the keys to reformers? The existence of large numbers of progressives working and voting for other options can be used as leverage to pull the Democrats along. It may not work, but without it reforming the party is all the harder."

I'm still saying that a vote for Nader or Cobb IS a strategic vote, AND a strategic vote that sends a very strong message to the Democratic party. It allows progressives to vote FOR an anti-corporate candidate they not only believe in, but actually believe could serve very well as president. A candidate who would take the corporate parties to the cleaners, where they so desperately need to go.

It seems the Democratic grassroots have, in Bates' words "fundamentally lost touch with the power of third parties. Their success does not necessarily rest on winning office, but on applying pressure." Bates reminds us that "From the early labor parties of the 1830s, to the Free Soil Party of the 1850s, to the Prohibition Party of the 1890s, to the Bull Moose Party at the start of the twentieth century, to the Reform Party in the 1990s, third-party movements have forced policies and issues onto center stage and into mainstream political discourse. The result of these third-party campaigns has been the adoption of some of the most significant pieces of legislation in American history, such as the abolition of slavery, women's suffrage, the establishment of pensions, unemployment insurance, the minimum wage, Social Security, child labor laws, public schools, public power, the direct election of senators, the graduated income tax, paid vacation, the forty-hour workweek, higher civil service standards, the formation of labor unions, and democratic tools such as the initiative, the referendum, and the recall."

What depresses me more than anything about this election, is the way so many otherwise right thinking people, have totally lost touch with that history, and now believe, like so many Mudcatters do, that casting a vote for an independent or third party candidate, when combined with continued activism for progressive causes, is a wasted vote.