As the U.S. election season proceeds, there is controversy, confusion, consternation, and sometimes recrimination. Below, in a question and answer format, we present our views on these matters, hoping to contribute to the discussion.
- Who are Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton?
Trump is a narcissistic, violent, lying, racist, misogynistic, ultra-nationalist bully. He says whatever he calculates will best promote himself. Is he a racist thug? Yes. Does he advocate total state control on behalf of private owners? Not yet. Is he a Mussolini in the making? Maybe.
Hillary Clinton is a leading representative of the neoliberal wing of the capitalist class and has helped move the Democratic Party from New Deal liberalism to pro-corporate liberalism. She is beholden to wealth and power and Sanders was correct to call her the candidate of Wall Street.
Yet as horrible as adherence to wealth and power is, it is unclear why many people see Clinton as massively worse than Obama or her husband, say. Clinton was one of the more liberal Democrats in the Senate, yet some progressives claim they prefer Reagan or even Trump over her. Perhaps these people are first discovering the horrors hiding behind fuzzy Democratic Party rhetoric. Or perhaps they are first directly experiencing the massive obstacle to fundamental change that is our corporate system, and their fury at that system is directed at Clinton alone rather than at her but also more widely.
- How does the Democratic platform compare with the Republican platform and should we care?
That party platforms and campaign promises are routinely violated is undeniable. Yet, even so, specific campaign pledges are often kept and members of Congress often vote in accord with their party platforms. The key determinant, though, is whether political pressure is brought to bear to compel compliance.
This year, the Sanders forces had substantial input into the Democratic platform. They didn’t get the language they sought on a bunch of issues, and on some (especially Palestine), they got nothing. But the document is still one of the most progressive in Party history:
- a $15 an hour minimum wage, pegged to inflation (remember when that was a major left demand?)
- working families should not pay any tuition to go to public colleges and universities,
- 50 percent of the country’s electricity should come from clean energy sources within a decade,
- федерално законодателство за защита на ЛГБТ общността от дискриминация и транссексуалните хора от насилие,
- отмяна на поправката на Хайд, която забранява федералните фондове за аборти,
- comprehensive immigration reform providing a path to citizenship for those without legal documents and in the meantime defending executive actions to prevent the deportation of DREAMers, parents of citizens, and lawful permanent residents, and an end to raids and roundups of children and families,
- край на масовото лишаване от свобода, реформиране на задължителните минимални присъди, затваряне на частни затвори и центрове за задържане, разширяване на програмите за повторно влизане, изискване на телесни камери, спиране на използването на военни оръжия в градските общности, край на расовото профилиране, изискване от Министерството на правосъдието да разследва всички съмнителни или подозрителни стрелби с намеса на полицията, край на смъртното наказание,
- end the hypercriminalization of marijuana.
Contrast that with the GOP platform, one of the most reactionary in history, which calls for a wall across the Mexican border, no amnesties, treating illegal immigrants as a major source of violent crimes; no abortions, even in cases of rape or women’s health; abolishing tenure; abstinence-only sex education; repealing the Affordable Care Act; characterizing coal as a “clean” energy source; a gay rights section that the Log Cabin Republicans called “the most anti-LGBT platform in the party’s 162-year history”; ending the Attorney General’s “campaign of harassment against police forces”; condemning the Supreme Court’s erosion of the death penalty; and eliminating the federal minimum wage.
Both platforms reflect a fundamental commitment to capitalist values. Nonetheless the differences they reveal in the two parties and the two likely emerging administrations would have significant human consequences.
- Но предвид връзките на Клинтън с енергийната индустрия, не са ли разликите между Клинтън и Тръмп по отношение на климата само козметични?
Clinton and the Democratic Party platform recognize climate change as an “urgent threat” and commit to addressing it. Clinton says she will “install half a billion solar panels by the end of her first term, cut tax subsidies to oil and gas companies,” and “deliver on the pledge President Obama made at the Paris climate conference—without relying on climate deniers in Congress to pass new legislation.” She will “reduce greenhouse gas emissions by up to 30 percent in 2025 relative to 2005 levels….”
The words “up to” are disturbing, but compare them with Trump, who considers climate change a hoax, or with the Republican platform which proposes “to shift responsibility for environmental regulation from the federal bureaucracy to the states” and “to transform the EPA into an independent bipartisan commission.” They reject “both the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement,” and refer to the “illusion of an environmental crisis.” They want to revive the Keystone pipeline.
