Your 3rd-Party “Statement” Vote Is A Vote For Ignorance And Privilege
Supporting Non-Viable, Unqualified Candidates Only Harms The Most Vulnerable Among Us
I’ve written more than a few columns about why I’d never be able to consider voting for Donald Trump or anyone who stands by the 2016 GOP platform. More recently I wrote about why I’m proudly voting for Hillary Clinton. In response, many folks said they wouldn’t vote for either candidate and that they were planning on voting for a third-party candidate. This column’s for them.
Let’s get something out of the way first: Either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton will win the election in November. Period. That’s it. These are your options. These are the only options. And, with that in mind, I have absolutely no problem saying that a vote for a third-party candidate is a wasted vote.
I get that there are some folks who believe they’re making a moral choice by voting third-party. Plenty of people have convinced themselves that there’s some sort of moral equivalence between Trump’s racism, misogyny, xenophobia, Islamophobia, transphobia, homophobia and overall offensive bigotry, and Clinton’s bad decisions — both of which she’s acknolowledged, learned from, and apologized for (not that Trump’s ever apologized for anything in his life). Let me say this as clearly as possible: These are not moral equivalents. Not on any level, so let’s stop even entertaining the possibility that they are.Â
Some folks say they’re helping grow a movement. This is their chance, they say, to really make an impact and set the stage to end the two-party system. In a vacuum, yes, this is an argument that could be made. In reality? No. People have been working on growing this “movement†for decades and it’s never gone anywhere. It’s not going to happen now.
The last third-party candidate who was even remotely viable was Ross Perot back in 1992. You know what happened with him? Nothing. In 2000 there was Ralph Nader and he legitimately affected the election — he took away many of Al Gore’s voters and gave us George W. Bush instead. It was the ultimate irony: the folks so passionately liberal they wouldn’t even vote for a mainstream Democrat gave us one of the worst GOP presidents in recent history.Â
According to some historians, Lincoln and the GOP were considered third-party back when he won. I asked my friend Dr. Josh Dix about that, and he pointed out: “It’s true that the GOP was the newest mainstream party in 1856 and 1860, but it was not a third party in either election. The Whigs folded in 1854, and the GOP came on scene in 1856. In that election, it came in second in electoral votes. In 1860, with Lincoln, it won the most. It wasn’t a third party; it became one of the two major parties before him.â€
While third-party voters are out there trying to make a statement, the rest of us have to deal with the fallout. It’s an incredible statement of privilege to be able to vote for a third-party candidate and accept the consequences of a loss without much harm. Many of us don’t have that luxury. We’ve seen the types of people Donald Trump surrounds himself with. Voting for a third-party candidate who has no chance of beating him tells the world that you don’t care about the folks who will be most affected by his hatred — you’d rather make a statement. In my book, that’s incredibly selfish.
Let’s not pretend that the current crop of third-party candidates are noble alternatives, either. Libetarian Gary Johnson, the only one to appear on the ballot in all 50 states, is no bastion of liberal love. As Think Progress’ Judd Legum points out: Johnson’s in favor of Citizens United. He wants to reduce corporate tax to 0 percent. He has no plan for climate change. He wants to abolish Social Security. He’s against any kind of mandated minimum wage. In what world are these good liberal policies? If you’re a Bernie-or-bust person thinking of voting for Johnson, you’ve missed the mark entirely.Â
(I suppose now’s a good time to mention that Johnson’s also simply not smart enough to be president. He’s tried to play off his “What is Aleppo?†and “Name one world leader you admire†gaffes as calculated “awww, shucks†moments, but the truth is, he has no idea about how to handle foreign policy. It’s not his fault, though — one of the main tenets of the Libertarian Party is the idea that we should never interact with any other countries.)
Jill Stein’s no better. Aside from the fact that she’s not even on the ballot in all 50 states and it’s statistically impossible that she’ll ever be elected to anything, she’s got absolutely no experience — even less than Trump. Here’s a really great breakdown of why Stein is absolutely not the savior the Left is looking for. Frankly, Stein’s candidacy is so absurd she’s not even worth the the column inches here.
