Support Obama, and Vote McKinney? Not a contradiction.
The women of color running for President & Vice President
By Amee Chew
October 2008
The Green Party Presidential ticket of Cynthia McKinney and Rosa Clemente brings something special and unprecedented to U.S. politics. Not only are they the first all women-of-color ticket for President and Vice President. These women take racial justice seriously, and have made strides to put gender at the center of a progressive agenda. For these two, it’s more than skin deep.
They’re the Presidential ticket that talks about amnesty for undocumented workers, that opposes guest worker programs as riddled with abuses, because they believe a just immigration reform means addressing the trade and economic policies fueling poverty and migration. They’re the ticket that demands reparations in the form of federal investment in low-income families and communities of color, to end racial disparities in health, housing, education, and incarceration. They call for the right of return for Katrina survivors; an end to prisons for profit, to the War on Drugs. And they speak of reproductive justice – not just the right to abortion, but actual healthcare access; of freedom from coerced or uninformed medication and sterilization.
Nowhere do we see Nader, or white male Third-Party-politics-as-usual, bringing in these issues – this slice on life, or sensitivity. McKinney, for instance, points out that Social Security cuts will disproportionately harm women. The Green Party candidates offer to do us the public service of contesting Palin’s brand of “feminism.” Let’s take them up on it.
We starry-eyed ones know McKinney and Clemente aren’t going to win the Presidency.
But each vote for them contributes towards building unprecedented ballot access, federal funds, and an inroad to the national debates, for the Green Party. If McKinney / Clemente get 5% of the national vote, the Green Party qualifies for millions of dollars in federal matching funds for 2012 – a significant dent in the two-party system. Under the electoral college’s winner-takes-all system, not every vote for a major candidate counts; but by supporting a minor candidate, we can strategically use our votes to institutionalize a progressive platform.
It will take us more than four years to forge an alternative to the major parties’ imperialism, and their repeated failure to put people before profit. One important step is building the institutional vehicles to truly represent our voice. Previously in U.S. history, third parties have waged organizing efforts that mattered. The Republicans themselves, originally the party of Abraham Lincoln, catapulted from minor Third Party to major player in the 19th century, by jumping off a backbone of 16 years of organizing by the Free Soilers – another minor political party with an anti-slavery platform. Just as right-wing organizations in more recent times have planned ahead how to impact society over several decades, and invested in sustained efforts, we too must set our sights on strategies of significant long-term change. McKinney and Clemente won’t be elected now, but they are young enough to be elected in 12 to 20 years – or perhaps their successors, within our lifetimes.
In the words of McKinney herself: “We are in this to build a movement. We are willing to struggle for as long as it takes to have our values prevail in public policy.” She reminds us, “Voters in this country are scared into not voting their hopes, their dreams, their aspirations. But in Bolivia and Ecuador and Argentina and Chile and Nicaragua and Spain, and India and Cote d’Ivoire and Haiti, voters were not afraid to vote their hopes and dreams, and guess what. Their dreams came true. Ours can, too.”
If those of us who hold their politics don’t support them, who will? It’s time for us to say, these brave women – and those who follow in their footsteps – represent the future that we want for politics in this country.
Stop the blackout
On a very practical level, supporting McKinney / Clemente is supporting their right to simply be heard.
While it’s easy to recognize that corporate media has excluded McKinney and Clemente from their election coverage, progressive and liberal media have also contributed to the blackout on these women. The Daily Show’s election website, Indecision2008.com, prominently tracks Nader and minor (male) conservative candidates, such as Ron Paul and libertarian Bob Barr – but not McKinney. Perhaps not surprising from a male-dominated show that dismisses Palin as a VPILF?
In August, AntiWar.com featured a line-up of McCain, Obama, Nader, and Barr. Incidentally, reflecting a common trend in much progressive media, over 80% of the site’s columnists and regular contributors are male. When challenged by readers about McKinney’s absence, the editors explained that both she, and ultra-rightwing, xenophobic, anti-abortion Chuck Baldwin – who seeks to cut all federal investment in communities of color – were omitted. Not due to bias against McKinney as a black woman, but because, an editor flippantly wrote, both of the candidates are “pretty perfect” on foreign policy.[1] If McKinney’s stance was so perfect, why wouldn’t the site choose to promote her as a standard-bearer? And why instead place her on equal footing with a racist, sexist Baldwin? Besides not considering economic inequality, immigration policy or internal colonization as relevant to imperialism, AntiWar.com must simply have not viewed her as a serious contender.
