FLOTSAM & JETSAM

ON FINDING A CANDIDATE

Sam Smith

As always happens, as soon as I say something nice about a political
candidate, I find myself in trouble.

Part of the problem may be that I think about political candidates
differently than a lot of people. Unlike many, I don't see myself as
part of some great collective of St. Peters at the gate deciding who
should get into heaven and then, in a strange twist of metaphor, come
back to earth and save us. Rather I think of politicians as one more
tool in social and political change and the first question that jumps to
my mind is: what can they do for us?

I expect them to fail, con, double-cross and desert, but before they
betray us too much I would like to get a civil liberties bill or
universal healthcare passed.

Before television turned candidates into pseudo saviors, people took
this for granted about politics. It was almost a feudal arrangement:
politicians paid for their corruption with public service. If you wanted
perfection you went to church; you didn't go to the ward office.

Every once in a while a real reformer would come along but like one of
those sunny days in February such campaigns were a reminder of the
possible rather than of the probable.

Today politicians don't even have to tithe to their constituents. They
just concoct a nice fairy tale for the campaign and upon election
perform their services by, as Mayor Daley once said, dancing "with the
one that brung you" - which ain't us. We just applauded at the right
time.

One alternative, of course, is to take the high road. Ignore the
Democrats and support a Green for president or stay with the Democrats
but support Kucinich. There's nothing wrong with this except that the
game is completely rigged against you and it may not be the best game to
be playing anyway.

Some of us tried it with Nader in 2000. It worked about as well as can
be expected for third parties and, despite the whining of Democratic
spoiled children, did not cause Gore's loss - as any fair statistical
analysis will show.

But it was also clear after that election that it wasn't a particularly
useful route to continue. History shows that third parties - given
America's biased election system - only get one shot at having an effect
in a presidential campaign. Further, given the Democrats' deep denial
over their collapsing role in American politics, it meant there would be
little but endless and pointless arguments in sight. I urged that Nader
not run, arguing that standing in the middle of a freeway to make his
point might not be the most productive use of his time. And I urged that
Greens concentrate on local and state races which is where they continue
to show their real strength and potential.

Lots of Greens disagreed with me and that's fine and I still admire
them. It's just that I think of some of them more as monks and nuns of a
righteous order than as political activists.

There is one other purpose to such moral campaigns besides the final
tally and that is to use the effort as part of organizing efforts for
some greater and longer purpose. Campaigns are good ways to get people
active, but too often the campaign is both the beginning and the end of
that activity.

With that in mind, for example, I invited some Greens over to my house
to meet with Dennis Kucinich in 2004. The meeting went well, but then I
asked the wrong question. What, I inquired of Kucinich, do you plan to
do when you lose? Kucinich clearly didn't like it but it is a the key
question when you enter a campaign for mainly moral reasons. How do you
make sure the cause continues after the election?

We should look at this Democratic primary season in the same way: not as
an end in itself but as part of an organizing effort that has many miles
to travel.

The minute you do this, iconic candidates without significant positive
programs are easily eliminated. Obama is certainly a better fall-back
position than Hillary Clinton but neither have anything to offer
advocates of the changes this country needs.

Three candidates do: Kucinich for peace, Gore for the environment and
Edwards for economic fairness.

I don't think Kucinich can pull it off, I fear Gore has waited too late
if, indeed, he intends to join the fray, which leaves us - at least for
now - with Edwards.

No, I'm not thrilled about Edwards and, yes, I know that he, like every
candidate running save Kucinich, has a lousy position on the occupation
of Palestine, but he's saying things that haven't been heard in a
campaign in a long time and he's already making a lot of the powers that
be nervous - which is one reason why the big media is trying to pretend
he's not in the race.

If Edwards stops being useful to the causes in which I believe, I'll
ditch him.

And if you don't like the answer I came up then come up with your own.

Just do me one favor: don't ask which candidate best fits your paradigm
of what a president should be and says the things that make you feel
most comfortable, but rather which candidate stands the best chance of
advancing the things in which you believe. That's a practical, not a
moral, question.

Instead of being just the candidate's supporter, make the candidate your
tool.

MORE FLOTSAM & JETSAM
http://prorev.com/sam.htm

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||