Will whore for promises

Dear Mr. Lindorff,

I just read your article "Keep the Protest Signs at the Ready: A Progressive Case for Voting for (Gag) Kerry?" and wanted to thank you for writing it. It is imperative, as you say, that "[w]e progressives need to consider voting for John Kerry." As a former Democrat (and I mean I was a registered Democrat until about a week ago) and avowed progressive, I completely understand your line of reasoning. However, don't undersell the "nothing but a protest vote" argument for Nader.

Your underlying point is dead-on: who we vote for on November 2 is much less important that what we do starting November 3. I have offered to whore myself – yes, sell out my Nader vote and switch to Kerry – for promises from progressive Democrats. I have begun asking them to name organizations they intend to donate to or get involved with once the election is over. I have engaged them in debate after debate on progressive topics and, despite overwhelming agreement about what "should be done" or what we could hope for "in a perfect world," I have heard little commitment to anything beyond the election. They have no intention of reacting when a President John Kerry further entangles us in Iraq, ignores reforming the most disgusting portions of the Patriot Act, or refuses to dent the military budget. I am truly willing to hold my nose and vote for Kerry if there is some promise that progressive Democrats will join me in pressuring Kerry to do the right thing thereafter.

While of course this is subjective and based entirely on my personal experience, I get no promises of help or support. No one will make a commitment to anything, even though it would mean an extra vote for Kerry. (Furthermore, I might be persuaded to actively join the Kerry campaign if I felt there was a widespread interest in pushing Kerry leftward beyond the elections.) Of the small army of people I know who tell me things like "I believe in almost everything Nader says," "I voted for Nader in 2000," and "I wish Nader had run inside the Democratic Party," none are really willing to push for what they would consider a better world. In short, they're all talk, and as you say, talk is cheap.

This is why a "protest vote" has again become a viable option. It's not about "withdrawing our votes from the sell-out Democrats" as a pressure tactic, it's saying that Democrats have taken advantage of the fact that progressives of all parties have either stayed home or held their noses in the recent past. In my experience, Democrats – particularly older Democrats, who have passively watched their party drift rightward – tend to have a difficult time with the notion that "insert name here" Democratic candidate doesn't automatically represent the aspirations of the left. So I'm faced with the reality that while there is very little chance of me getting what I want if I vote for what I want, there's even less if I don't.

The "very small statement" I make with my vote is roughly equivalent to that of everyone else (Jim Holt in this weekend's New York Times magazine estimated the "probability that you could affect the election [on the order of] .00000001"), even taking into account electoral college considerations. Keep in mind that every vote is a statement; an election is supposed to operate like a snapshot of opinions (for those who bother to volunteer them) at a given time. Hopefully, after this election, the "progressive movement" – be it inside the Democratic or Green parties, or independent of both – will continue to grow and will be reflected in future polls as its own force. More likely, though, is that one or both of the major parties will wise up eventually and steal the key elements of the growing movement. If a variety of left parties prove capable of drawing ever-larger voter totals, the definition of "electability" will have to shift, and if that's truly what partisan Democrats care about, then they'll have their Kucinich and eat it too, someday.

In the mean time, the real differences will be made in the trenches. More of the people who are currently sitting on the sidelines need to be convinced of the importance of their opinion and the difference their activity can make – and few would contest that Nader's historically in a better position to make that argument than Kerry. The left, following the lead of the Democrats, has been in retreat mode for years. Voting for Kerry or Nader and then forgetting about politics for another four years ultimately won't make a dime's worth of difference; the real message we should all be sending is organizing for beyond the elections. Which is why, as I say, you have done a great service with your article.