But why has McKinney had more trouble getting attention from left organizations and institutions compared to Nader, Green Party candidate in 2000? After all, she, too, champions universal healthcare under a single-payer system; progressive taxation; repealing free trade agreements and abolishing the anti-union Taft-Hartley act. She takes a stronger stance against war and occupation, urging an immediate and orderly withdrawal from both Iraq and Afghanistan. And she has vocally opposed the bail out.
A few feminist, and gender-conscious progressive sites have offered the women a nod. But while the National Organization for Women has acknowledged Palin’s candidacy as historic,[2] it has failed to mention the Green Party ticket’s women-of-color first – at all.
Progressive organizations have a responsibility to help counter racism and sexism, rather than participate in it. The media may justify its coverage based on candidates’ popularity and relevance to viewers; yet it also plays a key role in shaping our perceptions – in McKinney’s case, by allowing us to even know she exists, and what views she holds. Intentions aside, the failure of progressive organizations to cover McKinney amounts to an information blackout. Rather than uphold the institutionalized racism and sexism that exclude McKinney and Clemente from public discourse, progressive media must support a progressive consciousness by covering our political allies.
A concerted front
There is not a contradiction between supporting Obama’s victory over McCain, and spreading the word on McKinney – because we believe her politics should be included in the debates; and believe all voters should be aware she and the Greens exist as an option.
There is not a contradiction between spending time to campaign for Obama in key swing states, and pledging your own vote to McKinney – particularly in Democratic strongholds such as California, Massachusetts, Illinois, New Jersey, Connecticut, Vermont, Oregon, or Washington, where Obama will win landslide; or Republican states where McCain is assured of victory.
As an example, in 2004, Kerry beat Bush in Massachusetts 62% to 32%, by over 700,000 votes. 5% of the vote would have been around 140,000 ballots, but third party candidates actually got around 1% altogether, or 27,000.[3] This election, 35 states are not swing states.
While we might divide up our work, we can back each other in a larger strategy to shift politics to the left.
This election, the Third Party candidates, from left to far-right, caught attention when they gathered around a common anti-war, pro-civil liberties, and anti-corporate welfare platform. But let’s be clear about our strategy. Progressives should work to unite around our own alternative worldview – promoting an ideology to challenge the dominant narrative, not simply a patchwork of reforms. When we are pigeon-holed into single issues, our movements are fractured and weaker for not being able to articulate a holistic vision. We shouldn’t be working to build up the Libertarian version of free market hell, or Constitution-party xenophobia – let’s take concerted action to make our own party and institutions of change.[4]
In Boston, we have been organizing film screenings of “American Blackout,” to draw attention to the stolen elections of 2000 and 2004, as well as the strategic capture of the voting system by right-wing forces. The film documents McKinney’s candidacies as a Georgia Congresswomen, and her outspoken support for electoral reform and voting rights. It also details a Republican-organized cross-over campaign to oust McKinney in the Democratic primary election: Republicans stormed the Democratic ballot box to cast their votes for a conservative Democrat they had funded against McKinney, because they knew they couldn’t win running a Republican in the general election.
The right-wingers have meticulously learned to rig the electoral system in their favor. Let’s take it back.
Vote truth this year, and work for it next.
Amee Chew can be reached at hachew@gmail.com. Thank you to Thomas Chen, Catherine-Mercedes Judge, and Kaveri Rajaraman for their input on this article.
[1] http://www.feministpeacenetwork.org/2008/08/17/sexism-in-the-peace-movement-is-alive-and-well-antiwarcom-invisibilizes-presidential-candidate-cynthia-mckinney/
[2] http://www.now.org/news/note/090508.html
[3] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/elections/2004/ma/
[4] A Green Party platform of the future might include valuing women and children by repairing the scant welfare system; providing good jobs through subsidized childcare and home help; redressing the poverty of elderly women without pensions. Women’s labor in the private sphere remains undervalued and an invisible issue to most political parties.
Stan Moore:
l love Cynthia McKinney and I love Ralph Nader and see both of their candidacies roughly comparable with my worldview (with some exceptions I will not go into now). What I cannot fathom is how any Left winger or liberal can vote for or in any way support Barack Obama.