Some ask why it matters whether we are killed immediately or more slowly. What matters is that the longer timeline offered by the Clinton policies gives us time to build a movement able to win the environmental policies we really need.
Ако Тръмп спечели и се стреми да премахне СИП, да отмени Плана за чиста енергия и да провали Парижкото споразумение за климата, климатичните активисти със сигурност ще му се противопоставят. Но това е смисълът. Да имаш Тръмп на поста означава, че организацията през следващата година ще се бори да предотврати или отмени ужасяващото отстъпление, вместо да търси нови положителни печалби.
- Given Clinton and the Democrats’ support for “free trade agreements,” would Trump be better for American workers than Clinton?
Technological change and the industrialization of the Third World will inevitably affect employment in the United States. The left insists that the costs of those shifts be shared as fairly and as democratically as possible. What’s objectionable about TPP and the other “free trade agreements” is not that they promote trade, but that they give too much power and benefit to corporations and that they are not accompanied by domestic policies that equitably redistribute the costs and benefits.
Trump has not put forward any policies that would address the redistribution problem. Blocking TPP, but then pursuing other policies that shift income upward will not help the non-college-educated working class victims of globalization.
On the minimum wage, Trump recently took “three different positions … in less than 30 seconds,” but the most generous of them was two-thirds of what the Democratic Party platform calls for (an increase to $15 an hour over time, pegged to inflation). The Republican platform sees the minimum wage as “an issue that should be handled at the state and local level,” calls for the repeal of the Davis-Bacon law, which mandates the payment of prevailing wages on federally-funded construction projects, and supports anti-union Right to Work laws.
On tax policy, Citizens for Tax Justice commented: “Trump’s tax plan would represent an unprecedented shift of income to the wealthy, while taking away substantial income and public services from the overwhelming majority of Americans.”
Данъчните разпоредби в платформата на GOP, каза Citizens for Tax Justice, „ще изострят двойните проблеми на нарастващото неравенство и непрекъснатите годишни дефицити на федералния бюджет с намаляване на данъците, което по същество влага повече пари в джобовете на богатите хора и корпорации и намалява федералните приходи. ”
The Republican Platform also opposes the Dodd-Frank regulations, and especially the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Trump himself told the New York Times that he prefers using non-union labor.
In contrast, Democrats offer modest steps to address inequality: make the rich pay their fair share of taxes (“In terms of tax justice,” observed Citizens for Tax Justice, “this year’s Democratic platform is one of the party’s most progressive in modern history”), make it easier to form unions, raise the minimum wage, and oppose Right to Work laws.
Богатите имат решаваща роля в Демократическата партия на Клинтън, но дори ограничените различия между партиите ще се превърнат в значителни различия в живота на хората.
- How would Trump and Clinton differ on court appointments? Does it even matter?
The next President will likely make four Supreme Court appointments who will adjudicate for decades. When Trump says he will choose justices in the image of Antonin Scalia, we can assume he will. Some of Bill Clinton and Obama’s nominees have been centrist but have voted with the liberal bloc on many crucial close decisions.
Decisions on immigration, reproductive rights, affirmative action, LGBTQ rights, voting rights, campaign financing, and corporate power all matter, and so different appointments to the Court matter too. Social movements, of course, are needed to generate real change, but the more reactionary the Court, the tougher their job.
- Is Clinton more likely to pursue war than Trump?
Бърни Сандърс правилно критикува гласуването на Клинтън през 2002 г. за войната в Ирак. Но въпреки твърденията на Тръмп, няма доказателства, че той се е противопоставил на тази война преди да започне. Единственото му документирано мнение преди войната беше отговорът му на въпрос от септември 2002 г. на Хауърд Стърн дали подкрепя влизането във война. Той отговори: „Да, предполагам, че е така“. През 2011 г. Тръмп каза на интервюиращ, че умни хора казаха, че войната в Ирак е за превземане на петрола, но „за съжаление, Буш не е имал това предвид“.
Тръмп също така подкрепи кампанията от 2011 г. за свалянето на Кадафи в Либия - въпреки че той критикува политиката на САЩ на основание, че подкрепата за бунтовниците е трябвало да бъде обусловена от тяхното съгласие да ни дадат 50 процента от петрола си.
Clinton has hawkish inclinations and a hawkish record, and has surrounded herself with hawkish advisers (including neocons like Robert Kagan). She worked to undermine democracy in Honduras and pursued provocative policies toward Russia. The jingoism at the Democratic Convention was repulsive, but familiar. However, Trump’s America Firstism is not pacifism. He’s called for sending 30,000 troops to fight ISIS (and won’t rule out the use of nuclear weapons against them). He wants bombing that kills the family members of ISIS members (noting that Obama has been fighting a very “politically-correct” war), waterboarding and worse, and he favors barring Muslims.
