a number of black people in north carolina went to the polls early to cast their votes. they were met by scores of screaming whites who mocked and berated them. this is of course illegal. it was also ignored by the major media, as are most examples of ongoing, crass, white supremacy. supposedly, we have made great progress in terms of race, so anything which demonstrates continuous white supremacy is either ignored or downplayed. furthermore, a 58 year old woman who works for the obama campaign was attacked in wisconsin. and lastly, obama himself was screamed at when he attempted to enter a restaurant in north carolina. a woman saw him and yelled "socialist, socialist, socialist! get out of here!" wow. this ignorance is a very real concern, and will not go away if obama takes power.
however, the news is not all bad. only in america could the following story take place. here it comes, a comic tragedy where racism and tolerance meet... a pollster knocks on a couple's door and asks who they are voting for. the wife, who answered, doesn't know, and yells to the husband for clarification. "we're voting for the n*&^%r!" he screams back at her. she then looks back at the pollster, and with a calm smile, repeats, "we are voting for the n%^&*r." yes, my friends, we have finally made it to the promised land.
the senate just passed another spending bill, this one for 634 billion dollars. it includes 25 billion for the auto industry, 40 billion for homeland security, and 73 billion for veterans benefits. again, i thought the economy was "hurting." if so, why is there 25 billion dollars for the auto industry and 40 billion for homeland security? we should be trying to limit the use of cars and fiercely regulating the auto industry, not bailing it out. my ideas include car pooling, a "one car per family policy," massive funding for public transit, bike lanes, walking paths, and the encouragement and funding of neighborhood/community jobs. as for homeland security, are you serious? 40 billion dollars? first of all, homeland security is total bullshit. it is a fascist program that doesn't do anything to help people. in fact, it hurts them by helping to hasten a surveillance society where everyone is paranoid and afraid to speak their minds, and for which there are very real consequences for doing so. furthermore, 40 billion dollars is a ton of money. what could be done with it? well, let's see. 38 billion would give $50,000 to each of the 760,000 americans who lost their jobs so far this year. 40 billion would provide health care to 18 million people in the u.s. who are currenlt uninsured, close to 40% of the total uninsured population. 40 billion would provide 300,000 affordable housing units. 40 billion would provide four year college scholarships to over 1.5 million students. 40 billion would buy 25 pounds of rice for every person in africa. so again, the issue is not one of available resources, but rather, where our government elects to allocate its resources. to spend 40 billion on "homeland security" and 25 billion on the auto industry when people are struggling is a crime. but sadly, because the crime is being committed by those in charge, no one will pay. except, of course, the tax payer, the breather of air, and the innocents targeted to "protect" the rest of us.
zinn did it again. this time, he was insulting toward nader in an interview posted on the commondreams site. on my last blog, i mentioned that i saw zinn speak at a rally for nader in 2000, and he has often praised candidates who attempted to transcend the two party system, people such as debs, henry wallace, norman thomas, and nader himself. well, yesterday i pulled out my copy of a people's history, and reread certain parts of that text. within it, zinn praised debs for getting 900,000 votes, which, while a higher percentage of the total vote than nader's vote in 2000, represented less votes than the few million that nader received in that year. nowhere did zinn say debs's vote total was "puny." later, zinn mentions that truman, while feeling pressure to his left from the independent run of henry wallace, decided to integrate the armed forces. the point here is that truman felt the need to do something "progressive" (although, i'm not sure that the races killing people abroad side by side is really that progressive. in fact, i think it would be great if everyone was barred from the armed forces) because of the presence of a third party candidate running to the left of him. this is of course, a main function of third parties. whether they get a lot of votes is only one indicator of their success. wallace in 48 did no better than nader in 2000, and no where in the book does zinn say that wallace's effort was "puny," or that it was a waste of wallace's time and energy to run for president when he could have been out "agitating" in the streets, where "real change" supposedly takes place.
going back to the significance of third parties having an impact. often times, elements of their platforms are incorporated by one of the major party candidates. socialist norman thomas, a six time presidential candidate, once said that he considered his "greatest accomplishment" to be the theft of his platform by the democratic party, ie, the new deal. central elements of perot's platform were also co-opted by the major parties, such as erasing the federal deficit and balancing the budget. so, while a third party candidate may help to influence an election in a way that progressives may not be thrilled about, they also help to encourage the implementation of policies that would not have been on the table without their presence. and, on a deeper level, democracy demands choices. those of us on the left have a right, and a need, to vote for people who represent our ideas. there is nothing "puny" about the attempt to widen the electoral choices available to the public. rather, it is "puny" to mock and discourage such attempts from the sidelines, and to vote for candidates that you disdain.