As an example, just today on the news headline I saw mention of Sarah Palin campaign’s plan to call 1 million woemen to try to marshall their support in the upcoming election. Women voting for Sarah Palin in huge numbers makes more sense than blacks or Lefties voting for Obama in large numbers. Palin is a woman representing the views of probably half of all American women. Obama is a mulato who did not know his blcak father, was raised by his white mother and has a primary strategy of not seeing, hearing, or speaking directly of the black agenda. Just review the excellent writings of Glen Ford of the Black Agenda Report if you doubt me on this.
Half of all women, more or less, oppose abortion, for example. ALL the women I knew growing up in my church opposed abortion. I never personally knew a woman who favored right to choose abortion until I was an adult. Sarah Palin enjoys strong support from such women. How can anyone on the Left claim that they really represent women’s issues when women in the whole are split about 50/50 with half on each side of the same issue? This is delusional at best, and Sarah Palin has a strong chance at the office of Vice-President of the U.S. where she will be in position to advance her own view of the women’s agenda.
Barack Obama not only avoids ready identification with the black agenda, but he is intimately supported by Penny Pritzker, who not only was a major player in the subprime mortgage fiasco that wrecked home ownership for tens of thousands of blacks and others, but Pritzker used political influence to falsely change ratings of subprime financial instruments to “improve” the ratings by disguising risk. We are talking about the ultimate in corruption as the ultimate supporter of Barack Obama.
You don’t see Obama supporting Palestinian rights. But he is a staunch supporter of the American Empire, with desire to keep the American military boot on the throats of Iraqis in order to control their land and their oil. He wants to expand the war in Afghanistan against the same people who were praised for their militarism in Charlie Wilson’s war against the Russians.
Barack Obama is not the real friend of progressives, but he has bamboozled so many who apparently are so desperate for a little trickle down action that they grovel at his feet as if he is the Messiah, the Pope, and Desmond Tutu all rolled into one. But really he is none of the above. Martin Luther King would not recognize Barack Obama as an ally. But Colin Powell will.
So yes, vote for Cynthis McKinney. I happen to feel Ralph Nader is a bit stronger candidate but can live with McKinney as President. What is needed is to bring down both the Democratic and Republican Parties as against the national interest and start from scratch. Anything we do otherwise is a strategic failure, causing the final loss of resources and lives on this planet for little or no benefit in reality.
I think if you are looking twelve years down the road for strategic political reasons, you are in denial about the realities of Peak Oil, the Olduvai Gorge phenomenon and the emerging police state.
I say the tipping point is right now, and that the Left is deaf, dumb and blind as to their own interests and will forever lose the opportunity to do right that is available right now in 2008. But I could be wrong. I hope I am.
Stan Moore
27 October 2008, 11:40 amPetaluma, CA
m.c.:
This is a recent Thomas Frank quote that caught my eye.
“‘The Center’ always seems to mean a soft sort of libertarianism(not what I would call small-l libertarianism): free markets, free trade, low taxes and none of that infernal bawling about moral values. The center, in other words, always turns out to be a perfect reflection of the political longings of the white-collar class.”
27 October 2008, 3:30 pmTom:
Well I agree with Stan again. I like Nader and have voted for him in the past, but supporting McKinney’s candidacy is the stronger statement this time. Nader censors himself enough to gain access to mainstream media – it appears anyway. The more votes McKinney receives the greater the chance she gets a voice. Her voice can make the bigger difference right now.
I hope Obama governs well, but if anything, McKinney getting votes and access should help him do the right thing.
STAN: This is Amee’s piece, and a good one. No time now, but I have a slightly different take on elections and movements.
27 October 2008, 7:08 pmStan Moore:
I just submitted a posting to http://www.mediamonitors.net introducing the concept of Barack Obama as the black Ronald Reagan. I am not sure it will get published because it faults Norman Solomon and Thomas Frank and lefties like them who can recognize all the errors and foibles of the Right but not the fact that Obama is not only a tactical duplicate of Ronald Reagan, but is likely to finish off what Reagan started. Obama publicly admired Reagan’s political methods. Obama and Reagan are more alike than different, and I think I may be the first, and perhaps only, analyst to make this point.
Stan Moore
27 October 2008, 8:16 pmPetaluma, CA
Steve Moyer:
The focus needs to be on ENDING the Republican party. We need to get them off the political stage. Then we need to ORGANIZE to effectively lobby the Democrats to INCREASE DEMOCRACY in America.
