Top College News Subscribe to the Newsletter

Monacelli: Upcoming election too crucial to support third party candidates

Published: Tuesday, September 27, 2011

Updated: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 14:09

Steven Monacelli

Last week I touched on Rick Perry's chances compared to the rest of the Republican candidates. If you didn't read the column, I'll summarize: as much as I dislike the guy, I believe that he will win the Republican candidacy. Despite his less than stellar debate performances, he is stilling leading in the polls and is more than likely to absorb Bachmann and Ron Paul supporters, if and when lesser candidates become irrelevant. This may be unsettling to many of you, understandably so. After all, his persona and record scream George W. Bush redux, but this time with better hair. 

I'm sure I speak for most if not all Northwestern liberals when I say this, but the last thing we want is another George W. Bush.

Regardless of which candidate wins, the problem is that politics in this country have already been and are still being driven further to the right. If the GOP takes the White House, our government will take two large steps to the right. More than likely, it will also take three steps backward in terms of policy reform.

Say goodbye to health care reform. Say goodbye to financial reform. Say goodbye to tax reform. So the only alternative appears to be President Obama, right?

That may not be the case. Third party candidates always run. And recently, Ralph Nader, of ruining-Al Gore's-chances-at-president fame, called for liberals to support him in challenging Obama in the Democratic primary.

Let me first say that as a liberal with progressive tendencies, I do like Ralph Nader. He may not be able to win a high school popularity contest, but his record speaks for itself. Although his runs at political office have been horribly unsuccessful, his advocacy and non-profit efforts have produced meaningful change.

The reason for Nader's failures as a Green Party candidate are quite clear. It is common knowledge that third party candidates get no love because it is practically impossible for them to succeed on the presidential level in our current electoral system. Recently I've spoken to several friends that have expressed desire to vote third party in the coming election. My gut reaction is, "Are you serious? Do you understand that you have no chance at getting a third party candidate elected? Do you understand how important the 2012 presidential election will be? Do you understand that there are a bunch of crazies up for election and we need every vote we can get to stop them?" I do sympathize, though, because I too have been itching to find a time to vote for the Green Party.

But now is not the time to scratch. I would vote for a third party candidate if the stakes weren't so high or if we had a preferential voting system, but that is not the case.

Yet Nader isn't just running third party this time around. This incumbency challenge is a different sort of beast, and probably of even greater concern. It is historical fact that when an incumbent is seriously challenged in the primary, he loses the presidential election. In the modern era, an incumbent has been challenged on five occasions and has lost every time. I may have some bones to pick with Obama, particularly with regard to his handling of the Bush era tax cuts, the debt-ceiling debacle and much of his foreign policy, but I still understand that he is the only nationally viable candidate. If you're a progressive liberal or an independent disappointed with Obama, now is not the time to express your dissatisfaction. We must rebuff any challengers and unite behind our best bet if we don't wish to see the see the clock of progress turned back four years.

Correction: this column has been updated to the correct version.

Steven Monacelli is a Communication junior.

He can be reached at stevenmonacelli2013@u.northwestern.edu

Recommended: Articles that may interest you

3 comments

Kyle
Sun Oct 9 2011 00:48
Steve,

Thanks for your response.

Just because a piece of legislation has the word "reform" attached to it does not make it ideal nor even good legislation. You praise the single-payer option, but conveniently refrain from mentioning the lengthy waiting times, rationing, and reduced health care quality that are seemingly inseparable from these single-payer schemes. I respectfully disagree with your belief that PPACA was a "[step] in the right direction": the reform raises health care costs (despite the legislation's name and Obama's insisting), and evidently reduces quality. Certainly some aspects of the law were positive; however, I do not believe these scant benefits justify these costs. I am inclined to believe that, had PPACA included single-payer, Americans' rejection of the law would certainly have been noticeably greater, demonstrating that America is currently neither accepting nor ready for this type of system. No, I absolutely do not agree with the Progressives' idea of "reform," especially when these "reforms" have such great and obvious negative ramifications.

In your article, you did seem to imply that only Obama desired tax reform, especially when you failed to mention that several Republicans have urged for tax reform as well. Considering this, I maintain with conviction that you were either ignorant of current politics, or intentionally excluding relevant information for the purpose of glorifying Obama. Most certainly the latter. This is poor journalism, and is a tactic frequently utilized by Fox News, MSNBC, and the Huffington Post. Surely you don't want to be like them. Additionally, I maintain that this style of journalism definitely is shallow and is pretentious, and it certainly reflects the writer's intentions. As such, I am not too certain what you mean when you accuse me of not wishing to "engage in constructive debate"; I am merely elucidating a fair criticism.

As you point out, Cain's plan to tax income at 9% is too low; however, the idea of lowering taxes in the current economic climate is laudable and deserves more attention. I am truly stunned that Obama has proposed raising taxes--even if only on the rich--with the economy stuck in its current position; even Obama's economic advisers have admonished him on raising taxes. The suggestion or implementation of a more progressive tax at this moment will simply not stimulate economic growth. Perhaps the discussion of a more progressive tax will be more appropriate a few years from now.