Trump proposes a 45 percent punitive tariff on China that will surely exacerbate tensions with that major power, and says he wants to bolster U.S. military forces in the tense South China Sea to give the United States a stronger bargaining position.
Clinton may or may not ignore the terms of the Iran nuclear deal and use sanctions to try to extract further concessions from Iran. Trump has said his “number-one priority is to dismantle the disastrous deal with Iran.” The Republican platform says they don’t recognize the agreement as binding.
Тръмп призова за изграждане на армията на САЩ и обвини Обама, че е позволил на американския ядрен арсенал да „атрофира“. „Доктрината на Тръмп е проста“, заяви The Donald. „Това е сила. Това е сила. Никой няма да се забърква с нас. Нашата армия ще стане по-силна.
In April 2016, Trump warned that, “Our military is depleted, and we’re asking our generals and military leaders to worry about global warming. We will spend what we need to rebuild our military. It is the cheapest investment we can make. We will develop, build, and purchase the best equipment known to mankind. Our military dominance must be unquestioned.” Obama proposed a trillion dollar nuclear modernization program. Clinton submissively said she had to look into the matter, but now the Democratic platform urges “work to reduce excessive spending on nuclear weapons-related programs that are projected to cost $1 trillion.”
The GOP platform, on the other hand, echoes Trump’s claim that Obama and Clinton have weakened the U.S. military. It denounces them for neglecting U.S. strategic weapons, for signing an inappropriate arms control agreement with Russia, and for moving to normalize relations with Cuba.
Някои от левицата бяха възхитени от факта, че Тръмп изглежда постави под въпрос няколко от опорите на външната политика на САЩ, особено нейната политика за неразпространение и съюза НАТО. Но да се каже на Япония, Южна Корея и Саудитска Арабия, че Съединените щати вече няма да поемат разходите за тяхната отбрана и че би било добре, ако искат да се сдобият с ядрени оръжия, е точно вид политика, която може да доведе до излизане от... надпревара с ядрено оръжие в Източна Азия и Близкия изток. И да каже, че може да не защити една от новите балтийски членки на НАТО, докато не провери дали са „изпълнили задълженията си към нас“, не е мирна политика, а замяната на провокативен военен съюз със споразумение за наемане на оръжие.
И дали ръката на расисткия мегаломан върху ядрения спусък не представлява реална опасност?
- Is Clinton terrible on Palestine? What about Trump?
Although the Democratic Party platform did adopt some of Bernie’s positions on important issues, on Israel-Palestine the document refused to condemn the occupation, condemn the settlements, or call for any pressure on Israel to move toward peace. In conformity to Hillary’s promise to Israel-apologist billionaire Haim Saban, the platform even says the Party will “oppose any effort to delegitimize Israel, including at the United Nations or through the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions Movement.”
Платформата отдава на думи решението за две държави, но като казва, че то трябва да бъде „договорено пряко от страните“, по същество казва, че Вашингтон няма да приложи нулев натиск, за да постигне това решение (и ще гарантира „качественото военно предимство на Израел “).
As awful as this Democratic platform section is, the Republican’s is even worse. It does not even pretend to support a two-state solution, explicitly rejecting the view that Israel is an occupier. The word Palestinian does not appear in the entire document—except for one clause demanding that the United States immediately halt funding to the UN’s climate body because it grants Palestinians membership as a state. It calls for “no daylight between America and Israel” and guarantees Israel a qualitative military edge. It recognizes “Jerusalem as the eternal and indivisible capital of the Jewish state” and calls for the American embassy to be moved there. It denounces the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement as anti-Semitic and calls for legislation to prevent the boycotting of Israel or “the Israeli-controlled territories.” In February 2016, Trump said that the United States should remain “neutral” between Israel and the Palestinians so as to be in a position to broker a deal between the two sides. But he quickly withdrew that, saying that “Palestinians must come to the table knowing that the bond between the United States and Israel is absolutely, totally unbreakable,” that he would move the U.S. embassy to “the eternal capital of the Jewish people,” Jerusalem, and that Hillary Clinton and Obama had “treated Israel very, very badly.”
