There are many aspects of New York state's electoral law which I have problems with. One of the minor points I object to is the fact that candidates can run on multiple party lines. One of the smaller parties is The Working Families Party.
I hesitate to call the WFP a party since they are really nothing more than a vehicle by which (predominantly) Democrats can pick up another ballot line, especially those who lose in the primary. The WFP is heavily linked to unions. They are different from the Green Party of New York which, though it's also sympathetic to labor values, runs its own candidates rather than cross-endorsing establishment Democrats.
Frankly, I think the sole purpose of a smaller party is to add something that the two major parties do not. I don't like to use the term third party because a) it's used for any generic smaller party and b) it implies that there can only be three parties.
In merely cross-endorsing (mostly) Democrats, the WFP does not really add anything to the debate. This is why the Greens in New York are a real party advancing a distinct agenda while the WFP is just a movement of people who want to stay close to power for no discernible purpose.
And it's really questionable to what degree they even stand for their principles. Their website explains:
The vast majority of us share progressive values and want more affordable health care, a higher minimum wage, and better schools - but real change is hard to come by.
Take incumbent US Sen. Hillary Clinton. Mrs. Clinton served six years on the board of directors of Wal-Mart, one of the most infamous corporate opponents of a higher minimum wage, regulations on overtime and other issues that would benefit WORKING FAMILIES.
Yet who did the WFP cross-endorse for Senate? Mrs. Clinton.
(Her Green opponent, Howie Hawkins, is actually a union member and blue-collar worker.)
Mrs. Clinton was also notoriously the architect of the byzantine health care 'reform' plan during her husband's presidency, which managed the neat trick of infuriating both supporters and opponents of decent health care for all Americans. She has done nothing in this area since being elected. Senators ensure they themselves good health care, but not the rest of us. Health care is one of the major issues of concern for WORKING FAMILIES.
Yet who did the WFP cross-endorse for Senate? Mrs. Clinton.
Sen. Clinton also voted to give Pres. Bush a blank check for his aggression against Iraq and (like the president himself) still refuses to come out with any sort of coherent plan to achieve whatever course we're supposed to be staying. Iraq is an issue that most affects not the rich, but young soldiers who come predominantly from WORKING FAMILIES.
The WFP calls on voters to, "Send a message right now that you're voting Working Families to bring the troops home."
Yet who did the WFP cross-endorse for Senate? Mrs. Clinton.
As someone who agrees with much of the WFP's agenda in theory, I am disappointed that they repeatedly refuse to consider progressive alternatives to non-progressive Democrats (or Republicans).
I realize that voting means making imperfect choices but what's the point of believing in principles in theory if you endorse candidates who don't share the most important ones?
For example, the WFP endorsed for re-election state Sen. Dale Volker. Volker, a Republican, was for years most associated with a single issue: bringing back the death penalty to New York. That's progressive?
The WFP also endorsed state Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver. Silver is a the classic insider machine politician. But Silver is a close ally of New York's two most powerful labor organizations (the white collar teachers' and state bureaucrats' unions) so that makes him A-OK for the WFP. Never mind the fact that he promotes patronage, opposes transparent state government and generally epitomizes everything that's WRONG with Albany.
Apparently, the WFP is more concerned whether they receive more votes than New York's other main vehicle that passes for a political party, the Conservatives. While the WFP focuses on the petty horse race aspect, the Greens are pushing candidates who actually stand for a progressive agenda. The WFP is about making little parlor game bets with Michael Long. The Greens are about bringing the troops home.
But I am even more disappointed that the WFP engages in the same sort of outright deceit that we've come to expect from the two major parties.
Last week, the WFP sent out a mailer featuring several prominent anti-war figures like Pete Seeger, Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan. The mailer was designed to promote the WFPDemocrat statewide candidates, including Sen. Clinton and gubenatorial favorite Eliot Spitzer. There's only one problem:
Cindy Sheehan actually endorses Clinton's and Spitzer's OPPONENTS.
She endorses Howie Hawkins for Senate and Malachy McCourt for governor. The pair want the a troop withdrawal from Iraq, unlike Clinton and Spitzer. At least Sheehan's endorsements aren't at odds with her principles
I'm not one of those people who canonizes Cindy Sheehan. I agree with some of what she says but I find her shrill and annoying and not likely to persuade the undecided, just like Moore. But I find it incredibly deceitful for the WFP to use her image in support of candidates where she has explicitly come out for their opponents.
If I do decide to vote for a Democrat, it will be on the Democrats' line, not the WFP's. It seems more ingenuous.
Update: This editorial from The New York Times explains how these faux-parties are about nothing more than patronage and influence peddling.
No comments:
Post a Comment