Climate Change and a Third Party

In terms of present-day American politics, it seems clear that progress toward combatting climate change, at the Federal or international level, has come to depend almost entirely upon the Democratic Party.

One need only glance at the willingness of Senate Republicans to confirm nominees like Rick Perry for Secretary of Energy and Scott Pruitt for head of the EPA - or the lack of outcry from either the Senate or House majorities at proposed cuts to the EPA's funding - to understand how entirely the modern Republican Party has become unreliable as a steward of the environment.  Or really, as being on the side of planetary survival.

Curiously, however, the Republican Party's official obtuseness on AGW does not mean the Democratic Party can be counted on to step up on climate change.  To begin with, as our two-party system is currently configured, each party relies less on visionary leadership than on fear-mongering.
Consider the Election of 2016.  Both parties nominated severely flawed candidates.  To be sure, Hillary Clinton offered an impressive resume, while Donald Trump was, by historical standards, one of the most unqualified candidates ever offered by a major American political party.  That said, Mrs. Clinton was disliked or distrusted by nearly half of the electorate - nearly as many as disliked or distrusted Mr. Trump.

The strategies of both parties came down to, "Vote for us.  The other candidate is far worse."

And indeed, at the presidential level - and increasingly, at all levels - this gun-to-the-head approach has become the default strategy of each major party.  Each party in the American two-party system relies on a form of fairly primitive blackmail, and the result is that neither has much incentive to lead.  What matters is to be measurably less dreadful than the opposite party on enough issues of importance to the decisive groups of uncommitted, undecided, or uninformed who decide elections.

Now that, in itself, would be bad enough.  A party committed to a strategy of being not quite as objectionable as the other party has little incentive to lead.

But on the issue of climate change, the problem is multiplied by the fact that the issue is not rated highly by most voters.  In other words, since climate change is not an issue most voters understand to be vital, there is no particular reason for the Democratic Party to raise the visibility of the issue in any election campaign - i.e., no reason to engage in educating the public.  From a practical standpoint, Democrats need only campaign by means of targeted messages to identified environmental voters - without making climate change a major issue before the broader public.

And this is even more true as the Republican Party has grown so extreme on the issue that the Democrats really need say almost nothing - even to pro-environment voters - to assure themselves of those voters' support.

To sum up, then, the realities of the two-party system dictate that the only party with a sane position on climate change has little or no practical incentive to adopt an aggressive stance on this issue - and every reason to keep its advocacy on the "down-low", whispering encouragement to identified environmental voters, but doing nothing to risk alienating voters for whom climate change is not yet a major issue.

Now, to be sure, organizations such as Climate Reality (to which I belong), the Sierra Club, and 350.org can do something to raise consciousness about climate change - gradually moving the issue up from its current place on Americans' list of priorities.  But we live in times when a plethora of issues must compete for public attention.  The educational efforts of climate groups can hardly compete with the sort of media coverage and citizen attention accorded to candidates and parties during an election campaign.

Which is why third party with a strong stance on climate change makes sense.  It could run candidates for office, thus claiming voters' attention when it is most available.

But wouldn't this be the Green Party, one asks?

Hardly.  For all its efforts, the Green Party is essentially a party of the Left, competing directly with the Democratic Party for the votes of those who don't regard the Democrats as liberal enough.  We've seen the results of that.

What's needed is an environmentally-aware party closer to the center - a party informed by the Progressive Republicanism we might associate with Teddy Roosevelt.  Such a party could compete, not just for voters who usually - if reluctantly - vote Democratic, but also for voters who usually - often disgustedly - vote Republican.

I'll elaborate on this theme in future posts.  For now, the important point is to understand why the Democratic Party is not a safe repository for the hopes of those who are committed to doing something serious about climate change.

The Democrats might come to this someday, but by then, it could well be too late.  For the present, the realities of two-party politics give them little incentive to embrace this issue - and many reasons to avoid it.

After Denver

After attending Climate Reality's three-day leadership training in Denver, I have a certificate, a green lapel pin, a few new friends, a dozen or so friendly acquaintances - and a much greater commitment to becoming active in the cause of combatting AGW.