First things first …. INFORM the people about how evil the Republicans truly are …. http://stevemoyer.us/reason
Tell the truth. Republicans are the party of the rich, the super-rich and poor fools. Enlighten the fools and expose the rich.
28 October 2008, 5:19 amStan:
No wish to rain on anyone’s parade, but our political and economic circumstances are the outcome of bipartisan efforts. I have no faith left in the aim-the-main-blow school of strategic thought, in large part because it never works; but in this case because evil is not taking up residence in one US political party. The most important things that happen in the coming period — barring nuclear war — will be initiated and carried out by non-electoral actors who are serious about the business of designing our way out of our impasses, beginning exactly in those spaces where the current structures are withering and falling way. Systems are not (never never) overthrown by opposition; even if they are occsionally given a coup de grace by them. War no longer functions as an adequate or appropriate metaphor for social transformation. Niche maximization might.
28 October 2008, 6:29 am(Boer) Tom:
Just 2 questions, perhaps to the author of the piece:
What is your expectation of people voting for McKinney, given Mr Obama’s weakening lead, especially considering the tendency for whites to claim to support a black candidate, but then not vote for that candidate (Bradley effect)?.
Will you continue this campaign, if it fails to yield the 5% you’re hoping for this time?
28 October 2008, 9:49 amStan Moore:
If anyone is interested in reading my comments on Barack Obama as the left wing Ronald Reagan, they were actually published today at:
http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/56149
The fundamental point I am trying to make is that the Democrats and the Republicans mirror each other in portraying each one’s lofty ideals and weaknesses of the other side, while ignoring their own failures and ultimately sacrificing their own supporters in the quest for further power. Unfortunately, this would certainly occur if one or both of the current major parties faltered and was replaced by a current minor party, such as the Greens, Independents, etc.
On a completely different tack, I just checked out from the public library the book, “Chasing the Flame: Sergio Viera de Mello and the Fight to Save the World” by Samantha Power.
This is a fantastic book about a fascinating life. And what an amazing man who was the ultimate insider who wanted to do right for mankind and had his successes. But his death was also enigmatic of the human dilemma — he could have survived that bombing of his office building in Baghdad if help would have arrived promptly, but his life ebbed away even as he periodically communicated with potential rescuers. Very tragic! But what an amazing life! And I just read another amazing autobiography about musician Eric Clapton, who has had a really messed up life in many ways, but whose turmoils and talents have left behind a trail of amazing music. Sergio Viera de Mello was sort of the Eric Clapton of world affairs — read the two books back to back like I did and you will see what I mean
Stan Moore
Petaluma, CA
28 October 2008, 12:49 pmAmee:
Reply to (Boer) Tom –
it’s late in the game. her campaign hasn’t had the resources or institutional support it should have. if she polls at 1% nationally, that would be quite amazing, and an incredible statement.
for many of the same reasons stated in the article, I still support publicizing her campaign, building awareness and long-term commitment to a party with the politics she represents, and voting for her — despite that. I wrote the piece with a long-term project in mind, to get people to think about and consider a sustained party-building campaign as possible.
it was painful to witness McKinney’s marginalization as a woman of color, by the left.
I support her to say something about the direction that those questioning the two-party system should head. to help people
recognize what she represents even with the total blackout against her — and consider that a women of color ticket should be viewed as a viable contender including in the world of Third Party politicking.
if progressives truly believe in challenging institutional racism and sexism, while taking down the corporate two-party duopoly, we need to create a united front that works on those principles. to be honest, I think it would have been more principled for Nader to use his big name and star power to campaign for McKinney, and back her.
in my opinion, his relative race- and gender-blindness has come out as a weakness particularly this election with Obama and Clinton.
I don’t just want to use my vote as a protest vote, but be part of building something — whether consciousness, or a concrete party structure.
peace.
28 October 2008, 10:28 pmKim Sky:
something powerful is taking place … HIP HIP HOORAY … OBAMA, obama, OBAMA
long lines in georgia county
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/28/georgia.voting/?iref=mpstoryview#cnnSTCPhoto
getting a jump [apparently he's got a number of advisers going over new deal history.]
http://www.bagnewsnotes.com/2008/10/getting-a-jump.html
third debate – 50 seconds
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxi8xIeK1II
wow obama actually knows that labor leaders are regularly assassinated in colombia … he just passed one of my US foreign policy tests – wow.
with all the cheating going on and the importance of who is in the white house, we cannot take any chances as to who is elected — yea, obama is this and that, but compared with mccain/palin — a doom unimaginable indeed.
as some have pointed out though, after obama is elected [hope, pray] –> George Bush will remain in power for 12 weeks after the next president is elected . . .
