Long overdue thoughts on the Maine gubernatorial election.
I wish people would accept that we currently have a two party system. Not permanently, not be resigned to it, just accept the facts as they stand right now. Rather than putting our energies into doomed third party campaigns that result in a minority extremist wielding dangerous amounts of power, those of us who would like to see a multi-party system should be putting our energies into changing the political system into a multi-party system. Easy no-brainer reform: Instant Runoff Voting. Or any other number of variations on that theme. While I've heard the refrain that no major party will ever pass such a thing because they stand to lose prominence, I really doubt that. Most Democrats I talk to strongly support IRV. At any rate, we'd have a much better shot at it with Dems than with conservatives I'd wager.
Which brings me to another favorite political point of mine - while fighting for reform such as IRV, work within the current system by shifting the debate left. What I mean by that, is the lesser of two evils IS better. Much better. Keep fighting hard to get the Democrats in, until Democrats are the norm, and then the Greens can become the other major party while the Republicans fade into obscurity. This happens in real life all the time - there are lots of cities where the two major parties are Democrats and Greens. Portland, for example.
I guess the overriding theme is that we need to take a realist approach to reaching our progressive goals. Wishful thinking and "voting your conscience" (i.e. voting for long-shot third party progressives) is going to result in right wing victories and terrible costs to people and the environment. I think it's pretty selfish to close one's eyes to that reality in return for a momentary feeling of elation and moral superiority in the voting booth.
The case of Maine's recent election is somewhat different from the "starry-eyed third party progressive with a single-digit fraction of support" scenario. Here we had two progressive candidates running neck and neck for much of the campaign. In this situation, my anger lay not so much with the voters, who were understandably confused, as with the Eliot Cutler campaign. Why Eliot Cutler and not Libby Mitchell? Because Libby Mitchell WON the Democratic primary. In our current system, we need to get behind one candidate in order to win. The process in place for choosing that candidate, is the party primary. Like it or not, that's the reality.Eliot Cutler is a Democrat in all but name. He works for Democrats, he has basically progressive values on most issues. Yet he chose not to compete in the Democratic primary, and enter the race as an independent, thereby endangering and ultimately dooming a progressive victory. I really can see little other reason for his candidacy than either hubris or secretly working for the LePage campaign. IF Eliot Cutler had won the Democratic primary, I absolutely would have supported and voted for him. The overriding imperative here, folks, is to have a progressive, any progressive, in power, rather than a conservative.
Which brings me to another point. Individuals matter very little. I would sooner send a progressive drug addled high school student to the Blane House than a genius seasoned political conservative. What matters is political philosophy. That's all. Not age, not experience, not their private life, not a checkered past, not whose jet they fly on, or how much their clothes cost - just their politics. I could vote given no other information than party affiliation. In some European countries that's how it's done - people vote for their party (aka belief system) and the party picks the representative. I suppose a lot of Americans who are used to the media circus craziness of picking apart everything about candidates other than um, what they believe and how that will translate into public policy, will find this idea abhorrent. I think it's utterly ridiculous and arrogant to think you can know anything about a person's character through a political campaign. Or anything about their ability to govern through their private life. Come on. It takes years, decades, for most of us to even know our own character, or that of those closest to us. I think the whole character judgment thing is just another way for people to feel superior. And to avoid actually doing some serious reflective thinking about what their political beliefs are.
Which brings me to my final point. I have no respect for the swing voter. Anyone with any minimal amount of self awareness and intelligence is capable of sitting down and figuring out their political belief system. It's not that hard. If you don't have a political affiliation, you haven't thought about it enough, that's all. No one with real values would be capable of voting both Republican and Democrat. They're opposites. If you're voting for both, you're confused. Pandering to these people is demeaning. And cheapens our political debate. Progressive would be better of being progressives and talking progressive values rather than pandering to the confused and lazy.
Well, I know the tone of all this might be a tad abrasive. It comes from a place of being deeply saddened and disgusted with the minority vote victory of the dangerous extremist, Paul LePage, and the suffering and destruction he will no doubt cause.
