Jill, Bernie, and the Movement: A defense of voting for Jill Stein in 2016

To undertake right action should not need defense.  However, in the complex political climate of the moment, the right action is not clear, and there are many who attack those who are taking what seems to be the right action to one person, but not to another.  Some of the most virulent of these attacks are reserved for those who choose not to support Hillary Clinton even she becomes the democratic nominee.  The following is presented in their defense.

I begin with discussion of the possibilities that remain for a Bernie presidential candidacy, which would simplify matters considerably, but which I calculate to be unlikely.

As of this writing, Bernie could still be the Democratic nominee.  There has been much discussion as to whether the nomination process was rigged.  It was.  I take that as a given, an obvious fact to anyone who can read.  However, the nominating process is not over until the convention, and anything can happen up to that point.  Everyone acknowledges that a Bernie nomination is a long shot.  However, there are avenues:

• HRC is under investigation and could be indicted.  I consider this unlikely, because, like all wealthy and well-connected politicians, she is in a position to easily put herself above the law. If high-level political operatives could be indicted and convicted for their crimes, there would be few presidents who escaped impeachment or jail.  It is now well known that crimes were committed at high levels under the Reagan, Clinton and Bush  administrations, yet no president was ever held accountable in any real way.  I do not expect we can consider HRC to be any different.
• The DNC, at the convention, could realign its superdelegates behind Bernie on the grounds that he is more likely to defeat Trump.  Yes, they could, but I doubt that they will.  The DNC has backed HRC relentlessly, despite polling showing her more vulnerable to Trump, for months. My personal take on this is that the DNC would rather lose the election than give their party over to a candidate who will represent the people over the corporations whose tools the DNC are.  Let's be clear:  Bernie represents a threat to the establishment, and they hate him unto death, and will do all in their power – including total self-destructon – to eliminate that threat.
• California is still being counted, and many counties are flipping for Bernie.  True, and that would be great.  However, I do not think that, on its own, will be enough to propel Bernie to the nomination.  In order to win the nomination outright, Bernie needed to sweep California decisively enough to overcome even the unfair process to which he was subjected.  That did not happen.

As of this writing, I have definitely not written Bernie off, and if he wins the nomination, then the process forward is simple and clear:  Help carry Bernie to a sweeping victory and into the whitehouse.  The remainder of this discussion is carried under the assumption, however likely, that Bernie does not get the nomination, because only then does the path become much less clear.

As of this writing, Bernie may yet run as an independent or Green.  Sure, he might, but I find that highly doubtful.  Bernie is a person of honor.  When he signed on to the Democratic Party he did so honorably, with the understanding that if he loses the nomination, he is still a member of the party and owes it his loyalty.  I believe he will honor that commitment, and I will not fault him for it.  Furthermore, although I will debunk the spoiler argument below, I believe Bernie is acutely aware of the spoiler perception, and he will stridently avoid that role.   Of course, if Bernie does run as an independent or Green, then the path forward is simple:  We help carry Bernie to a sweeping victory and into the whitehouse.  However it is not something to expect, and again, the remainder of this discussion concerns what to do if Bernie is not a candidate for the presidency under any party.

If Hillary gets the nomination, why not just vote for her?  The answer to the “hold your nose and vote Blue” argument is simple for those who follow the campaigns and the issues.  To begin with the most damning, consider why Democrats and Independents alike were so appalled by the Bush, Jr. regime.  While this regime denied climate change, invested in coal and oil, obstructed gay rights, and defended torture, clearly the most onerous action was the entry into a devastating war, illegal and based on deliberate lies, that killed thousands of US citizens and millions of Iraqi and Afghan people, destabilizing the region and causing incalculable damage and blowback.  This is the reason Bush is such a hated president.  Thinking of this, consider that HRC voted in favor of that war.  Thus, HRC is complicit in the most heinous of Republican actions.  She is not an alternative to Republican policy, but a continuation of it.

Beyond this, HRC is on the wrong side of a host of issues that are of critical and urgent importance:  Fracking, coal, the TPP, health care, education costs, financial sector regulation, electoral reform, and campaign finance reform.  The TPP, in particular, is a potential death sentence for the planet, and obstructing the path to universal health care is a death sentence for millions of US citizens.  One may understand compromise as a strategy, but to embrace the exact opposite stance on the most critical issues is not compromise – it's suicide.

Bernistas who oppose Hillary are merely parroting right-wing lies and conspiracy theories.  No, we're not.  If you review the above list of issue-centered concerns, you will find no mention of e-mails (and Bernie was right to dismiss this distraction at the outset), Benghazi, or Whitewater.  Trumpies might jump on those false accusations, but we stick to the real issues.  It might be worth noting that one of the reasons that Trumpies and other right-wing voices adhere to those common conspiracies instead of the real issues is that when it comes to the real issues – those mentioned above – the Trumpies and right-wingers are in complete agreement with HRC.  So they cannot attack her on those substantive grounds.  A notable exception is that Trump opposes the TPP, although not for the right reason:  As a real estate mogul, Trump cannot profit from moving manufacturing overseas to nations where there are few labor and environmental laws.  Since the TPP does not benefit him personally, he can afford to oppose it, thus capitalizing on public opposition to it, especially among workers who rightly fear overseas job loss.