AGW.  Anthropogenic Global Warming.  My choice of terms, not anything official from Climate Reality.

Because, while I have taken the training and signed on with the organization to spread its message, I've never been much of an "organization man".  Climate Reality is an impressive group, as is - I can now say - its founder and chairman, Al Gore.

But I'm still my own man.  Always will be.

But about Al Gore.  The Denver event was Al Gore's event.  I'd expected him to give a welcome address and drop in occasionally to cheer us on.  Not a bit of it.  Of all the speakers, teachers, and panelists we heard over our three-day training, Al Gore shouldered the greatest part of the burden.  He did give a welcoming address, as well as a moving "commencement" speech at the end.  He also chaired several panel discussions.

But the main thing he did was to train us in adapting and presenting of own versions of his famous, and constantly updated, "slide show" - the original of which was featured in the film that won him the Nobel Prize, An Inconvenient Truth.  

Mr. Gore has built a sophisticated organization around this slide show, which has trained some 11,000 volunteers to spread the word about Climate Change, and is rapidly ramping-up its operation.  There were just under 1000 of us at Denver, culled from nearly three thousand who applied to attend.

Two more training sessions will be held in 2017.  The effort is global.  Climate Reality is an impressive organization.

I came away from the Denver training with two main thoughts.  First, I want to do my part as a Climate Reality "leader" - essentially, as a teacher and public speaker.  I want to present a personalized version of the "slide show" - which is what we're mainly asked to do - to as many groups as possible in my part of Virginia.

But second, I want to work outside Climate Reality on the one thing I believe will do the most good - building a third party of the progressive center.

This, in truth, has long been my hope for America.  At the Denver training, as I expected, an overwhelming majority of the attendees were Democrats, or at least, outspokenly anti-Republican.  It would be fair to guess that an overwhelming majority were politically liberal.

For sure, most of them looked at the issue of combatting climate change as a partisan, left-vs.-right battle.

And I don't.

I can readily agree with my fellow Climate Reality members that Donald Trump's administration will be a disaster for America's role in the struggle to maintain a livable planet.

I just don't agree that electing Hillary Clinton would have been a great deal better.  Eight years of Barrack Obama got us a little closer to doing something real about AGW.  Mr. Obama certainly said the right things, and there were some important executive actions - if mostly too little, too late, and too easily reversed by his successor.

But the problem is, the climate fight has become bogged down in partisan trench-warfare.  Democrats embrace the issue of climate change, so Republicans feel obliged to deny its reality, or its urgency.  And that leads to Congressional gridlock.

But not even the Democrats place the issue high on their list of priorities.  Maintaining entitlements, better pay for teachers, equal pay for women, abortion rights, child care, blue-on-black violence, tax breaks for the middle class, infrastructure projects, and a half-dozen other issues - all demanded by one or another of the Democratic Party's constituent tribes - outweigh doing something about a planet which is rapidly warming to a point where really bad things will happen to us all.

And keep happening for centuries, because irreversible processes will have been set in motion.

Now, I don't for a minute believe that America's political paralysis will doom the planet.  Other countries - less troubled by corporate-funded denialism - are moving forward rapidly on this issue.  As are many American cities, a handful of states, and more than a few forward-looking corporations.

We will - as Al Gore believes and argues - save the planet.   The rapid pace of technological change, coupled with market forces and the leadership of the EU (especially Germany and the Scandinavian nations), many developing nations (which will skip right over the fossil fuel stage), and China, will likely save the day.

But in the process, America will cease to lead the world - politically and economically.  We will fall behind, yielding our place of prominence to those who offer real solutions to a grave existential problem.

History works that way.

For me, the answer has long been a new party.  A distinctly nationalistic party, embracing American exceptionalism and American leadership in the world.  A party that sees leadership on AGW as both a noble cause and as an opportunity to extend this nation's influence - for the good - for another half-century or more.

I'll keep writing about this.  And presenting the Climate Reality slide show.  Because to me, the two things go together.

