Some Thoughts About Voting Green This Year

Like many progressive-minded folks I was excited about Bernie Sanders’ campaign and I voted for him in the primary. Since then many Bernie supporters have sworn they will never vote for Hillary Clinton and will vote instead for Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate. Unless you are in a solidly Blue state like California I don’t think this is a good idea and I want to share some thoughts about this.

First. This not about anybody’s right to run for office or to vote for whomever they like. That’s a given. This is about whether or not voting Green at this time is a good idea.

OK, FACT- Assuming no completely unpredictable events, like the death of one of them, one of two people is going to be elected President of the United States: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. If you disagree with that, I don’t know what to say. There’s certainly no point in reading this any further.

So here are three reasons why I believe we cannot take a chance on electing Donald Trump, any ONE of which is reason enough:

1. Donald Trump should never ever be anywhere near the ability to launch nuclear weapons. His narcissism, impulsiveness, short attention span, thin-skinned need to take every criticism as a personal attack and compulsive need for vengeance are totally unacceptable qualities in a person who has that much destructive power at his command.
2. The next POTUS will be able to nominate 2-4 Supreme Court Justices who serve for life, thus making the composition of that court effective for generations. If those Justices are chosen by Trump, they will put a very serious damper on the potential for a progressive movement of any kind.
3. Trump is a climate-change denier, wants to abolish the EPA, therefore destroying any chance to enforce laws such as the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, and the Endangered Species Act. He wants to deregulate the Energy corporations and has said, “The environment can take care of itself”

In my view, any one of those reasons is enough to make sure that Trump does not become President, no matter what you think of Hillary Clinton.  And here I want to share some thoughts about fear and the “lesser of two evils” notion, which seems so abhorrent to many progressives.

To me, the idea that fear should never be a factor in your voting and political activity is utterly ridiculous. It certainly should not be the ONLY factor and I am all for doing what you can to promote a positive vision for society and the whole planet. But we SHOULD be afraid of the consequences of having someone like Trump in office because those consequences involve terrible suffering for people and all creatures on the planet, and sooner rather than later.

Many German Jews, watching the rise of Hitler in their country, were afraid of what they saw coming and got out when they could, while many of their contemporaries were saying “ No, no, everything is going to be OK”. Needless to say, the fear was totally justified.

Aren’t you afraid of global warming?  Of nuclear war?  Of giving more power to a right-wing, racist, nativist regime which has no qualms about rounding up immigrants and Muslims and deporting them?  I am.

On to the much-hated “Lesser of two evils” choice-

I totally understand the frustration involved in having our choices every election boiled down to just two candidates, neither of whom especially excite us.  I would much rather have a parliamentary, multi-party system like many other democracies around the world, but like it or not, though other political parties are not illegal here, we essentially live in a two-party system.

This problem is not solved, however, by simply voting for a Green candidate once every 4 years. If you really want to expand the power of the Green Party, you must join it and participate fully in helping it organize, develop outreach and education programs, etc.  Jill Stein is going to lose. If you have an argument about why simply voting Green this year will really advance the Progressive movement and the party, who’s polling no higher this year than 15 years ago, I am open to it, but I don’t currently see it.

Let’s return to a fact: in 2016 one of two candidates is going to become President. So the question arises, “Under whose administration will the Green Party have the best chance of developing?”  Under Trump and his Supreme Court Justices? A climate-change denier who would move to abolish the EPA, cut taxes for the wealthy and large corporations, end the Estate Tax, round up immigrants and Muslims?   The battles we would be faced with would put the Progressive/Environmental movement on the defensive and make it almost impossible to move forward. In other words, it would be much harder to achieve any of the goals of the Green Party.

On a psychological note, I believe the idea of never voting for the “lesser of two evils”  is based on a false  assumption that your third-party choice is pure and will never do anything wrong. Almost always, however, these candidates have never really served in any capacity as an elected representative of any kind and therefore have no record of ever having to work with, and make compromises with, members of an opposing party.  (Odd exception this year, the Libertarian Party’s ticket is two ex-governors and they are polling 3-4 times higher than the Greens.) Thus they have never had the chance to appear compromised or to have sold out.

This is all closely related to the “vote your conscience” idea, often framed as a kind of heroic act of independence, a proud declaration that your principles will not be compromised. The trouble is that, simply put, everybody votes their conscience already, including the act of not voting. The question is what is actually included in the meaning of the word.  Conscience is effected by your upbringing, education and an almost infinite number of experiences. To claim that others are not voting their conscience because the contents of their conscience differ from yours is just kind of silly.

The question I would ask to those of you in swing states who are planning on voting Green is this: Is your vote based more on making you feel good or on what’s good for the country? Are you really taking into account the consequences of Donald Trump winning? The effect on the lives of racial and religious minorities and the poor?   The health of the planet as a whole?

In my view, even if Trump loses, just the popularity of his campaign has already inspired and energized white supremacists and the entire spectrum of the alt-right, with all its hate groups and wacko conspiracists. Reports are surfacing of young people in high schools across the country verbally abusing and intimidating Latinos and Muslims in the name of Donald Trump. Imagine him  holding the highest office in the land.

Though I aim these thoughts mostly at voters in swing states, I must admit that, even here in California,  I would like to see Trump lose by a landslide as a repudiation of all that he represents. But again, if you are in a battleground state, please consider the real world consequences of your vote. That’s all I ask.

– Michael Lockert, Sonoma