There are more than two choices.  One cornerstone attack is that there are only two choices for president:  the Democrat or the Republican.  This attack often comes in the form of the soundbite, “opposing Hillary is equal to voting for Trump.” For people under this belief, the only alternative to the two major parties is not voting, which they consider irresponsible.  They might be right about voting being the responsible thing to do, and they might not, but they ignore the fact that there are more than two parties to vote for.  There are eighteen parties.  I have been a member of the Green Party since before Bernie came along.  I have changed my registration to Democrat three times:  to vote for Jesse Jackson in 1984, for Barack Obama in 2008,  and Bernie Sanders in 2016.  If Bernie does not receive the Democratic nomination, I will change my registration back to Green and support the excellent candidate Jill Stein, a serious contender who has developed an enormous amount of political maturity over the course of her multiple runs for the Green Party.

But...  Ralph Nader, 2000!  The argument that Nader cost Gore the election in 2000 as been adequately debunked here: [  (copy and paste the link)    http://disinfo.com/2010/11/debunked-the-myth-that-ralph-nader-cost-al-gore-the-2000-election/   ] .  In Florida 2000, Nader took 4% of the independent vote.  At the same time, 13 % of registered Democrats voted for Bush.  Therefore, it was not Nader who cost Florida the election, but Gore's failure to energize his own base.  The danger of repeating that error for the DNC is clear:  Bernie has energized the base to an astonishing degree, while Hillary captures votes solely on name recognition, preferential media treatment, and a perception of inevitability as  “Obama's chosen.”  I should add that I have never supported Nader for president, and in fact, I voted for Gore in 2000.  I admire Nader's work in consumer advocacy and journalism, but he was never a good presidential candidate, because he is abrasive and can be condescending.  Jill Stein, in contrast, is an outstanding, personable, eloquent, and presidential candidate.

It is also worth noting that Jill is not the only minor candidate in the race.  Gary Johnson is running on the Libertarian ticket, and currently polling in double digits nationally.  Libertarianism is a more conservative philosophy than the Green platform, so Johnson is as likely to draw off the Republican vote as Jill is to draw off the Democrat vote.  The notion that minor parties only draw down Democrat votes is part of the false narrative perpetuated by the Democratic party to trick people into voting for Democrats against their own interest and conscience.

Finally, in our worries about the spoiler argument in general, remember that Hillary voted for the very crime that we consider to be the worst act of the worst president in US history:  The Iraq war.  Getting her into office is not as important as standing against the system that puts war and profit ahead of human life.

But...  Trump 2016!  Fear is a powerful motivator, and the corporate elites know this.  They use it, and are masters of it.  They know that fear shuts down the reasoning centers of the brain, and reduces people to an emotional fight-or-flight state.  In order to surmount the Trump fear argument, we must first overcome our fear.    Once we do so, and bring our emotional response under the scrutiny of reason, we find that the fear actually has little basis.

• I find it is important to point out that if Democrats were so afraid of Trump, then they should have supported Bernie from day one, since he was clearly the one who was energizing the base and beating Republicans in the polls.  If the Democrats choose to field the weaker candidate, then it is not our responsibility to support that candidate no matter what.  It's not to us to give up on our dreams and support the candidate who opposes everything we stand for (see the issues above) because of their delusional support for the only Democrat who could conceivably lose to Trump.
• Trump will never be president.  He never intended to be, and he never will be.  History shows that open bigots cannot be elected (since Reagan).  Both the Bush win and the Romney loss illustrate this. Even the Bushes knew that they had to at least pay lip service to minorities, including immigrants, gays, Native Americans, blacks, and women.  Without those blocks, they could never have been elected.  Romney lost because of his open disdain for minorities and persons of lower income.  Don't be fooled by Trump's sweep of Republican primaries.  He was only being supported by Republicans, a generally bigoted population.  He will not be sufficiently supported in the general election, and polling already shows this.  Even his own party is treating him as toxic.  He cannot win.  Don't worry about it.
• The Republican Party is done with Trump, as he has served his purpose by scaring people into supporting HRC.  The Repubs were never afraid of HRC.  She is, in fact, their dream candidate: pro-corporate, pro-PAC, pro-Israel, against campaign finance reform.  They put up a hostile front, but it's all for show.  Even the front is collapsing as many top Repubs are saying they will support Hillary, because Trump is unstable.  As if they didn't know that from the beginning.  Just like the Democrats, the Republicans would rather lose the election than disappoint their corporate masters.  It's important to remember that elections have always been orchestrated by corporate interests.  The legal structure for super-PACs is merely the culmination of this fact.  Elections are no longer up for votes;  They are up for sale.  The corporate elites don't care whether a Democrat or Republican is in the whitehouse, but they benefit from making the electorate care. HRC will benefit them, so they created Trump as the monster to scare us into voting for her.  It worked pretty well on most people.  The fear of Trump suppressed their reasoning centers and led them to support Hillary over Bernie, despite the rational observation that Bernie was the better candidate to defeat Trump.  With an HRC victory, the corporations will consolidate their power in numerous ways:  They prove that the power of super-PACs to influence elections is insurmountable, thus establishing a permanent position for themselves as king-makers, ending democracy in the process.   They install a candidate who voted for war, wall street bailouts, maintaining insurance companies as gatekeepers  to for-profit health care, and deregulating wall street – everything that they wanted and we didn't.   As for the issues that divide Republicans and Democrats –  gun control, women's health, gay rights, immigrant rights – well, the corporate elites do not care about those things in the slightest.  They are perfect smokescreen issues to let us fight to the death over, while they laugh all the way to the bank.  So, while we sit here voting for Hillary because we're afraid of Trump, they're celebrating because they were never afraid of Trump, only of Bernie.

