Press Action ::: Which Way Progressives?

Sunday, November 07, 2004

Which Way Progressives?

By Kim Petersen

"We can have democracy in this country or we can have great wealth in a few hands, but we can’t have both.” -Louis D. Brandeis

“I think much of the general population recognizes that the organized institutions do not reflect their concerns and interests and needs. They do not feel that they participate meaningfully in the political system. They do not feel that the media are telling them the truth or even reflect their concerns. They go outside the organized political institutions to act. The presidential elections have been almost removed from the point where the public even takes them seriously as involving a matter of choice.” -Noam Chomsky

“The people who cast the votes don’t decide an election, the people who count the votes do.” -Joseph Stalin

Although a John Kerry presidency wouldn’t have made a difference, it was puzzling that so many progressives seemed to accept the announced post-election outcome so quickly despite forewarning of electoral shenanigans. It exemplifies the timidity of a movement fractured by a tactical gulf in the election. It exemplifies the utter futility of a fractious movement.

The system manipulated by the corporate duopoly has played out to elite advantage again. As a result, further entrenching of a neoliberal program with a concomitant widening of the wealth gap is in the cards.

History demonstrates that workers and the have-nots must solidarize to advance progressive ideals in society. Members of such a movement must develop a set of principles and adhere to them. A good starting point would be to confine lesser-evilism to the scrap heap of history. The tactic of scavenging for the scraps tossed by the elitist political duopoly is obviously self-defeating.

The Democratic Party is anathema to progressivism. It cannot be trusted to further a progressive viewpoint. The unprincipled surrender of Dennis Kucinich is sufficient evidence of this as was Kerry’s chasing after the prowar, pro-Zionist, capitalist vote.

Although Green party supporters may protest, it is clear that a cohesive third party must emerge to prevent progressive vote-splitting. It is preferable to let the corporate duopoly split votes between each other while progressives vote en bloc.

The electoral system, however, is designed to militate against progressivism. Votes are bought by well-financed elites. The corporate media perpetuates the elite agenda and portrays voting outside the duopoly as wasteful. It is the ill-concealed trap of the self-fulfilling prophecy that ill-named Anybody-But-Bush sellouts walked right into. Since the system needs to be overhauled, to genuinely advance the interests of the people a revolution is required.

Acceptance of the current electoral result is folly. The present computer-based balloting system is rife with the stench of wrongdoing. A number of people had sounded warnings of computer-based chicanery being afoot before the election, yet it was allowed to proceed without addressing the inherent voting defects nonetheless. The start of a mini-revolution could be citizens en masse refusing to vote unless the old-fashioned, less expensive, accountable method of a paper ballot is used.

If this mini-revolution proposal can be used as a springboard to a full-fledged revolution then it will have served an important function.

Kim Petersen is a writer living in Nova Scotia, Canada. He can be reached at: kimpete@start.no.

More from Kim Petersen