We'll probably survive America's partisan political gridlock.  Just not as the world's leader.

And that shouldn't be.

Off to Denver

Next Wednesday, I'm off to Denver for three days of training by Al Gore's group, Climate Reality.  I'm very much looking forward to the scientific and public policy aspects of the training, because I can put these things to good use.

I'm also looking forward to meeting my fellow trainees, especially the twenty or so with whom I share a Climate Reality mentor.  Since we've been encouraged to introduce ourselves and begin a conversation, it seems logical that we'll function as a group within the much larger mass of trainees.

Since, thus far, everyone seems to be from either Virginia or Nebraska, it also appears that there's some expectation that we'll continue to cooperate - at a state level - after our training.

All of this seems fine.

Two things, however, concern me.  First of all, the organizers have asked about our menu preferences for the lunches we'll be served during training.  There were two options:  Vegetarian and Vegan.

Now, my concern is not that I won't have meat for lunch.  At 65, I generally eat meat only once a day, and not more than four ounces or so then.  Besides, Denver is famous for its steakhouses, and we'll be getting out every day in time for dinner.

What concerns me is this:  If this organization, after many previous training sessions, assumes that all its trainees are either vegetarians or Vegans, that suggests that the demographic of Climate Reality is pretty far to the cultural left.

My second concern comes from the introductions my colleagues have shared with each other.

Now, please don't misunderstand.  I'm going to be training with some incredible people.  A former career attorney with the DoJ's Civil Rights Division.  A former state legislator.  A media company executive.  A career Foreign Service officer.  A career leader in an NGO which operates in a dangerous part of the world.  Several military veterans, including a combat veteran.  Several entrepreneurs.  Several teachers and academics.

I'm honored and humbled to be among such remarkable people.

What troubles me is that, when I read their ideas about how to get America moving toward a rational policy on anthropogenic global climate change - and with all due respect to Mr. Obama, we've yet to have one - I get the sense that nearly everyone in the group (besides myself and one other Virginian) tends to see this fight as lying along the left-right, liberal-conservative, Democratic-Republican "spectrum".

In other words, the good guys are the liberals and Democrats.  The bad guys are the conservatives and Republicans.

And if that's the way things are, right away we're back in the two-party trench warfare which has paralyzed our country since I cast my first presidential ballot, 'way back in the Vietnam-haunted Election of 1972.

If climate change must be won through two-party trench warfare, I really hope those newly-discovered exoplanets around Trappist-1 will support life.  And that someone invents a warp drive during the next few decades.

Because if we have to wait for one side or the other to win America's entrenched, and increasingly extreme, two-party war, the world's only remaining super-power will remain indefinitely on the sidelines in the global effort to respond to planetary warming.

And if America doesn't lead, the job probably won't get done.

For some years now, I've been writing - here and elsewhere - that the only rational solution to our national paralysis lies in creating an effective third party, representing the largest politically-homeless group in the country.

That group does not, as many believe, consist of the "undecided", the "moderates", or the "centrists".  Undecided people, congenital moderates, and those who don't like taking sides, seldom turn into effective political soldiers.

The group I'm interested in consists, for the most part, of people who once considered themselves Republicans - moderate, liberal or progressive Republicans.  Folks who were driven out of the GOP when their party was inundated by two groups of former Democrats: Southern segregationists and Southern and Midwestern evangelicals.

The Strom Thurmond folks and the Jerry Falwell folks.

The influx of these former Democrats, in response to the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act and Roe v. Wade, effected a change in the very DNA of the Party of Lincoln, transforming it into a second, very conservative, Democratic Party.

Which proceeded to take power under President Ronald Reagan, a former Democrat.

Political scientists marvelled that so many "Reagan Democrats" had been persuaded to vote Republican.  In fact, the "Reagan Democrats" were smarter than the pol-sci types.  They saw through the labels, and realized that, in voting for Reagan, they were still voting for a version of the Democratic Party.

And the decent, public-spirited, patriotic folks who traced their political heritage back to Hamilton, Clay, Webster, Lincoln, and TR found themselves without a political home.