Evan McMullin is a write-in candidate from the Right. He’s in favor of using religion as a means to discriminate, anti-abortion, against the Affordable Care Act, pro-gun, and basically the kind of person many Republicans had wished they’d nominated — in other words, he’s not here for us, our family or our friends.
For better or worse, the two-party system is what we have, and it’s here to stay. I think it can be noble to try and change that — but not when the alternative is Trump’s America. What does it matter that you’ve proudly made a statement in favor of a movement when your neighbors are being rounded up and deported? How is it noble to actively enable the kind of misogyny Trump has been so proud of? How is it responsible to seek a long-term change when the short term damage would harm so many?Â
A vote for a third-party candidate in 2016 can only be justified by privilege or ignorance. You’re either going to be safe enough (thanks to your masculinity or your race) to not be affected poorly by Trump’s policies or you’re so foolish you think your third-party vote will matter. Either way, it’s incredibly selfish and irresponsible, and it shouldn’t be who we are as a society.
The mark of a great society is how well it treats its most vulnerable. Voting third-party in 2016 flies in the face of that belief. Either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton WILL be elected president on Nov. 8, and you’ve got a decision to make.Â
Robbie Medwed is an Atlanta-based LGBT activist and educator. His column appears here weekly. Follow him on Twitter: @rjmedwed.
Enjoy this piece?
… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.
NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.
Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.
 |
President Donald Trump is promising mass pardons to White House staff, and has done so repeatedly, the Wall Street Journal reports.
“I’ll pardon everyone who has come within 200 feet of the Oval,” Trump said in a recent meeting, to laughs, the Journal reported, citing people familiar.
“That radius,” the Journal added, “appears to be expanding as the president repeats the line. Another person who met with Trump earlier this year said the president quipped about pardoning anyone who had come within 10 feet.”
Trump at one point said he would hold a news conference to announce the mass pardons.
“The president has repeatedly raised the specter of pardons with White House aides and other administration officials, particularly when staff have suggested they could face prosecution or congressional investigations over decisions, people familiar with the comments said,” the Journal reported.
The Journal did not state if the pardons would be blanket pardons, but reported that those familiar with his remarks “said they weren’t aware of specific pardons being offered to specific people for specific acts.”
READ MORE: White House Fires Back After President’s Doctor Is Asked to Test Trump’s Mental Fitness
The report also noted that Trump has often seriously pursued actions he initially had joked about.
“It seems like he previewed many times his intent to use the pardon power to bail out those who carry out his agenda faithfully,” Liz Oyer, a former Trump Justice Department pardon attorney told the Journal. She also “said the offers could spur Cabinet officials and administration officials to behave more aggressively.”
While Trump did not pardon White House or other officials in conjunction with the events of January 6, 2021, on his first day back in office he did issue sweeping pardons to roughly 1,500 of those who were at the Capitol that day and later arrested.
READ MORE: ‘Only Reason They Are Alive’: Trump Again Threatens Iran in Unhinged Truth Social Post
Image via Reuters
The White House is fighting back after a prominent House Democrat demanded that the Physician to the President test Donald Trump’s mental fitness, citing the president’s recent remarks.
“At a time when our country is at war—especially when the war was initiated by the President without congressional declaration or consent—the American people must be able to trust that the Commander-in-Chief has the mental capacity to discharge the essential duties of his office,” Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin wrote to the President’s Physician, Captain Sean P. Barbabella, D.O., in a letter published by Punchbowl News.
“I therefore request that you conduct a comprehensive cognitive assessment of President Donald Trump, provide those results to Congress, and make yourself available to brief Congress on your findings.”
Congressman Raskin noted that experts “have repeatedly warned that the President has been exhibiting signs consistent with dementia and cognitive decline.”
“And, in recent days, the country has watched President Trump’s public statements and outbursts turn increasingly incoherent, volatile, profane, deranged, and threatening. His apparently deteriorating condition has caused tremendous alarm across the nation (and political spectrum) about the President’s cognitive function and continuing mental fitness for the office of President, and prompted concerns about the President’s well-being.”
Raskin noted that during the Biden presidency, Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer called President Biden’s mental acuity “one of the greatest scandals in our nation’s history,” and subpoenaed the White House Physician.
