Support Obama But Vote McKinney?

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 in recent memory to get ballot access in most states. 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.
. . .

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.

. . .

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."
. . .

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. This election, 35 states are not swing states.

. . .

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. 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.

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.
. . .

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.

Source: OpEd News