29 October 2008, 7:01 pmStan Moore:
I have to admit that I am a little befuddled by some of the comments I have read here regarding Ralph Nader, who happens to be a son of Lebanese immigrants. I have several times heard Ralph speak positively of Cynthia McKinney’s candidacy in radio interviews. Ralph may not promote a primarily women-of-color-centric agenda, but his programs certainly would benefit women (and men) of all colors. Frankly, I think it is a bit offensive to see women of color (excluding white women, apparently) taking such an exclusionary stance in their entire politics. If women of color exclude everyone else from their politics, how can they complain that they themselves are being excluded by others?
Who was the first woman of color to run for the office of Vice-President on a national ticket? Was it not Wynona LaDuke, who was chosen as running mate by Ralph Nader in the last election cycle? I like Wynona LaDuke and I have never seen any evidence that she is an exclusionary person against white women or men of any color. This year, Ralph’s running mate is Matt Gonzalez, apparently a son of a Latino woman and a San Francisco liberal (who I admire and support) who is as close as a man can possibly get to being a woman of color supporter.
Are these fine men to be chastised because they take a holistic progressive approach to politics and not a woman-of-color-centric platform?
Nader has been excluded repeatedly from debates and media exposure and has fought for everything he has gotten. Yet he continually works to enlarge the electoral tent to allow for independent parties and other tickets to work their agendas, including Cynthia McKinney and her running mate.
I don’t admire Cynthia McKinney because she is a woman of color or because she has a woman-of-color-centric agenda. I admire Cynthia to the extent that her agenda benefits everyone, including me, a white male. I believe she does exactly that in substantial ways.
I can’t help but notice that Obama did not choose Cynthia McKinney as his running mate. I would say that Obama and McKinney are opposites in substantial ways and not colleagues. Obama chose Joe Biden, a party functionary with a low I.Q. and a big mouth and a lot of financial support. Obama is more like Nancy Pelosi than McKinney, and that is tragic. Nader is more like McKinney that Obama is.
To me what is truly tragic is that lefties are so power hungry these days that they are willing in one election after another to support the lesser of two evils, which by definition means supporting evil. Why not mass those votes, surely there are millions of anti-war progressives who could vote in large numbers for someone/anyone who is NOT evil.
I have no problem with Cynthia McKinney building a movement. But if she wants to build an exclusionary movement limited to or focusing on the wants of women of color only, she will exclude me because I don’t have the pigments or the chromosomes to qualify as a first-class supporter in such an agenda. But I would advise Cynthia to enlarge her focus and think of the welfare of everyone. I would urge her to think of coalition building, not exclusionary biases. I do think women of color have much to offer society, and especially in terms of knowledge of how to survive and thrive in conditions of relative powerlessness. The trick, in my opinion, ought to be to learn to attain power in a gracious and complimentary manner to others in society. It is undeniably true that many have been victimized by our civilization, and some more than others, but ranking victimization is probably counterproductive to coalition building and I believe everyone is better off seeking consensus solutions to the greatest extent possible.
Stan Moore
29 October 2008, 10:56 pmPetaluma, CA
Howard:
I have a very similar analysis to Amee’s, voted McKinney, and support Obama’s election. Of course I live in Texas so I have the luxury of not worrying about “throwing away” my vote in a close race
30 October 2008, 12:09 amcharles:
War no longer functions as an adequate or appropriate metaphor for social transformation. Niche maximization might.
^^^
18 December 2008, 11:30 amYes we can be uniters , not dividers.
charles:
If war is no longer the adequate metaphor in social tranformation and political transformation ( revolution), then electoral politics, which is peaceful politics , not armed struggle, is the _main_ “arena” of political struggle. Non-electoral actors are not where it’s at for peaceful revolution. Venezuela, Bolivia, Urugay, the US have demonstrated the new model of electoral politics to peaceful revolution.
As Malcolm X suggested, revolution by any amd all means necessary and suffient: the ballot or the bullet.
18 December 2008, 11:36 amhttp://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/malcolmxballot.htm