In May 2016, Trump went even further, declaring that Israel should just “keep moving forward” in building settlements in the occupied territories. U.S. pressure on Israel to stop settlement expansion—which Washington used to call illegal—has generally been non-existent, but this is the first time a presidential candidate has urged them to build more. Trump has been endorsed by billionaire Sheldon Adelson, a leading supporter of Israel’s right-wing government, who says he believes that Trump “will be good for Israel.”
Позициите на двете страни по отношение на Израел и Палестина са ужасни, като Тръмп е още по-лош. Но това е пример как човек може да настоява по въпроси преди и след изборите, напълно независимо от това как се гласува през ноември. Много групи, подкрепящи правата на палестинците, излязоха на улицата по време на Демократическата конвенция, опитвайки се да привлекат силните настроения сред редовите демократи, които са много по-прогресивни по този въпрос от партийните лидери. Те работеха и ще продължат да работят за промяна на разговора за Палестина, съвсем отделно от тези десет минути през ноември.
- Does the fact that Clinton is a woman matter?
Да, жена да стане президент е безспорна стъпка напред и при равни други условия трябва да е достатъчно, за да реши нечий глас. Но, разбира се, другите неща никога не са равни.
If Trump was a woman, and Clinton a man, and everything else was unchanged, that one positive for Ms. Trump would not override her incredible negatives. Or consider Sanders versus Clinton. Clinton being a woman was certainly a factor in her favor, but not remotely enough to sway most progressives toward supporting her over Sanders—and rightly so.
Въпреки това ефектите от това да има жена президент ще бъдат дълбоки за младите момичета и жени, както и за младите момчета. И разбира се, от другата страна на въпроса, не е просто, че Тръмп не е жена. Това е, че той е невероятно женомразец и на поста би накарал феминистките да се борят с насилствената реакция, вместо да преследват освобождение.
- Does it matter for future activism whether Clinton or Trump becomes President?
Да, по два основни начина. Първо, реагирайки на протестите, Тръмп би бил много по-агресивен от Клинтън и би насърчил местната полиция да бъде много по-репресивна. Наистина, Тръмп имплицитно, а може би дори изрично, би приветствал бдителни граждани да потискат насилствено съпротивата в дните на „бунтовете с каски“ срещу антивоенните протестиращи през 1970 г. или дори към тактиката на KKK срещу антирасистките организатори.
Второ, представете си, че е денят на изборите плюс едно. Събуждаш се. Клинтън спечели. Сандърс изгражда нова организация, наречена „Нашата революция“. Движенията са нетърпеливи да преследват положителни цели, които са изработили. За Хилъри няма меден месец, има активизъм за обществото. Фокусът на протеста е правителството, двете партии и корпорациите. Основната грижа е постигането на положителни печалби и преминаването към прилагане на политиките на Сандърс и след това повече.
Or, you wake up, Trump won. Racism surges. Sexism explodes. People of good will are shell-shocked. Movements scramble to find voice and form to oppose a drastic shift rightward. Activists prepare to battle to preserve what with Clinton in office they would have been trying to transcend. The focus of protest is Trump, his policies, and repression. Positive aspirations are back-burnered by the urgency to prevent gruesome reaction and even fascistic violence. The overriding concern is survival, repelling reaction, and getting back to what is remembered as the relative sanity of Obama/Clinton.
- Но не може ли победата на по-голямото зло да ускори прогресивната промяна?
Going backward to go forward makes sense when retreat leads to a short cut to leap ahead. But a path forward from a Trump-led society would lead right back through some Democrat, maybe even Clinton herself. It would entail four, eight, or more years delay, and also the massive pain that a Trump administration would impose on people, not to mention the delay in addressing global warming and all that that might mean. Has any labor organizer ever wished owners would cut salaries or worsen conditions so that labor can leap forward? Has any anti-war organizer, feminist organizer, anti-racist organizer, or other organizer called upon the establishment to make things much worse in order to arrive at much better? Of course not, and for good reason.
- But didn’t the neoliberal Democratic Party pave the way for Trump, and wouldn’t having more liberals in office now mean more “Trumps” later?
Yes, Democratic Party policies, particularly paying little attention to the declining income, feelings of alienation, horrendous health care, and even the plummeting lifespan of white working people, have been central to Trump’s rise, as has the Democrat’s unwillingness to actually comprehend and relate to working class issues in a remotely sincere fashion. And yes, having Clinton in office with no effective opposition to force better policies and develop lasting movements, could lead to a still worse and still more effective “Trump” running in the future, particularly if Clinton wins via a campaign that effectively ignores white workers and really all workers as workers, leaving them feeling even more estranged and angry than now. But who proposes that scenario? And why should we expect it? If Clinton wins she will immediately confront not only an electorate and especially an activist community that will fight for change, but even inside her own Party a seriously divided base with much and perhaps even most of it leaning at least somewhat left, including toward developing working class ties and program.