Obviously the Republicans have demonstrated great intransigence, and their chief goal of beating Obama is quite unappealing. However, I think this is reflective of the fact that Obama is, on the American political scale, exceedingly radical. Most certainly Obama is the best choice for liberal progressives; however, this is not necessarily a desirable quality, especially when America appears to be moving to the right. In your view, Obama is the "lesser of the two evils." However, I have faith in America's ability to choose who is the "lesser of the two evils."

Lastly, your assertion that an ad hominem attack in a reaction largely composed of rational thought demonstrates a sole desire to smear is baseless and ludicrous; nice try, though. Your mentioning of my other comment--a reaction to an entirely different story--is irrelevant.

Steven
Sat Oct 8 2011 22:16
Kyle,

Thanks for the response.

Romney has now taken the lead, as you predicted. Yet Perry has yet to "implode" and is still maintaining higher poll numbers, despite Cain taking second place for the moment. Cain has soared in the polls but it is yet to be seen whether he can hold together upon closer examination. What we have yet to see is the bowing out of enough lesser candidates. Bachman, Paul and Gingrich are no doubt going to leave the race sooner or later, and I'd still argue that their constituencies are more inclined to shift to Perry than Romney. But that's simply a matter of opinion.

You also bring up some very fair points. First, health care reform was obviously less than ideal. A single-payer public healthcare system would have been obviously preferable to the compromise that we ended up with. Second, Dodd-Frank was also extremely limited in its reforms. Third, sure, many ideas on "tax reform" are being thrown around by Republicans. Yet none of them aim to restore our tax rates to pre-Bush era rates which were far more progressive than those we see today. Republican candidates provide some interesting and compelling arguments to simplify our tax code, which I can agree with, but beyond that their proposed rates will remain far to low and will not help to reverse the increasing trend in economic inequality we have seen manifest over the past 30 years.

I am very aware of all the points you've highlighted and I do appreciate the criticism. But assumption that I am a fan of all of Obama's policies is not only false but irrational. You have no sense of my opinions regarding his specific policies, nor do you have knowledge of how well informed I am. I made no statements in this article endorsing the specific policies of the Obama administration. I do believe that Obama holds the preferable positions on these issues, and although the passed reforms were imperfect, they were absolutely steps in the right direction. What you seem to be missing is that incremental reform is preferable to no reform whatsoever.

The reality of the situation is that Obama faced rather staunch political opposition on all issues, even during the fleeting days of the super-majority. Republicans made it clear that they would oppose practically all of his proposals, regardless of merit. Furthermore, not all Democrats are Liberal Democrats, and thus Obama's original healthcare plan was altered and watered-down beyond recognition. Additionally, Dodd-Frank would have had no chance of passing through the House and Senate if it had specifically spelled out the necessary structural reforms.

But the point of this article was not to glorify Obama or fully endorse the policies that have been passed under his administration. Rather, it was to express the idea that Obama is the only candidate with progressive leanings that liberals have a chance in electing. He's not perfect, but he is far better and more preferable than the candidates that the Republican party has narrowed in on. In my perfect world, we would have more than just two parties that represent us, but in our reality, we must vote for the lesser of the two evils until electoral reform is achieved. The fact that your only comment regarding this message was an ad hominem makes me think that you do not actually want to engage in constructive debate, but rather just wish to smear someone you do not agree with.

Finally, when I take your other comment on my article regarding election laws into consideration, which I'll pasted below for convenience, it further solidifies my thought that you simply wish to attack my opinions as opposed to debate them.

Kyle
"Oh, no! In some states you actually have to prove that you're a citizen to vote in an election now? Clearly, the GOP--the party of Lincoln--just detests the blacks and the poor. Seriously, what's the government going to do next--make us show ID to buy alcohol? What rubbish!"

The anonymous commenter that responded to your emotionally charged snark calmly and logically proved my point that state ID requirements are essentially a poll-tax that largely targets specific constituencies. You call me pretentious and shallow, yet you call the GOP the "Party of Lincoln" as if he Republican Party of today resembles his party exactly and as if history has no effect on political parties. If you didn't know, demographic shifts among the parties major constituencies occurred quite a while ago, my friend.

Kyle
Fri Oct 7 2011 22:42
This was an atrocious article. I doubt you *think* Rick Perry will win the nomination; rather, I believe you *want* Rick Perry to win the nomination.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but Rick Perry's campaign is already imploding due to his poor performances at debates. Look for Romney to take the lead.

Regarding your belief that Obama has ushered in momentous reform--well, again, sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but he hasn't. Health care reform was simply a disaster; the fact that an overwhelming majority of Americans repudiates Obamacare reflects how the reform excessively increases costs and reduces health care quality, all so several more million Americans can be added to the client list of insurance companies. Additionally, Dodd-Frank doesn't exactly mend the problems beleaguering the financial industry. And--in a grand demonstration of liberal ignorance--your assertion that only Obama desires tax reform is completely dishonest. Republicans--including several of the current candidates--have proffered tantalizing tax reform plans. But, of course, the Republicans' tax reforms are only tantalizing to me since I must be a greedy, disgusting, evil, capitalistic republican--right?

The fact that you are not even informed of every candidates' stance--and that you clearly and deliberately declare that "we must rebuff any challengers"--only serves to prove your blatant shallowness and pretension. You are doing a disservice to honest, rational liberals--a breed that, unfortunately, seems to be nearing extinction.

Good day sir.







log out