As one of those people, I'm often asked why I didn't just become a Democrat.  The answer is, I tried.  But it wouldn't take.

The Democratic Party is a coalition of interest groups - mostly demographic groups - each with its own agenda.  It always was - right back to the 1791 "northern tour" Thomas Jefferson and James Madison took to forge an alliance with George Clinton's New York's faction and similar groups in New England.

Things didn't change when Andy Jackson reformed the party as a coalition of slaveowners, expansionists, and northern bankers who didn't want to be regulated.  The Democrats have always been a coalition - as parties born in opposition tend to be.  And coalitions are usually long on log-rolling and short on principle.

The Old Republican Party was another matter.  From its founding - in opposition to the Kansas-Nebraska Act and in favor of free soil - it stood for something.  It stood for a vision of the national interest, the general welfare - what the Founders called the Commonwealth.

There are still a great many Americans who would rally to such a unifying vision today.  Many vote for Democrats.  Many more vote for Republicans.  But mainly, we homeless Old Republicans loathe both parties because they represent coalitions of special interests.  Both seem more interested in scoring political points than in governing the nation and moving it forward.

Which brings me back to where I started.

In the battle over climate change, the cause of saving the planet seems to have gotten identified with liberalism and, strangely, with the Democratic Party - which has done precious little about the problem, even when it was in power.

The cause of climate change deniers has, similarly, been embraced by the  Republicans.  And a lot of people who should - and probably do - know better, still vote Republican because they can't bring themselves to vote for Democrats.

Which is why a nation in which most people understand that climate change is real and serious can't form a majority to do something about it.

The only way to win this fight is to understand what Winston Churchill saw in World War I.  In trench warfare, nobody wins.  You need to break the deadlock - either by outflanking your enemy, or by bringing in a huge new source of soldiers - in WWI, the Yanks - to break the stalemate.

Now, whether you consider it a flanking attack or a new source of troops, a new party - essentially the left wing of the Old Republican party - would break the deadlock.  Such a party represents the best chance we have to end the trench warfare and swing America into its rightful place as leader of the global effort to save the planet.

When I get to Denver, I hope to find a few folks - at least - who aren't so locked into the two-party, left-right mentality that they're open to the third-party idea.

If I find a few such people, maybe we can get together for dinner after training one night and make a start.

Perhaps at a good steakhouse.

Resolved

Since the Election of 2016, I have received - in an ever-growing flood - a cascade of email appeals from liberal, progressive and human rights organizations pleading for additional funds with which to fight the incoming Trump Administration and its allies in Congress.

I'm sure many who read this will have received similar appeals in an even greater torrent.  After all, I rarely give much to issue-oriented groups, while many have given them reason to hope for new or added contributions.  I'm rather a dubious prospect, but still, they write.

It's not that I don't appreciate the causes many of these organizations represent.  It's just this:  These organizations, individually and collectively, don't constitute an effective political force.  They may have moral authority.  They might be able to mobilize vast numbers of on-line petitioners, or even put tens of thousands of feet on the pavement.

But they don't run candidates for office.

In a society where power is wielded by elected legislators and executives - and by judges largely chosen by those elected officials - these noble, or at least noble-sounding, organizations asking for year-end contributions don't play in the game that really counts.

They aren't political parties.

To be sure, many of these organizations are doubtless on more-or-less friendly terms with the Democratic Party, but the Democratic Party has long since demonstrated its inability - or downright reluctance - to embrace solutions to problems which go against the vested interests which constitute that party's core coalition.  Or, really, vested interests which are just too big to oppose.

For example, Democrats will fight for Obamacare, but not for any sort of single-payer system or non-profit insurance system.  They dare not oppose the big health insurance companies and Big Pharma,

Nor will they take steps to increase the supply of physicians - a powerful way of lowering costs - by enlarging existing medical schools; building new medical schools; or liberalizing the ways in which foreign doctors, immigrating to the US, may qualify to practice medicine here.  The AMA wouldn't stand for it.