On the other hand, if Trump wins, he will operate in a Party that backs his most aggressive choices, is utterly disdainful of all opposition, and is also hell bent on delivering a worse “Trump” later.
Regarding its operational lesson, and perhaps even the stakes we face, it is relevant to note that Hitler surely arose from the terrible failures of the German capitalist and social democratic parties to deal with the Depression, but that doesn’t mean it was sensible for progressives to refuse an alliance with the social democrats to stop Hitler.
- What is Trump’s appeal to white working class people? How might it best be addressed?
Trump appeals to illegitimate racist and sexist fears, but also appeals to legitimate though misdirected concerns about severely worsening life conditions. Republicans cater to owners and try to win over workers with lies, posturing, fear of terror, and racism/sexism. Democrats serve owners but cater to what might be called the professional class, and try to modestly accommodate workers to gain their votes.
Без да вярват на предизборните речи, хората често гласуват за този, който смятат, че разбира ситуацията им по-добре. Но ако много от поддръжниците на Тръмп от работническата класа не го подкрепят, защото искат той и други като него да станат още по-богати за сметка на работещите, ако не го подкрепят, защото той е магнат на недвижими имоти, ако не го подкрепят буквално защото е отвратителен расист и сексист, тогава може би те го подкрепят, защото им изглежда, че не се страхува да каже това, което мисли. Той не е полиран и академичен. Той говори направо. Той не изглежда да е човекът, който гледа с пренебрежение на работниците и който всеки ден постоянно упражнява пряка власт над тях.
If so, progressives need to speak directly to Trump’s supporters, respecting their pain and anger and providing real but also believable policy answers to their concerns.
- Who are the Greens, and Jill Stein? And does a higher vote tally for them aid social change?
Greens are progressives and leftists who believe in the desirability of creating a powerful third party in the U.S. as part of the process of winning a new society. They are polling at 3-5 percentage points nationally. They have won some local elections, though their main emphasis has been on presidential elections. Jill Stein is their likely candidate for President.
A higher vote tally for Greens would reveal support and support typically garners more support because momentum matters. Further, of those who vote Green, some will join the Greens, and then work for them, and that will help their development. Finally, reaching 15 percent in the polls gets Stein a seat in the coming debates, 5 percent gets federal matching funds, and attaining various state-wide tallies helps ballot access in the future.
- What does strategic lesser evil voting mean?
Strategic lesser evil voting means you vote in light of the implications of your choice for the future. It means you look not only at the short and long-term consequences for human well-being of each candidate winning, but also at the likelihood of each candidate winning.
Стратегическото гласуване за по-малкото зло означава разглеждане на вероятната обща полза и вреда от гласуването ви в определен щат за Клинтън спрямо цялостната полза и вреда от гласуването ви в този щат за кандидат на трета страна без шанс за победа. Ако проучването покаже тясна надпревара между Клинтън и Тръмп, тогава малък брой допълнителни гласове за Клинтън може да означава разликата между това кой от двамата кандидати ще получи всички електорални гласове в щата. От друга страна, ако социологическите проучвания покажат, че надпреварата не е близка, тогава избирател на стратегическото по-малко зло може да гласува за Зелените или друга трета страна без никаква отрицателна цена.
Но какво е положителното въздействие върху Зелената партия, да речем, от привържениците на Зелените, които гласуват за Клинтън в оспорвани щати? Ако Зелените вложиха цялата си енергия в кампания за безопасна държава, те биха могли да спечелят почти толкова общи гласове, колкото иначе, особено след като нямаше да загубят подкрепата на гласоподавателите за безопасна държава, които смятаха кампания за всички щати за безотговорна. Но дори ако Зелените загубят някои гласове, като отказват да провеждат кампания за президентски гласове в оспорвани щати, въздействието на тези загубени президентски гласове ще бъде доста скромно. Зелените, които гласуват за Клинтън, ще излязат от кабината за гласуване със същите възгледи, които биха имали, ако държавата им беше в безопасност и ако гласуваха за Щайн, и те биха могли да работят също толкова усилено за позициите на Зелените и в двата случая. И Тръмп щеше да загуби – или в ужасното събитие, което спечели, Зелените нямаше да бъдат наречени причината за това, с катастрофални резултати за партията.
