Third Parties

Bumped. This is great reporting on the conference and raises lots of question. --Mike

The big question of this conference, at least out of the personal dialogue generated amongst attendees, seems to be asking if the upcoming election will actually change anything drastic in this country. Over lunch yesterday, myself and members from GenVote and Ruckus Society spoke of this. How much of a say do we actually have in this country when the only presidents who ever have a chance of winning are Republican or Democrat? We spoke of what little difference there actually is between these two parties, and we spoke of how all of us didn’t believe in nor support the corporate agenda of both parties.

And what does this mean in the context of the Hip Hop Political Convention, in which we are encouraging young people, particularly the hip hop community, to vote in this upcoming presidential election?

At Genvote’s voter registration workshop yesterday, absolutely no one showed up. Upon first examination, this either means that everyone attending this conference is a registered voter, or that folks who are not registered were not inspired to at this convention.

After the day’s end, I came to another conclusion: this convention was poorly organized. And while I believe the zero turnout of the voter registration workshop does have something to do with a lack of interest, it was also difficult to attend workshops, as they were hours behind schedule and in different rooms then the convention’s program specified.

This convention’s speakers include Cynthia McKinney (for later today) and Rosa Clemente. Clearly, this convention supports the Green Party. While the Green Party’s beliefs definitely coincide more so with mine, and most of the individuals I spoke with at the convention, than the Democrats or Republicans, most folks seemed like they would rather vote for Obama.

Why? Well, a seemingly unusually progressive man (at least in a presidential candidate context) is running for president on the Democratic Party, and actually has a chance of winning. Moreover, he’s a man of color. And yet Cynthia, for those of you who do not know, is a black woman. The lack of hype or hope for her election that many people are expressing seems to be due to her Party – the Green Party. Individuals have been expressing little to no faith in the possibility of a Green Party presidential candidate winning in this political climate of the United States. And she is a woman of color, to boot. And so is her VP. If folks are making such a fuss over a light skinned man of color running for president, how are they are going to possibly handle two women of color (brilliant and capable as they may be) as real possible candidates?

But back to the conference –

As unorganized as this convention has been, the people the organizers brought in have been amazing. I went to two incredible workshops yesterday (and one academic workshop I was not impressed by).

After stopping by the voter registration room, in which no one showed up, I headed to Ruckus Society’s nonviolent direct action planning workshop. Both were happening at the same time. Turnout in general for this convention seemed to be pretty low, but this workshop had a couple folks attend. [An interesting side point – what does this signify when individuals would rather learn about direct action methods rather than registering to vote?] I found this workshop to be incredibly helpful, and I gained a lot of valuable insight into methods for successful direct action.

Earlier in the day, I went to that plenary I mentioned in my last blog on Hurricane Katrina. I was, as I expected, blown away by Mayaba Libenthal and Robert Horton. I never realized the extreme connections the government’s response to Hurricane Katrina has with neoliberalism. I learned so much by hearing these two individuals speak. Mayaba is a part of INCITE! Women of Color Against Violence, and both are a part of Critical Resistance.

The mediocre workshop I attended had an impressive title: “Conscious Contradictions: New Modes of Sexism, Racism and Consumption in Rap and Hip Hop”. I was very disappointed by the extremely academic and alienating language this workshop used. One attendee even rudely asked the presenters to stop saying “um” so we could actually get something done.

At night, I attended the convention’s Awards Ceremony and Social.

There were cops everywhere. Cops were driving around the resort where the social was taking place, there were a bunch of nervous cops standing outside the ballroom. I even saw a helicopter circling the hotel! When I spoke to a couple of people about the large police presence, I asked if something was going on. Yes, they all responded – we’re here. This is for us, the hip hop political convention.

Now I live in New York City, where there are aggressive police everywhere, but I was genuinely surprised by all this. The cops were behaving like some sort of criminal activity was about to go down, or was happening. They were scared of us. Maybe this has something to do with racism, and the racial composition of the convention attendees and organizers, or maybe it has to do with a fear of the hip hop community in general. Either way, it blatantly showed me how frightened people are of this community, and what a threat this community holds when it is politicized and conscious.

And so, despite its unorganized nature, this convention has been helpful in generating important dialogue about the upcoming election, hip hop, and the power of people coming together to create change. I am glad I attended, and I have been inspired by the amazing work people are doing across the country. I still have a lot of questions unanswered, but starting a conversation on these questions is undoubtedly the first step to figuring them out.