Democrats will advocate better K-12 and early childhood education, but not if a proposed solution in any way offends the teachers' unions.

They will demand action on climate change, but not if the answer annoys Big Oil, the automobile industry, the UAW, or unions engaged in building pipelines.

As an old, established party, the Democrats will do what they must to remain one of the two viable, major parties in the American duopoly.  They won't take risks.  They won't offend the powerful.

Oddly enough, the greatest potential for moving America forward on most issues belongs - at present - to Republicans.  Or rather, to former Republicans - moderate-to-progressive citizens who once belonged to the "citizen" wing of the GOP.

And to young voters who may never have seen a living, breathing moderate or progressive Republican, but who share many of the attitudes once common among that nearly-extinct species.

To put it simply, America needs a new party - a party determined to re-occupy that part of the political spectrum once occupied by the party of Lincoln, before it was hijacked by bigots, theocrats, know-nothings, and thugs.

The causes most liberal and progressive Americans believe in will probably never be accomplished by the Democrats.  They can best be accomplished by a new political party which comes at these issues - not from the traditional left - but from a place more associated with nationalism, even patriotism.

A party which would recognize someone like Teddy Roosevelt, as well as Lincoln, as its ancestor.

Such a party would probably be somewhat politically incorrect.

It would almost certainly be uncomfortably assertive in the international arena.  Which isn't all bad, considering it would probably also be very aggressive on combatting global climate change.

Almost certainly, such a party would not offer free college tuition to young Americans - except in exchange for several years of serious national service.

But then, such a party would probably demand sacrifice from all of us, in order to pursue the good of all of us.

One thing, for sure.  Such a party would not pander.  And thus, it would be far more politically effective than the Democrats have become.

What America needs is not more fund-raising lobbies and advocacy groups.  It needs an organization ready, willing and able to run and elect attractive candidates.  It needs a party which can oust the worst of the neo-con and alt-right politicians who now dominate the Republican Party, replacing them with genuine patriots interested in progress for all.

Such a party, once it exists, would be an organization I'd consider sending money to.

Wouldn't you?

Celebrate

In just nine weeks, Donald J. Trump will be inaugurated as the 45th President of the United States.

It's an astonishing thing to contemplate.  An embarrassing thing.  But there it is.

Now, I cannot join wholeheartedly with those who regard the results of November 8 as a national disaster.  For me, and for millions of other Americans, disaster of some sort became a foregone conclusion once the two major parties had nominated their candidates.

A lot of us didn't want Mrs. Clinton either.

But there's no getting around the fact that, while Mrs. Clinton would likely have continued, cautiously and gradually, down the path to destruction, Mr. Trump offers us the potential of an express trip to that destination.

It's going to be a long four years.  I hope we survive it.  I can almost hear Bette Davis advising us to fasten our seatbelts.

A lot of people are already mobilizing to oppose the worst of the prospective Trump appointees, and the most destructive of his policies.  We should all consider joining one or another of these groups because the fight is worth fighting.

And organizing - meeting people, finding common ground - will help a lot in two years, when we have a chance to take Congress away from the Republicans and turn Mr. Trump into a premature lame duck.

For those who seriously desire to transform the United States - to make it genuinely great again - the best bet remains, as it has long remained, a third party.

The Democratic Party is a disaster.  Only the Democratic Party could have arranged to lose to Donald Trump.  Only the Democratic Party could have reduced itself to a party of, for and by the urban coastal elites, while letting the rest of the map turn bright red.

The biggest bloc of entirely unrepresented Americans today is - as it has been for the past 36 years - patriotic citizens who are conservative in the old, honorable sense of believing in gradual, evolutionary change - rather than brilliant departures from tradition, with all their unforeseen consequences.

Citizens who share the values of the old Republican Party, before it was taken over by white bigots and evangelical theocrats, are without a home in today's two-party system.  Their former home, the Republican Party, has become a second, more sinister version of the Democratic Party - another coalition of those who place the tribe ahead of the nation.