Така че дори и да пренебрегнат последиците от победата на Тръмп за страната и света, Зелените биха били най-малко незначително наранени от насърчаването на безопасна държавна стратегия и дори биха могли да се възползват от това. И, разбира се, в никакъв случай не трябва да пренебрегваме последиците за другите.
- Но ако винаги сме ангажирани с гласуването за по-малкото зло, това няма ли да означава, че винаги ще гласуваме за реакционна капиталистическа партия и че следователно развитието на алтернатива ще бъде невъзможно?
If all we do is vote every four years, then no matter how we vote, we will never get much change. What is crucial is whether we build sufficiently effective movements to generate sufficient support for change to carry a really worthy candidate into contention, and then to victory, whether in a mainstream party, like Sanders nearly achieved, or in a third party. And what determines that is overwhelmingly what we are doing other than voting, like the work of Occupy, Black Lives Matter, and other projects that over the past years have paved the way for Sanders, but also on whether our periodic voting creates conditions more or less conducive to progress, and on whether our third party work locally creates a steadily enlarging base.
На тези избори прогресистите и левичарите, които следват стратегическото гласуване за по-малкото зло, ще бъдат свободни в почти всички щати, надяваме се, да гласуват за трети страни, защото тези щати ще бъдат безспорни. В оспорваните щати техният по-малко зло глас за Клинтън ще разшири перспективите за Зелените, като допринесе за спирането на Тръмп.
In contrast, if progressives in contested states reject voting for Clinton and Trump wins, they would have unintentionally impeded prospects for Green gains and consigned people to four years of Trump.
- Why blame those who vote for third party candidates in swing states for a Trump victory? Isn’t that the argument used to tar Nader voters for Bush’s win in 2000? Was it correct then?
Suppose it comes down to Florida. Suppose we know, as Election Day dawns, that whoever wins Florida becomes President because every other state is clearly in one column or the other. The polls show Florida could go either way. If in this situation a person, or especially a social group, movement, or organization abstains, votes for a third party, or votes for a write-in candidate, those are votes lopped off Clinton’s potential total. If some group does that, and it swings the final tally to Trump, then it is impossible to deny that the group’s choice had the predictable consequence of giving the election to Trump. Had they chosen differently, Trump would have lost.
Във Флорида през 2000 г. Буш победи Гор с 537 гласа. Надер получи 97,000 538 гласа. Следователно, при всички други равни условия, ако само 25 избиратели на Надер бяха гласували вместо Гор, Гор щеше да спечели всичките 291 електорални гласа на Флорида и щеше да спечели електоралния вот 246 на 538. Вярно е, разбира се, че без републиканските хитрости по време на преброяването на гласовете във Флорида Гор щеше да спечели щата. Също така е вярно, че ако Гор проведе по-добра кампания, той щеше да спечели много близките избори. Освен това, ако не бяха гласували за Нейдър, някои зелени избиратели може изобщо да не гласуват, а някои дори щяха да гласуват за Буш. Но все пак, въпреки всичко това, всички XNUMX гласоподаватели на Надер във Флорида можеха да попречат на Буш да стане президент. И ако Нейдър ги беше подтикнал да направят точно това, докато той водеше кампания другаде, а във Флорида те работеха, за да се подготвят да продължат след изборите срещу Гор, тогава Гор щеше да спечели и Зелените също щяха да са много по-добре.
- Don’t we need to build an alternative to the two-party duopoly?
Да, разбира се, че го правим, но активизъм, който има за цел да трансформира обществото, вместо просто да елиминира ужасен обрат към реакция, ще бъде много по-вероятно да се случи с Клинтън на поста, отколкото с Тръмп. Гарантиране, че Тръмп губи, като гласува за Клинтън в оспорвани щати, докато гласува за Щайн, или който и да е друг, в безопасни щати, изгражда алтернатива на двупартийния дуопол, както чрез подкрепа на възможна алтернатива в момента в неоспорвани щати, така и чрез предпазване от масивна пречка пред тази алтернатива за следващите четири години в оспорвани щати.
- Doesn’t advocating lesser evil voting mean one doesn’t care about the long term and that one is, as some commentators have suggested, a running dog lackey of imperialism?
Не се чувстваме като управляващи кучета лакеи на империализма. Ние предлагаме и подкрепяме пълни революционни алтернативи на съществуващите политически и икономически системи. И все пак смятаме, че гласуването за Клинтън в оспорвани щати ще помогне да се блокира ужасната програма на Тръмп и също така ще подобри перспективите за по-голям активизъм в бъдеще.
