Open the Debates! Why antiwar and anti-bailout voters should demand an invitation for Cynthia McKinn

October 6, 2008 at 21:40:55

Open the Debates! Why antiwar and anti-bailout voters should demand an invitation for Cynthia McKinney

by Scott McLarty    

www.opednews.com
 

The biggest revelation for anyone paying close attention to the first presidential debate on Friday, September 26, was that Barack Obama and John McCain agreed on so much.

Despite Mr. McCain’s repeated "he just doesn’t get it" retorts, referring to Mr. Obama’s relative lack of foreign policy experience, and the reminders that Mr. McCain carries the stigma of a disastrous Republican administration, it was clear that the two candidates share the same basic premises. Both would maintain the Bush-Cheney doctrine of preemptive military action against nations currently at peace with the US, a policy contrary to the Nuremburg principles and other international laws as well as the US Constitution. The differences between the two on Iran, Israel-Palestine, and Russia-Georgia mostly had to do with secondary concerns such as how to approach negotiation. Mr. Obama would send more troops to Afghanistan. He continued to vote for President Bush’s requests for more war funding, joining most of his fellow Democrats in approving all war funding bills after his party gained control of Congress in 2006.


 

Whether Mr. McCain or Mr. Obama gets elected, we face a possible revival of the Cold War with Russia and a military confrontation with Iran, one that could erupt into a greater regional or global conflict. Despite promises of an eventual withdrawal, both would maintain some degree of US military occupation of Iraq in order to protect American interests, which can only mean western corporate control over Iraqi oil resources. Mr. Barack’s image as the antiwar choice of the 2008 election is no longer plausible.

Meanwhile, presidential candidates with different views on foreign policy were frozen out of the debate, and will be barred from the October 7 and 15 debates as well. Progressive voters should be alarmed by the absence of opposing pro-peace arguments during the debates.

The usual explanation for the Democrats’ embrace of Republican agenda during the post-convention phase of the election season is that Dems must capture the center. That’s the dynamic of American politics in recent decades: the Democrat is obliged to triangulate and stake out the GOP-Lite position. The Republican must appease the extreme social-conservative wing of his party (consider Mr. McCain’s conversion to Bush loyalist and his choice of Sarah Palin as running mate). Both remain faithful to the corporate donors who fuel their campaigns. Progressives within the Democratic Party muzzle their discontent and endorse their party’s nominee to prevent a Republican victory.

All of the actors in this repeating drama have thus contributed to the rightward trajectory of US politics and share responsibility for the Bush-Cheney catastrophe, the erosion of the Constitution, and the threat to the nation’s existence as a republic. Does anyone believe that President Obama will seek a repeal of the USA Patriot Act? Is anyone within the Democratic Party pressing him to take such a stand?

Given the narrow spectrum of opinion acceptable among the major media and the two-party establishment during election years, it’s no surprise that the American public accepts the political status quo and overall drift to the right as inevitable. It’s also no surprise that so many Americans feel too frustrated by the choices on the ballot to bother voting.

The antidote to such a stalemate is the emergence of new parties and the fresh ideas they bring with them. For many disappointed voters and alienated nonvoters, the Green Party offers hope for a permanent progressive and ecological political force that rejects the influence of corporate lobbies, foreswears donations from corporate PACS, and opposes the imperial tendencies of the Ds and Rs. Green presidential nominee Cynthia McKinney and running mate Rosa Clemente are speaking to voters and offering ideas that aren’t being heard in the McCain-Obama contest: single-payer national health care, rapid and complete withdrawal from Iraq, ending the war on drugs and the incarceration of record numbers of Americans, saving US democracy from a repeat of the stolen elections of 2000 and 2004, holding the Bush-Cheney Administration accountable for crimes and abuses of power.