Ralph Nader, appearing on Meet the Press this morning, declared his intention to run for President on the Green Party ticket.

I always get nervous when I hear Nader is jumping in the race. In part it's a reaction to 2000, and in part it is because third party candidacies tend to attract idealistic younger voters discontent with the two party system. In 1992, when Bill Clinton was first elected, Ross Perot ran as a third party candidate and attracted 22% of the 18 - 29 year old vote. Back in 2000, when Nader first ran under the Green Party banner against Al Gore and George Bush, his third party candidacy also appealed to a certain segment of young people. In 2000, Ralph Nader garnered 5% of the 18 - 29 vote. (Full disclosure, I was part of that 5% who voted for Nader). That wasn't anywhere close to the amount of support that Perot received, but nevertheless, it was enough to cost Gore the election.

I don't think Nader will have as substantial an impact in 2008 as he did in 2000 - he's created too much ill will among some of his core constituency with these hopeless runs at the Presidency. It also helps that Obama has a huge lock on the youth vote and his "post-partisan" message swipes the rug out from under the kind of third party outsider rhetoric we're likely to hear from Nader. Nevertheless, I'd like to lay out the case for why I think this is not only a fools errand, but bad politics.

On Meet the Press, Nader delivered a number of rationalizations for his candidacy, some of which I heard out of the mouths of young voters in 2004:

Nader claimed that "people are sick of the two parties," which are all but the same. We need to promote a third party and break the two party system.

The lesson of the last 8 years is that the parties, which seemed very similar in 2000, are vastly different. It seems like a lot of people are pretty interested in both the Obama and Clinton campaigns, and in the Democratic Party. Almost 1 million people have donated to the Obama campaign along - that's a revolution in party building. Turnout is unprecedented in this primary season - it's up in almost every single state. The youth vote is doubling, tripling, even quadrupling. People are paying more attention and are more engaged than ever. This is not an apathetic electorate turned of by the parties, and Nader's recycled rhetoric shows that he has not come to grips with the new political playing field.

I sympathize Nader and with those who want to see a viable third party in the US, but running hopeless bids for the Presidency is not the way to do it. On Meet the Press, Nader quoted the success of the Greens in Europe as a rationale/justification for his actions, however the European Greens didn't start at the top of the ticket, and the comparison is apples to oranges at best. The European Greens built themselves up from the bottom up. They were aided in this by the presence of proportional, parliamentary systems in Europe, not the winner take all system we have in America. If Nader and the Greens were serious, rather than sabatoge the electoral prospects of fellow progressives, they would devote all of their resources to building strongholds at the state and local level as a first step toward building a nationally competitive party.

Nader's candidacy allows him to voice dissent and drive the parties to the left on the issues.

Not really. Nader's quixotic presidential runs have had at best a minimal impact on the policies of the Democratic Party. John Edwards, however, did set the agenda for Obama and Clinton on the Iraq War, poverty, and corporatism run amok. And he did it all within the context of the Democratic Primary. Movement is possible within the two party system - more so than from quixotic third party bids that split voters who essentially agree on 95% of the issues.

Nader did not cause Gore's defeat in Florida, rather, Gore was defeated by himself and a poorly run campaign.

In 2000, Nader himself stated that his campaign was solely for the purposes of building up the Green Party, not of competing with Vice President Al Gore. Nader even went so far as to make a promise not to campaign in battleground states, a promise he broke. Having broken that promise, it's hard to argue that Nader didn't draw votes from Gore in the crucial state of Florida, effectively granting Bush the presidency.

Worse, this showed an incredible lack of political savvy. As we've seen during Bush's tenure, Nader's campaign worked at cross purposes to his own stated policy goals. Eight years of Bush did nothing to move America closer to the vision of Mr. Nader or the green party. In fact, it moved us further away. Nader was not only a spoiler for Gore and the Democrats, but he sabotaged his own policy goals.

As I said, I don't foresee Mr. Nader catching a youth wave, or even stripping many votes from the Democrats this time around. But if anyone is thinking about giving Nader the time of day - think about these things first and ask yourself if Mr. Nader is the most effective vehicle for accomplishing your political goals.