He also noted that during that time, Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan declared that a president who is not cognitively fit, “isn’t fit for office.”
Raskin offered some examples, including Trump’s recent message to Iran, which the Congressman described as combining “vulgarity and profanity, unprecedented threats of mass civilian destruction, and a sarcastic invocation of Islam on Easter morning—a bizarre display that shocked tens of millions of Americans and astonished observers across the political spectrum.”
Trump had written: “Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one, in Iran. There will be nothing like it!!! Open the F——’ Strait, you crazy b——, or you’ll be living in Hell – JUST WATCH! Praise be to Allah.”
The New York Times had described Trump’s remarks as a “blistering threat” that “would have stood out on any day, much less on what most Christians consider the holiest day of the year.”
Raskin is insisting that Dr. Barbabella conduct “a comprehensive neuropsychological assessment of the President, including a formal cognitive screening instrument, and publicly release the results.”
Also, it asks him to provide “a detailed report on the President’s current mental and physical health status, including any medications he is currently taking and their potential,” and make himself available for a briefing under oath.
The White House wasted no time in responding, telling Courthouse News’ Benjamin S. Weiss: “Lightweight Jamie Raskin is a stupid person’s idea of a smart person.”
“President Trump’s sharpness, unmatched energy, and historic accessibility stand in stark contrast to what we saw during the past four years when Democrats like Raskin intentionally covered up Joe Biden’s serious mental and physical decline from the American people,” the White House added.
Image via Reuters
Ahead of diplomatic talks starting Saturday, President Donald Trump once again threatened Iran with violence as critics charge his tenuous cease-fire has fallen apart.
“As Vice President JD Vance was heading to Pakistan on Friday for peace talks with Iran, a senior Iranian official laid out new conditions for the negotiations, adding even more uncertainty about the durability of the cease-fire and whether the two sides could reach a long-term deal,” The New York Times reports, noting that President Trump “warned Tehran not to overplay its hand.”
“The Iranians don’t seem to realize they have no cards, other than a short term extortion of the World by using International Waterways,” the President wrote on Truth Social.
“The only reason they are alive today is to negotiate!” he declared.
His remarks seemed to echo his highly-criticized comments earlier this week:
“A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again. I don’t want that to happen, but it probably will.”
On April 1, Trump wrote, “we are blasting Iran into oblivion or, as they say, back to the Stone Ages!!!”
Some ridiculed the president.
“Completely controlling the Strait of Hormuz and charging ships a $2 million toll to pass through seem to be a couple of pretty good cards,” noted attorney Adam Cohen.
Reason’s Matthew Petti added, “You might say that Iran’s only cards are…a strait flush.”
Image via Reuters
‘Whiplash’: How Trump’s War Skyrocketed the Cost of Living
‘America’s Not Ok’: Why Consumer Sentiment Just Hit a 74-Year Low
‘Only Reason They Are Alive’: Trump Again Threatens Iran in Unhinged Truth Social Post
White House Fires Back After President’s Doctor Is Asked to Test Trump’s Mental Fitness
Trump Is Promising Mass White House Pardons: Report
Trump Is Promising Mass White House Pardons: Report
White House Fires Back After President’s Doctor Is Asked to Test Trump’s Mental Fitness
‘Only Reason They Are Alive’: Trump Again Threatens Iran in Unhinged Truth Social Post
‘America’s Not Ok’: Why Consumer Sentiment Just Hit a 74-Year Low
‘Whiplash’: How Trump’s War Skyrocketed the Cost of Living
News2 days agoWhere Were Republicans as Trump Zigzagged on Iran War and Peace?
News3 days agoTrump Administration Wants Protected Health Records of Federal Workers
News1 day agoWhite House Responds to ‘Stone-Cold Loser’ Carville After Devastating Prediction
News2 days agoTrump Rages in Incoherent Truth Social Rant
News2 days agoHow MAGA Will Spin Trump’s Surrender: Columnist
News2 days agoTrump — Not Iran — Was ‘Begging’ for a Ceasefire: Report
News2 days agoJustice Department Tries to Bail Out Bondi From Testifying on Epstein
News1 day agoWill ‘Sputtering’ Trump Ever Learn His Lesson?: Columnist