Ms. McKinney, Ms. Clemente, and the Green Party represent millions of Americans whose opinions are excluded from the debates. Ms. McKinney and Ms. Clemente are the first US presidential ticket in which both nominees are women of African ancestry; Ms. Clemente is Black Puerto Rican. Ms. McKinney is a former six-term member of Congress from Georgia with an established record of leadership on human rights, foreign policy, environmental issues, and constitutional rights and protections for American citizens. She involved herself personally in the struggle of people in New Orleans and the Gulf Coast region to fight permanent eviction and return to their homes. In 2006, she became the first member of Congress to introduce a motion for impeachment of President Bush.

Ms. Clemente has called the Green Party "an imperative for America in the 21st century." No other candidate in the 2008 election stands for what the McKinney-Clemente ticket stands for.

Cynthia McKinney and Rosa Clemente will be on enough state ballots to get elected to the White House, if they received a majority or plurality of the votes. Any presidential candidate who is on a sufficient number of ballots to be elected deserves to participate in the debates. Voters have a right to be fully informed about all the candidates whose names they’ll see on the ballot, not just those approved by the debate sponsors or with favorable poll numbers. Voters deserve to know which candidate best represents their own interests and ideals.

Despite the emphasis placed on polls, the only truly democratic measurement of public support for candidates is the election itself. Opinion polls are subjective, vulnerable to bias, and constantly fluctuating, and they often exclude certain candidates from the questions asked. When pollsters ask voters to choose between two ‘viable’ or "winnable" candidates, they enforce the idea that the only valid votes are those cast for a Democrat or a Republican, regardless of voters’ own political sentiments. Polls are not democratic and should not be used to determine participation in debates.

Ultimately, the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) decides who will participate. The CPD took over the debates from the nonpartisan League of Women Voters in 1988 after the LWV withdrew in protest of the Democratic and Republican candidates’ attempts to control nearly every aspect of how the debates were to be conducted. The CPD is owned and run by the Democratic and Republican parties, which have an interest in excluding all candidates except their own. The CPD is funded through contributions from corporations, which have their own interests in a limited debate.

When the LWV ceded authority over the debates in 1988, it called the growing Democratic-Republican domination of the debates "a fraud on the American voter."

Americans have a special justification now for insisting on the inclusion of Cynthia McKinney, independent Ralph Nader, Libertarian nominee Bob Barr, and the Constitution Party’s Chuck Baldwin, all of whom will be on the ballot in a majority of states. The proposed bailout has placed the loyalties of our political leaders in bold relief. The leaders of the Democratic and Republican parties, including Barack Obama and John McCain, have joined the Bush Administration and Wall Street cronies in support of a scheme allowing the greatest transfer of wealth from taxpayers to financial corporations in US history.

Opposing the $700 billion bailout legislation are some progressive Democrats, some traditionally conservative Republicans (those who object to taxpayer-funded corporate handouts), most of the American public, and the alternative party candidates. Neither the Obama nor the McCain campaign represent anti-bailout voters.

Scott McLarty has served as media coordinator for the Green Party of the United States and for the DC Statehood Green Party. He has had articles, guest columns, and book reviews published in Roll Call, Z Magazine, Green Horizon, The Progressive Review, In These Times, and several local and community publications and small press. He joined the Green Party in 1996, and in 1998 ran for the Ward 1 seat on the Washington, DC City Council. Mr. McLarty grew up in Long Island, New York, and now lives in Washington, DC.

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “Open the Debates! Why antiwar and anti-bailout voters should demand an invitation for Cynthia McKinn

  1. And Why They Shouldn’t?
    We can’t afford a McCain win. Obama may not be exactly what we want, but realistically, neither the Green nor the Libertarian Party have made enough headway this go-round to make a go at it. All they could possibly achieve, 25 days out, is to take votes from the more progressive (though I agree not progressive enough) candidate, Obama.
    Why risk it? As soon as we (the Green Party) take ourselves seriously enough to be making a larger dent in the vote margins, the voters will take us seriously, and we won’t have to demand our way into the debates.
    This approach taken here always seems whiny and petulant, like a kid complaining the others won’t share their toys.
    There are many reasons our party deserves a stronger audience, but we have to earn it. We haven’t yet. And that should be a call for all of us to step up in 2012, 2016, whatever it takes to change the status quo.

