Paul Street wrote a great article today posted over at SleptOn. As an admitted supporter of Nader during the 2000 presidential election, Street deconstructs the “spoiler” argument and shows the steady bullshit the Democratic party has been spewing since the Clinton administration in describing themselves as a party for the working class and the marginalized, but only acting in the interests of the corporate elite. He says:
“Obama appears to be the most likely candidate to go up against Mad Bomber McCain. It would be nice if he would dial down the level of his maddening attachment to bullshitting voters – an attachment that may (as with his NAFTA-Canada nonsense in Ohio) admittedly undermine his ability to win the nomination.
In any event, I have a reason I’d not anticipated for wanting him to stay strong in Iowa. If Obama can keep going with a sixteen point lead or more over the scary G.O.P. guy in my state, I can be considerably less afraid to vote for Nader or a different Green or other left candidate.
How strange. If the Democrats end up going with their most thoroughly corporate and militarist candidate (Hillary) – a person McCain can beat within and beyond Iowa – it will increase the likelihood I’ll have to make a fear-based vote for their party. If they go with Mr. HOPE, maybe I can make a vote closer to my own concept of hope, and it won’t be Obama – not by a long shot.”
I understand the phenomenon of “fear based voting,” fearing that if you don’t vote for a Democrat, Republicans will continue to destroy this country. The thing is, I’m starting to wonder if life really is better under a Democratic administration, especially when corporate Democrats like Hilary (and unfortunately, Obama) largely influence the direction of the entire party. As Street shows, the Clinton years weren’t actually that great for working class people, marginalized ethnic groups, labor unions, etc. It only makes the backlash from the Democratic party against any independent candidate like Nader and Gonzalez all the more sickening.