We have the lesser evil inclination in this election not because we are inexplicably beholden to the powers and institutions we have fought for decades, or because we have lost our nerve, or our way, but because we have for all our adult lives sought, and will keep on seeking, long-term transformation of our society. We simply see that in our country’s current circumstance, lesser evil voting in contested states aids seeking change against wealth and power.
- Does refusing to vote for Clinton even in contested states mean one doesn’t care about the well-being of constituencies that will suffer more under Trump than under Clinton?
In rare cases, perhaps some callousness plays a role, but far more often refusing to vote for Clinton even in contested states means that one is furious at the Democrats for playing dirty with Bernie, that one hates what Clinton stands for, that one hates what Clinton and her administration will be inclined to do in office, that one feels a tremendous urgency to transcend not just neoliberal policies, but the whole political, economic, and social system we currently endure, and that one just doesn’t want to and would indeed feel sick to the core to pull a lever that seemingly ratifies all that one despises. The problem is, the refusal itself could elect Trump and unleash even worse outcomes than those we oppose on many, many people, and arguably on the whole species. Does anyone believe a progressive, leftist, or revolutionary who pulls the lever for Clinton in a contested state must in any way suffer diminished ability to fight on? Why can’t we hold our nose, cast our vote, and then go right back to struggling for a new society? Why can’t we stop Trump and also build new political, organizational, and movement alternatives?
- But isn’t voting for Clinton a slippery slope. First you resolve to vote for her, then you don’t want to criticize her before the election (for fear you’ll help the greater evil), then you tone down your criticism of her after the election (because you’ll be helping some greater evil defeat her four years later)…
We all like to feel good about ourselves and we all at times rationalize our choices. But even so, this trajectory is not inevitable. We can vote for Clinton while indicating we do not support her and that we will oppose her, and we can then do just that.
Indeed, if the overwhelming message of leftists in talks and writing in the coming weeks is that we should vote strategically and also fight on, it is hard to see why pulling the lever for Clinton in a contested state, of which there will hopefully be few or even none, should interfere with that voter becoming one of Clinton’s most steadfast and effective opponents, or with that voter becoming one of the Green Party’s most steadfast and effective supporters and participants.
- Aren’t you asking Greens to be inactive until November 8, thereby cutting their momentum?
Нищо подобно. Кампания в повечето щати за президент, за местни офиси и за проблеми, а в щатите на разходка кампания за местни офиси и за проблеми. Идеята, че отказът от гласуване за Стайн в оспорвани щати означава да не се прави нищо там, омаловажава важността на местните дейности и кампании.
- But I want to vote my conscience.
So do we. Why isn’t accounting for the impact of our choice on the well-being of others and on future organizing prospects part of voting our consciences?
- Isn’t it harmful to vote based on fear rather than positive program?
It would be great if we had nothing to fear and the only question before us was which of various progressive programs we wanted to adopt. But how can we not be fearful of climate catastrophe or nuclear war or mass deportations or racist violence? Regrettably, we need to focus on both offense and defense: advancing positive programs while, by our 10-minute vote in swing states, we block our most feared outcomes.
- Но Тръмп няма да спечели
Pundits on the left and elsewhere have consistently underestimated Trump in this campaign. Today Clinton is ahead in the polls, but we can’t assume that her victory is a foregone conclusion. In any event, the odds of Trump winning has no bearing on the call to vote for Clinton only where it might matter. If, in early November, it is clear that Trump has no chance of winning, then one can vote for a third party everywhere. If it is clear that some state that was previously considered up for grabs was now decisively in one column or another, voters there could likewise vote for a third party.
- What is most important, post election? Is it left unity? Is it who is president? Is it what new organizations and activism we have put in place to go forward?
All three are important. Efforts at change in the United States cannot succeed, long or short term, unless all who favor these ends work together in a spirit of mutual aid. So we need left unity and we have to be trying for it, not assaulting one another, even as we seek other gains as well.
Aside from affecting many people’s lives today, who is president empowers various views, establishes context, and also affects government responses to dissent. Do activists have to fight against policies that seek to move us back in time, or can activists focus on positive aspirations linked to long term aims? Does dissent try to reduce magnified repression or eliminate familiar repression?
Промяната зависи от нивата на активност и организация, които имаме, за да се борим за нея, а това от своя страна зависи от степента, в която развиваме организация и активност, вместо само да се потопим в търсене на резултати от гласовете. Така че, докато се опитваме да генерираме единство и докато разширяваме популярната подкрепа, и докато се опитваме да избегнем президентството на Тръмп, ние също трябва да изградим нови организации, които могат да поддържат активизъм през следващите години.
