I think it’s a good time to at least understand something of the 2 party system that is America’s political system, if not to embrace it (as I have) or to love it (as I can’t, yet, with so many voters not understanding and abusing it).
The mistake so many make when they accuse those who would vote, unflinchingly, for Hillary in a general election is that they are not really “progressive,” they are squishy, “neoliberal (or some such other nonsense),” spineless and unaware of all the deep problems in our country. A vote for a less-than-stellar Democratic nominee is, they accuse, no different than voting for a Republican.
The provable facts say the opposite. Knowing that there is a verifiable difference between a Democrat and a Republican, at any time period in the history of these two parties, is easy to observe. Knowing that, in America, on the day of a General election, and voting for one of those 2 parties demonstrates the intelligence of these people, even if it is one of the few things they are intelligent about, as in the case of the “conservatives” who march to the polls religiously to vote for candidates they don’t like.
Back to the point. Understand the American system.
In Europe people can vote, more or less, for their essential beliefs. They can vote Green (as in environment), they can vote Green (as in legalization), they can vote for Nazis or for cat’s rights. To the extent that other people vote likewise for their particular passions they will have a bloc of influence. Those members can use their influence to form coalitions with other blocs — compromising their ambitions to become part of a majority bloc. It is even possible, if unlikely, for a member of a small bloc to become the leader of the coalition.
This majority coalition then does something extraordinary: they choose the leader of the country. Not the electorate, not the citizens of the country but, essentially their House of Representatives picks the boss. That’s incredible.
We don’t do that here. But, when you vote for Jill Stein for President in a general election you are not getting her a seat in a bloc where she can negotiate a position in a coalition. She, and your votes, are nothing. They don’t exist. You are, effectively, showing up to a barbeque in the middle of a snowstorm.
You might want to complain about that, thinking that it is impossible, then, for someone like Jill Stein to become president. That is true, but not for the reason you would likely accuse.
The system is not rigged. It does have a logic.
In our system the negotiating of minority blocs is done before the election. There are two parties that are essentially the bargained and brokered concerns of many small blocs of interests. Jill Stein, as righteous as she may be (or anyone else for that matter), must convince one of these groups of blocs (or any combination of blocs, so long as it is a majority) that either their interests should be her platform, or that she can best represent all their interests. Either way, the fact remains that it is a Democracy, and for a minority bloc to insist their candidate be the leader despite an ability to gain the support of a majority is not righteous, it is destructively selfish.
Our system, when it works well, when the voters understand it, prevents a person who is distinctly unwanted by a majority from having the power of the presidency. It is specifically that. It might not sound like much but the consequences of the alternatives to such occurrences can, and have been dire. (insert example of Republicans winning — and governing — here).
Also, the 51 who are aligned in not wanting candidate B are given ample time to argue, cajole, negotiate and to have caucuses and primaries to determine who will be the candidate that will represent their “not candidate B” campaign. They can, of course, be even more appealing than that, and have been to varying degrees throughout history, but a fundamental, if uninspiring (though that is enough for me) cornerstone is that “we’ve fought and bickered, we’ve debated and voted, and candidate A is supported by the most people to do many things, but first and foremost: beat candidate B.
To the extent that I support candidates that cannot win the Democratic nomination, I know that supporting the ones that do get the nomination - by assuring the stability of that coalition and proving that it is a strong, reliable force - paves the ground for my as-of-yet unelectable candidate to eventually get that nomination as the coalition grows more confident and sure-footed. In contrast, every time there’s a Gore losing because of a Nader, the coalition becomes more insecure and moves more to the middle (perhaps in some vain attempt to recover a majority by gaining moderates on the Right). Imagine Sanders running in 2004, or anytime in the 80s or early 90s. He wouldn’t have gotten more than 10% (probably closer to 1%).
Now that the Obama years (especially that remarkable, well managed victory in 2012 — mind you 51% to 48%… a razor thin majority — cuz honestly, thanks to Bush, any Democrat was going to win in ‘08) have injected confidence into the coalition of “Democrats,**” people are getting cabin-fever. Some suddenly believe that if you don’t elect Elizabeth Warren and her socialist brother then you are a Republican, or a Republican sympathizer. Chances are, not one of them acknowledges the savvy of Obama (that corporate sellout) that has afforded them the luxury to be so righteously indignant and expectant.
If you don’t appreciate that our system allows you to elect the candidate - the person - you want, to one of the major parties, and therefore to a runoff for the most powerful position in the world (if you have the commitment and patience to make it happen) then you are being careless.
If you don’t understand that you have ample years to accumulate a coalition of 51% to support your candidate, win a major party primary and send your candidate to the general election then you are just being petulant. Your righteous indignation is a tantrum.
If you don’t understand that our 2 party system is the ultimate runoff, supposed to pit the consensus candidate of one would-be 51% coalition against the other, consensus would-be 51% candidate, then you are just lazy and ignorant.
You want Bernie to be the nominee? Then win the primary. Your whining and threats have done nothing to me but push me to a candidate (Clinton) I don’t inherently have a lot of enthusiasm for.
Align with the Democratic coalition and yet decide to “vote your conscience” on Runoff day (the general election)… well then, go fuck yourself, you arrogant, ignorant, ignarrogant, self-absorbed, petulant, lazy-minded, careless fool.
*The title is a quote from the excellent Teaching Assistant (which any large University grad knows is who does most of the in-the-trenches teaching) of one of my Political Science classes. It was not said in hostility but as the conclusive flourish (which got a good laugh for its style and a lot of nodding heads of agreement for its logic) to one of his expositions on the 2 party system.
**Democrat is a strange word. Some Democrats proudly embrace it and some Democrats reject it. All it means to me — and I’ll say I’m a Democrat (though most probably of the latter variety) and I’ll vote, without other info, for the person with the (D) next to their name — is that you are a practical person who understands that 51% is the holy grail. There may be — and is — sharp division over micro issue x or micro issue y, but a Democrat knows that at this imperative line, or on this imperative issue, “you shall not pass.” At its best it stands for highfalutin ideas, and at its worst (but still acceptable) it stands for being the bulwark against the most insidious urges in our country. I am a Democrat. Not proud, but grateful that there are 50% +1 who prove I’m not crazy to believe the bulk of what I do. I am a Democrat.