Given the worst general election scenario, how can we advance our views?

[jpgray]

Let's make this a worst case scenario, and assume the least progressive candidate (whoever you believe that is ;-)) wins the nomination. Difficult situation, no? Neither candidate who will almost certainly win is progressive in your eyes, and you are a progressive. It's evil or lesser evil all over again (if you think any major Democratic candidate is worse than any major GOP candidate, there's no help for you). Is there any way the victory of either major candidate can advance your views? Directly, the answer seems to be "no."

But indirectly, the answer is "yes." Not a weak, nuanced, "keep our powder dry" style "yes" either, but an empathic and exclamatory "YES!" Let me explain:

The barrier to true progressive voices in government is simple and easily defined: our political atmosphere marginalizes and destroys progressives. Progressive policies are very popular in isolation, yet progressive candidates die again and again at the ballot box. The cause? The privately-funded campaign system requires vast sums of money to be competitive, and the media do not cover issues so much as petty and trivial "personality/image/character" issues which are totally subjective. This easily disguises the bias any corporate conglomerate would have towards coddling its profits, and all major media are small divisions of those conglomerates, and are expected to contribute to the bottom line in any way possible. Only candidates with significant funding are considered "serious," and only "serious" candidates get media exposure. That's our atmosphere, and it's lethal to progressive candidates unwilling to compromise policy for funding.

What maintains this atmosphere? So long as there exists a plurality of elected officials who represent the -worst- corporate panderers, this atmosphere will continue. So long as we have a plurality who represent the most brazen war mongers in our three branches of government, this atmosphere will continue. So long as this plurality wins elections on this formula, you will see Democrats attempt to imitate it to achieve similar success. This plurality exists on both sides of the aisle, but its fundamental symbol is the GOP. No one can deny that the Republican party is the epicenter of this corrupt, destructive game.

Yet you will notice that Democrats are out-raising Republicans this year. How can that be? Every major GOP candidate has staked out more deplorable sell-out territory than any major Democratic candidate, so why the disparity? The greatest sell-outs should get the most money, right? Not quite, because this time GOP candidates are likely to -lose-.

And that's all, folks. The quid-pro-quo ceases to work. No quid (:P) from the moneycenters will be forthcoming without a certain likelihood of it being transferred into policy. The further and further the GOP is marginalized as a party and the more serious defeats it suffers, the less likely its candidates will receive preferential treatment. No matter how pandering your economic policies are to the money and influence centers, if you don't get elected you aren't worth the investment. With the utter defeat of the GOP, the goalposts move. There is no longer the same degree of evil available to be represented in elections: without the GOP the DLC third way becomes the de-facto sell-out position, or the "evil," and more progressive candidates become the "lesser evil." And our choices become more progressive as a result.

So that's what you can do with the evil and lesser evil choice, the worst case scenario--complete and utter defeat of the GOP. It will do a lot of indirect good. Given an atmosphere that refuses to allow the success of progressive candidates, it's the most viable way to change that atmosphere.

[jpgray]

1. Just one vanity kick, I promise