- Didn’t Sanders behave like a “sheep-dog,” trying to herd all left voters into the Democratic Party corral?
If Sanders was a sheepdog, then all his supporters are sheep. What a strange way to characterize those one hopes will be engines of social change. But luckily we don’t feel herded, do you? Sanders wants Clinton to beat Trump. So do we. Sanders wants various changes in the Democratic Party’s rules and methods. We would like to have those changes too. Sanders says he wants much more, and we do too.
But Sanders has gone another step. He is creating an organization. It is not called Young Democrats or Super Democrats or Democratic Allies. It is called “Our Revolution.” What will the structure, policies, and program of the organization be? We don’t know, but hopefully it will mature into a participatory force fighting for Bernie’s program, and for much beyond that as well.
Sanders has said from the day he began his campaign that what matters to winning change is on-going dissent, demonstrations, and organizing in the street through and beyond Election Day. And now he is adding that organization matters, too.
Предполагаемият недостатък, който мнозина сега сочат по отношение на Сандърс, е, че той каза, че трябва да спрем Тръмп, което означава, че трябва да изберем Клинтън. Но това е в съответствие с останалата част от неговото послание и го засилва веднага щом осъзнаем, че за нас това може да означава да гласуваме за Клинтън, когато е необходимо, за да победим Тръмп, но да се противопоставяме на нейните неприемливи политики навсякъде, докато не заменим нейната администрация с много по-добра и след това се противопоставяме и на тази администрация, докато имаме нова система.
In fact, Sanders brought many new people into politics and was able to reach millions of people that third parties have for decades been unable to reach. There is no reason to suppose that those of his supporters who are now going to vote for Clinton have been duped into doing so. They may have been attracted to Sanders in the first place because he offered a plausible path to substantial social change without risking a reactionary outcome. They may well agree with strategic lesser evil voting.
Would it have been better, not least in combatting Trump, if Sanders had come to the convention and said something like, “Hillary Clinton’s agenda is not all that I wanted and I don’t believe a Clinton Administration will bring us liberty and justice, but I am absolutely convinced, without an inkling of doubt, that having Hillary Clinton in the Oval Office will do far less harm to working people, minorities, women, the environment, and international relations, and will provide a far better context for winning further gains than having Donald Trump there. For that reason, I want Hillary Clinton to become the next President and I intend to campaign as hard as I can in every contested state to urge my supporters to vote Clinton in those states, and then to join me and our new organization, Our Revolution, to agitate, militate, and organize against the new Clinton administration and on behalf of working people, women, black people, brown people, LGBT people, and really all but the oligarchs and potentates who run our society and profit from our labors.”? Perhaps that would have been better (we think so), but it did not happen.
- What then can we sensibly say about Sanders’ role in all that has unfolded? Why didn’t he run for President as a Green, with Stein as his Vice President?
Ролята на Сандърс беше последователна и в сравнение с всичко, което някой вероятно е очаквал, много по-успешна от други усилия, които можем да назовем. Сандърс се кандидатира като демократ заради обхвата и видимостта, които ще улесни, което със сигурност направи.
We can only guess at Sanders’ decision not to accept the Green invitation to run on their ticket once he could no longer get the Democratic Party nomination. But we hope that if Sanders had thought that he and the Greens might have won, then he would have run. But if he thought, as we guess was the case, that it might have only meant his getting 10 percent or perhaps 15 percent and Trump winning, then we assume he concluded that the risk of running wasn’t worth it. The downside was too great, the upside too limited. The better path, we assume he decided, was to get Trump removed from the field by a Clinton victory, and then proceed with the struggle.
- What might a person seeking a real revolution in U.S. institutions do at a time like this? What ought such a person not do?
There are countless possible answers as to what one might usefully do in these times. Try to preserve and enlarge the momentum that has developed largely from the Sanders campaign, while also trying to ensure that Trump loses. Work toward creating new organization. Work toward developing and creating revolutionary vision and consistent program feeding into that vision. Support diverse movements and seek to mutually align them into larger endeavors. As to what not to do, of course that too has many answers, but the most germane might be:don’t escalate time-bound differences into hostile disputes and then into dismissals of allies and potential allies.
Z
Michael Albert is an activist and co-founder of Z Magazine where he has been a staff member since 1988. He is author of numerous books on the economy and vision and strategy ([имейл защитен]). Stephen R. Shalom is a professor of political science at William Paterson University. He writes on social and political issues for Znet and the Демократична левица.