Should the Democratic Party nominate a presidential candidate in 2004?

• Author: Fitz, Don
• Position: Thinking Politically

Discussions of the 2004 presidential race often leave out the very important question of whether it is in the best interest of progressive movements for the Democratic Party to run someone for president. I believe that the Democratic Party should stand down in 2004. Here are 10 reasons why.

Reason No. 1. The Democratic Party was responsible for the election of George W. Bush in the 2000 election.

In the 2000 elections, the Green Party brought at least a million voters to the polls who would have selected the Democratic Party candidate as their second choice if they had been able to. For years, Greens have been advocating "Instant Runoff Voting" (IRV), which lets voters rank order candidates and, if their first choice is not among the top contenders, transfers their vote to another choice. Since the Democratic Party knew that IRV is used around the world and that Green votes could be the difference in a close race, they knew that IRV could be the difference between winning and losing the 2000 election. [1]

But the Democratic Party power brokers also knew that if voters had access to IRV, tens of millions would have shown their disgust with Gore by ranking him below Nader. Thus, they decided they would rather risk losing the election than see this happen.

Democratic Party bosses concluded they had far more in common with George W. Bush than with Ralph Nader. They intentionally kept Nader out of the presidential debates, despite more voter apathy and a lower turnout. They refused to aggressively challenge the illegal disenfranchisement of African American voters in Florida or even to demand that every vote be counted. They consciously put George W. Bush in the White House as their "lesser evil."

Reason No. 2. The Democratic Party opposes Bush but does not oppose Bush's political program.

During the US slaughter in Vietnam, many commented that World War II defeated Hitler but fascism won. The 2004 Democratic strategy is the same. The Democrats want to replace Bush, the personality. But they do not care if someone else continues Bush's policies.

Their mantra "Anyone but Bush" blurs and confuses these two concepts. The average person thinks, "Stop the horrible things Bush is doing; anyone who replaces him will act differently." But smoke-filled Democratic Party plotting sessions will select a candidate who can capitalize on anti-Bush sentiment, and what he would do in office would be irrelevant. In fact, "Anyone but Bush" ignores that the Democratic Party is responsible for each and every one of the atrocities associated with the one they demonize.

If the Democrats are against the Bush program, why do they wait until the election to fight it? Why don't they mobilize as a party to demonstrate, strike, etc. to stop the Bush program now? Why would they tell us, "Wait until the 2004 elections" to stop the Bush program?

Democratic candidates pretend to be less pro-war, more pro-labor, and more pro-human rights; then they move to the right to get the nomination, and further to the right to win the election. The Democrats only nominate a 2004 presidential candidate to lull voters into believing they are an alternative. Voters need an honest choice in 2004; therefore the Democratic Party should stay out of the presidential race.

Reason No. 3. The Democratic Party made Richard Nixon the most progressive president in the last 30 years.

The following occurred during the Nixon reign:

1. an end to the Vietnam War;

2. beginning of the Food Stamp program;

3. creation of the Environmental Protection Agency;

4. recognition of China;

5. passage of the Freedom of Information Act;

6. formal dismantling of the FBI's COINTEL program;

7. decriminalization of abortion;

8. creation of Earned Income Tax Credits;

9. a formal ban on biological weapons; and,

10. passage of the Clean Water Act.

These did not happen because Nixon and Kissinger tiptoed through the tulips concluding that warm, fuzzy feelings beat genocide in Southeast Asia. They happened because corporate heads and agents in government were terrified of the convergence...