What America needs is the genuine Republican Party - the party descended from the Federalists of Washington, Adams and Lincoln, and the Whigs of Webster and Clay.  The party of Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Eisenhower, and George H, W. Bush.

But that's a long, complex story - for another time.

What America needs in just under nine weeks is an alternative for those of us who can't bear to sit at home while the Trumpets are dancing the night away at a dozen Inaugural Balls.

Some years ago, when George W. Bush being inaugurated, one of the local Democratic Committees in the Richmond, Virginia, suburbs rented the beautiful old Byrd Theatre for the night of January 20.  That night, they showed two films - The American President and Dave.  Officially, it was a fundraiser and membership drive - but it also gave a lot of folks a chance to escape, for that one night, the horrors that confronted the nation.

And munch some very good popcorn.

I suggest that good Americans all across the country find a way of doing something similar.  Rent a movie screen if you can. Show The American President, or Dave, or Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.  

Or Chaplin's The Great Dictator.

Or Spielberg's Lincoln.

Or gather in someone's house and pop in a DVD of The West Wing, or John Adams.

Or listen to a CD of Hamilton.

Or, if you're younger and more technologically up-to-date than I, do something more savvy.  Stream something.  You'll know.

Have a great time, in congenial company, on January 20.  Get a good night's sleep.

And then, get back to work.  

Our President-Elect

I'm going to keep this short and to-the-point.

I didn't vote for Donald Trump, and until about 1 a.m. Eastern Standard Time this morning, I was really hoping he would somehow fail to reach 270 electoral votes.

Not that I wanted Mrs. Clinton as President.  I count myself as one among the many millions of Americans who have had it with both major parties, and long for a peaceful revolution which would reform a corrupt and dysfunctional political system.  I voted for Bernie Sanders as the one candidate, in either party, who wanted to reform things that badly need to be reformed.

I couldn't quite see Bernie as President, but Washington, Lincoln, and the two Roosevelts weren't on the ballot.

And, having expressed my affirmative opinion in primary season, I expressed my negative opinion by voting for a third-party candidate this fall.  Because, until millions of us start doing that, nothing is really likely to change.

Now, I am hardly naive.  If you've read many of these posts, you'll know something of my autobiography.  If not, let's just stipulate it for the moment.  Because this needs to be short.  Let's just say, I've been around.

And if I desperately long for more options than the two existing parties, I also have a sense of what is appropriate in our present dilemma.

Eight years ago, the Republican congressional leadership greeted the election of our new President by declaring their intention to block everything he attempted, in order to assure that he would serve only one term.

I deplored that, then and now.  It might have been clever politics, but it was atrocious citizenship.  We have elections in this country, and the winners become - for a time - our leaders.  Any other attitude loses me.

If I could, I would revive the ancient Athenian practice of ostracism and use it on Americans - officials or private citizens - who take such a stance.

They do not belong here - or in any republic.  They belong in a nursery, under a rather strict nanny.

And that is precisely how I feel about those who have greeted this morning's news with the chant of "Not my President!"

Or rather, that is how I will feel on January 20.  For now, Barack Obama is still our President.  All of our President.

But when Donald Trump takes the oath, he will become our President, and those who can't deal with that should find themselves another country.

So - for the next ten weeks - tantrums are permissible, if in very poor taste.  But on January 20, Donald Trump becomes our President.  We can work toward his replacement, but in the meanwhile, we need to try to help him govern.

There are a lot of things we need to do if we're to fix our country.  The first thing is to start acting like adult citizens.

Apologia

I am about to drop off of social media for a while.  The political conversation on these platforms has reached the point where I could spend all my time and vital energies “swatting flies”, one by one.  And my annoyance with the repetitive shallowness of today’s political dialogue has been causing me to un-follow too many people I like – in calmer times – and to block more than a few.

So here, in this space, I will post my reasons for voting third-party in this election – probably not for the last time, but in terms of my recent response to a well-intentioned fellow Bernie supporter who has decided to vote for Hillary Clinton.

