Jill Stein’s American Revolution
An Unsubtle Play for Bernie Supporters
As an FDR admirer, and as someone who appreciates the New Deal-inspired Democratic party, every once in awhile it becomes hard not to admire insurgent candidates, or even third parties — the Democrats don’t always live up to the New Deal vision. So, sometimes, I’m jonesin’ for Howard Dean, Bill Bradley, or (possibly?) Jill Stein.
That’s right, Jill Stein. The Green Party!?! I’m a true-blue Democrat, but it’s amazing how unDemocratic the party can be sometimes. Neoliberalism bothers me, as I’m sure it would have bothered Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt, and even the Kennedys. Neoliberalism isn’t really ‘liberal,’ unless you mean the English form of liberalism, which is essentially libertarianism here.
Oh — and before I get the lefties too excited, I never was a Bernie supporter, he’s not actually a Democrat either. Sure, his progressivism was appealing, and he lit a fire under our ‘ass’ (pun intended) but he couldn’t be my standard-bearer: too much anger and not enough building up. He talked a good game about “our revolution” but it was actually the Bernie show, and a lot of ideas that were too focused on command and control and not on uplifting ordinary people. Many of his best ideas, like universal health care, have been standard Democrat fare for generations — starting with FDR and Truman. Thinking he’s better than Hillary or any other Democrat on that reason alone is like giving a kid an award going to school — you don’t need a gold star for something you should be doing anyway.
At any rate, Jill Stein’s remarks on Independence Day, calling for a Second American Revolution, were inspiring, even to a New Deal Democrat like me. Here’s a sample of her remarks:
The 2016 Presidential election provides a once-in-a-generation opportunity to win independence from the rule of the 1%. The two 1% nominees — Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton — are the two most disliked politicians in US history. And those who plan to vote for them don’t support their agenda — they just want to vote against the other candidate. Voting against your fears is not what democracy is about.
First, she condemns both Clinton and Trump, then she blames Clinton for Trump:
The groundswell for Donald Trump was created by the economic misery of NAFTA and Wall Street deregulation — policies promoted by both Clintons. Neoliberal Clintonism caused the rise of Trump. Another Clinton presidency will only make things worse. The Democratic electoral strategy of promoting the lesser evil merely paves the way to the greater evil.
I object, of course, to the idea that Democrats consciously portray themselves as the “lesser evil.” This blog, if it does anything, hopes to put forth a solid Democratic philosophy that people (or at least I) can be proud to believe in.
Here’s one area where Stein picks up on something that Franklin Roosevelt, and indeed Eleanor Roosevelt, only flirted with in the 1930s — the concept of worker-run businesses and co-ops. This is an area that is long-overdue for Democratic exploration:
It is long past time to extend the concept of democracy to our economy. The economic dictatorship of the wealth-owning class needs to be replaced with an economic democracy where the people making up the economy decide how the economy works. This must include options for community and worker ownership, where the wage scales, disposition of profits and decisions about technology and environmental impact are made by the people who have to live with those decisions.
All in all, Stein is offering the creative, breath-of-fresh-air insights that many had attributed to Bernie Sanders. However, Stein does it while maintaining a breadth of policy positions we just hadn’t heard from Sanders. Anyone who is disenchanted with the Democrats but unwilling to vote for Trump should give Jill Stein a look.
Admittedly, I have trouble with voting for her for a couple reasons. First, she jumps in to a number of areas with both feet where I think caution and gradualism are needed, the most important one being scaling back US involvement overseas.
We’ve created a big mess in the Middle East, and it’s hard to think it’d get better if we just packed up and left. I don’t think ISIS is the kind of enemy that’ll just stop if we withdraw. I also don’t think it’s okay from a moral point of view to let the people of Iraq, Syria, and other countries suffer after we contributed to their destabilization. Many well-meaning people will recognize that we’re inbetween a rock and a hard place now when it comes to the Middle East. I don’t think Stein’s quick-to-withdraw from the world approach will remove us from that hard place, or from the tugging at our conscience that would ensue afterwards.
Finally, I’m reserving judgment for now on whether I’d “endorse” Stein over Clinton. The biggest reason is that it’s still early — we’re not even in the midst of the general election cycle yet. The other reason is that it’s too early to tell if voting for Stein will usher in Donald Trump.
I know, I know. I have a lot of liberal friends who say it’s not about this election, it’s about making a statement and a lasting change. I accept that point of view, but disagree with it. It IS about this election — that’s all we’re ever voting on. We’re not voting for a chance to line a party up for next time. Just ask Paul Ryan how much can change in four years. In this election, in 2016, we’re each faced with whether or not we want to pull a lever, or fill in a bubble, that will give Donald Trump a fighting chance to win the election and to say the harmful, hateful, and unAmerican things he says under the auspices of being President of the United States. It will take a lot for me to change my mind about voting for Hillary on that basis alone.
Please let me know what you think and we can keep this conversation going right up to election day and beyond.
If you like what you just read, please hit “recommend” below. For more, please follow The Fireside on Medium, Facebook, and Twitter.
