The Green Party and a Zero-Sum Game Election
Well, this may as well solve my Zero-Sum Game voting dilemma. As an historically left-leaning libertarian, for me Jill is too hippy-dippy. Then again, I guess I have a thing for M.D.’s in politics (19-year-old me)… She’s definitely a wilted, hopeful flower floating in the tar pit of a political atmosphere we have. Her imperfection is being too ideological, but she’s a least of evils (if she’s evil at all?)
Being ideological implies naivety, and I don’t at all take Jill to be naive or misinformed. Quite the contrary. Her interview with Abby Martin was extremely enlightening, though her “diagnosing a sick society” as literal sickness, I feel, is hit and miss. Diabetes, cancer and et cetera are not germane as symptoms indicating a faltering society, in my opinion. That’s more of the “miss” part. But the “Bernie message” was spot-on. Bought-out political and electoral institutions leave “regular citizens” un- and underrepresented. Yet, Jill doesn’t represent these “regular citizens,” either.
Jill is unashamedly far far-left. Her following is a comparably small minority to compete with mainstream Parties. Jill can’t sit still, expecting Bernie refugees to flee to the Green Party. To mobilize, Jill herself has to be mobile, which I haven’t noticed happening. (Honestly, I haven’t been paying much attention. I intend to.)
Overall, I hope Jill can move toward the center instead of remaining a far-left (hyper)progressive. The Green Party could grab so many votes, should it begin to resemble aspects of the Democratic Party and slowly pull left. In the video, Jill even talks about how the Dems “fake left and go right.” Play the game, Jill! You clearly already know the rules!
It isn’t dishonest or disingenuous- it is progressive as in asserting a will to power to pull middle-of-the-roaders to the (left) side. On ideology, Jill needs to move moderate, or appeal to the Central Limit Theorem of ideology (Slides 4 and 5 here.) See here, too. There is a reason opinion polls aren’t so concrete. People can be mobilized to change their views.
Mobility inherently includes compromise, which for elected officials entails legislative bargaining. Bernie knew this. In fact, it led to his ultimate betrayal of the so-called “Revolution.” Easing the stance on abortion, even, would a freebie as compromises go. Maybe the Green Party platform can scale that “employ everyone building solar panels” down to a concrete figure ranging in the hundreds of thousands (maybe millions). Or, at least, acknowledge that we’d need to work with corporate interests to even attempt, let alone accomplish, such a feat.
Compromise leads to the power to polarize its constituents. Once voters solidify party unity and loyalty, it is easier to push them left. The Party’s platform is like a slow-moving physical platform. The Party cannot jolt it to the left or the people standing atop might fall off. First, Jill has to move to the center and attract people to step on board the platform. Then, and only then, can the Party work toward its core principles.
I can’t vote H- for her corruption and elitism. Bernie is out and his motives have come into question. Trump took Pence on as VP (as detestable as H-), so a spiteful Trump vote is out. Gary Johnson supports for-profit prisons and has made a mockery of Libertarian Party. Zoltan Istvan is a humorous way of wasting a vote, but wholly unrealistic. Considering Abby’s interview, Jill is the most reasonable choice in a Zero-Sum election. There is no ideal (or even preferable) option.
I hope Jill can more more center and use the momentum as the Green Party’s disposal. This might be a very rare opportunity to restructure the power paradigms. But it’s going to take immense democratic participation and the Green Party is going to have to step up to the plate and compromise some of its beliefs.