Here, with some editorial changes, is what I wrote:

“You, sir – with many others – have made this argument.  Rather unendingly, if I may say so.  First, I heard it from ardent Hillary backers, lecturing Bernie’s supporters (as early as February) that the nomination contest was ‘over’ and that it was time to ‘come together’. 

“Now we have reached the season when you and other erstwhile Bernie supporters – those who are Democrats or who can, at least, stomach the continuation of the present two-party system – will read the same lecture to their former comrades-in-arms.

“You may succeed with some, even most.  You will never succeed with me because – as a lifelong student and long-time teacher of history – I tend to take a longer perspective.  I don’t worry about every election as though everything turned upon it.  Rather, I look at the long arc of our national conversation.

“Since my first presidential vote, in 1972, Democrats have been successfully frightening voters with the boogey-man of the latest Republican candidate:  Nixon; Reagan; G. W. Bush; McCain (or really, Palin).  I even recall, as an adolescent, the remarkable fear campaign waged against the “war-monger” Barry Goldwater – by LBJ, of all people.

“And of course, Republicans have been using fear tactics to turn voters away from Democratic candidates for just as long.

“Here’s my problem:  The logic of voting for the “lesser of two evils” has – for my entire adult lifetime – assured that the present two-party system survives intact, without serious challengers.  Indeed, it has made the duopoly so secure that both parties have felt able to nominate increasingly less-qualified, less-prepared candidates – to the point where we are now confronting the prospect of an utterly inexperienced Republican nominee succeeding an almost equally inexperienced Democratic incumbent.

“At any rate, as I see it, America’s political system seems to me clearly to be broken.  To vote for either major party is to vote for the continuation of that broken system.  That, I am unwilling to do.

“My deepest concern is not for myself.  My single vote will make little difference, and I am entering – if not the twilight, at least the tea-time – of my life.

“My great fear is that thousands of bright, motivated young people – having rallied to Bernie Sanders’ remarkable insurgency – will now be sucked into the Democratic Party by the same boogey-man tactics which, in the past, sucked in bright, motivated young people who worked for Bobby Kennedy, Gene McCarthy, Gary Hart, or Howard Dean.  

“Those young people, in their time, swallowed hard and went to work for the likes of Hubert Humphrey (after he sold his soul to LBJ), Walter Mondale, and John Kerry.   They were assured they could eventually change the Democratic Party from within.

“But large institutions are incredibly hard to change.  Instead of your changing them from within, they change you – until you become the sort of person who believes that Bill and Hillary Clinton can actually be agents of reform, despite their ties to the very institutions which have the most to lose by reform.

“You insist, sir, that stopping Donald Trump is a matter of morality.  I make this election more a question of perspective.  Most Americans, knowing little history – and none beyond the reach of personal memory – cannot see an election as part of a longer narrative.  Given our national propensity for instant gratification, it’s not surprising that they focus on an immediate choice rather than the long-term process of building something better.

“Thus, unsurprisingly, many argue that this election is the “most important” in a long time – perhaps in our nation’s history – while I see it as merely another step in the decay of a system which must, eventually, fall or be overthrown.

“How will this system end?  As the Greeks discovered, and our Founding Fathers understood, corrupt systems inevitably fall – either to democratic, aristocratic, oligarchic or tyrannical forces.

“For myself, I hope for a revolution led by a combination of democratic and aristocratic forces – like the Revolution that founded this country, or the Progressive Era which overthrew the last corporate oligarchy to dominate our nation.

“What I fear is the continuation and strengthening of the oligarchy. 

“Unlike many of my friends, I don’t really fear a dictatorship.  America has never had much patience with tin-pot, would-be dictators, and I doubt they would start with so obvious a phony as Donald Trump.

“At any rate, that’s where I stand.  So please, vote your conscience – and leave me in peace to vote mine.  Barring the unforeseen, I am through with voting for Democrats and Republicans, unless perhaps, for the occasional individual candidate who is personally well-known to me.

“The problem, as I see it, is the two-party system.  Voting for the candidate of either party endorses a system I no longer see as valid.  And you just can’t frighten me into doing that.”