    Like

  2. Re: And Why They Shouldn’t?
    Dear “Anonymous”:
    What are you doing to help the Green Party grow? You refer to “our” party. If you belong to the Green Party, what work are you doing towards the growth that you mention?
    Also it’s hard to believe that there are people who still think that “votes are taken away” from candidates:
    Who Really Spoiled in 2000?
    The Supreme Court Spoiled:
    Al Gore won the 2000 election. George W. Bush became President when a biased US Supreme Court allowed election manipulation by Florida Republicans.
    Al Gore Spoiled:
    Gore ran a weak campaign with no clear message. He failed to defeat Bush in the debates and even lost his home state of Tennessee. Millions of Democrats voted for Bush compared to the few hundred thousand who voted for Nader.
    Democratic Senators Spoiled:
    When the Black Caucus challenged Bush’s election victory in January 2001, not one Democratic Senator stood up in support. Senate Democrats failed to push for an investigation of the Florida vote debacle.
    The Democratic Party Spoiled:
    For many years, Democrats never objected when officials removed African American and other voters from the voter rolls in Florida and other states. Why didn’t the Democrats sue when 90,000 Florida voters were disqualified earlier in 2000? Why were Democrats (including Gore) silent about disqualified votes in the weeks after the election?
    Don’t Believe the Lies!
    Lie #1: “This is a two-party system.”
    Nothing in the US Constitution limits the number of political parties. Democracy means free participation, in the party of your choice.
    Lie #2: “Green candidates steal votes from Democrats”
    Greens will continue to affect election outcomes – and sometimes win. But Greens have no power to steal votes from Democratic candidates, because no candidate owns anyone’s vote except for his or her own.
    Lie #3: “If Nader hadn’t run, everyone who voted for him would have voted for Gore!”
    According to exit polls, Nader’s support came from Democrats, Republicans, independents, and many others. Many would not have voted for Gore if Nader hadn’t run, and some voters might not have voted at all.
    Top Democrats Know That the “Spoiler” Charge is a Lie!
    Al From, chair of the Democratic Leadership Council, wrote in Blueprint Magazine (1-24-01) that according to their own exit polls, Bush would have beat Gore by one percentage point if Nader hadn’t run in 2000.
    Vote your conscience and your hopes, not your fears!
    Democracy means joining the party of your choice, and voting for candidates who best represent your interests and ideals.
    Support Fair Elections!
    Support Instant Runoff Voting (IRV)!
    IRV allows voters to rank their first, second, and third choices on the ballot. IRV ensures that whoever wins the election has the support of a majority of voters. Many cities and towns have adopted IRV because it allows voters a real choice. Read more about IRV, Proportional Representation, and other democratic ways to reform our spoiled two-party, winner-take-all system, which bars people from representation and participation, at FairVote.org.
    Support public financing of election campaigns!
    ‘Clean Election’ campaign laws in Maine, Massachusetts, and Arizona help candidates who don’t take contributions from corporate lobbies.
    Support free air time and inclusion in public debates for all candidates!
    Voters have the right to know about all candidates whose names will appear on the ballot. Democracy means the power to make informed choices.
    Repeal unfair election laws!
    In many states, Democrats and Republicans have blocked other parties and candidates by passing antidemocratic ballot access laws. Some states have rules to disqualify voters whose votes they don’t want counted — as we saw in Florida in 2000.

    Like

  3. While I emphasize with your call for a viable third party in American politics, and I certainly support the initiatives of the Green Party… I suggest that you consider what many of us see at stake in this election. Consider these words:
    “We will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.”
    -George W. Bush, September 20, 2001 address to the United States Congress.
    I think that all political observers that accused Sarah Palin of not knowing about the Bush Doctrine need to reassess their beliefs. She may not have been able to communicate the principles intelligibly, but she has shown beyond a shadow of a doubt, that she has internalized an understanding of the tactics that the approach involves. The McCain/Palin ticket are simply applying the Bush Doctrine to its political opponent. The accusations that Palin and McCain are making by insinuation have very real consequences, and they need to be held accountable for them.
    Read SERENDIPITY.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s