Voting for minor parties is just throwing away your vote.  No, it isn't.  Throwing away your vote is voting for someone you don't believe in because you think you have no other options.  There are really two systems you can vote for.  You can vote for a two-party system that has made halting progress on civil rights while making rapid and sure progress at consolidating corporate control over every major decision made in the United States.  Or you can vote for alternatives that promote democracy and community-minded thinking.  Voting against your own interest because you think you cannot win is irrational.  We don't do what's right because we think we can win.  We do what's right because it's right.  We may not win this time, and we may not win next time, but every inch we move forward is another inch toward victory.  The only way to lose is to give up.  That's what I would call throwing away your vote and your voice.

So, what then?  It's not my purpose here to convince people what they should do, only to argue that we should act out of conviction, not out of fear, and to suggest that there are other options than voting against your own belief, conscience, or interest.

• If Bernie does not get the nomination, I will vote for Jill Stein.  Jill might not win, but moving up her poll numbers is an important statement.  Every percentage point is an argument to others that this is a voice worth listening to, this is a legitimate and real alternative.  I believe in the Green platform (which has everything that Bernie's platform has), and I am inspired by the international nature of the Green Party.  This party began in Germany in 1980, and has had a significant global presence ever since.  Please visit the website of the United States Green Party to learn more.
• It's never been just a presidential campaign.  The Bernie campaign grew out of diverse movements that had already gained enormous momentum across the nation long before Bernie announced his candidacy.  Occupy, the climate movement, Tar Sands Blockade, kayaktivists, the anti-fracking movement, movements for net neutrality and against the TPP, Black Lives Matter and other racial, police, and economic justice movements, indigenous movements like Idle No More, cyber-activists like Anonymous, the BDS movement – all of these found a resonance with the Bernie campaign, and found in the man a champion.  But he was never more than a spokesperson.  To his enormous credit, Bernie was always very clear about that with his slogan:  “Not me, us.”  The movement was ours all along, it never belonged to him.  If the system succeeds in marginalizing and sidelining Bernie, that will do nothing at all to slow or depress the movements.  The Bernie campaign offered us a great and extended opportunity to coalesce our movements, gain a huge public platform, and get our message out despite active and pervasive media suppression.  We have learned new techniques and forged new connections.   We are stronger than ever, and we are legion.  We fight on, and we win.  Consider these victories already achieved:  
• “Democratic socialism” is no longer a “dirty word” in US political discourse.  
• “The 1%” has permanently entered the vocabulary of the discourse.  
• Universal health care and education have demonstrated broad popular support.
• Shell was blocked from entering the Arctic.
• Numerous gas pipelines have been disrupted and abandoned.
• Gun control has shown up to 90% popular support and has reached a congressional vote.
• Marijuana is being progressively decriminalized.
• Increasing attention has been drawn to police violence and racism.
• A major campaign has been run without super-PAC money that presented a substantial challenge to the establishment.
• While few of these are outright victories, they definitely represent significant progress in the right direction.  And we have only begun to fight.  And this must be our understanding.  A Hillary candidacy would not be the end of our movement, nor would it be the beginning.  It is simply one event in the struggle.

While I still hope the Democratic National Committee is intelligent enough to select the winning candidate, I'm afraid that I doubt that they are.  Or, more accurately, I doubt if winning the election is their real goal – keeping their corporate gravy train is the real goal, and that means backing HRC whether she wins or loses.

If Bernie is the candidate, then our decision is easy:  back him all the way.  It could still happen.  But if Bernie is not the candidate, there are other options than merely supporting Hillary, and I consider the option of supporting Hillary to be unacceptable.  I will back Jill Stein and all of the movements that I have been supporting and participating in all along.  Anybody who wants to give me shit about that for any reason can reread everything I just wrote, act in their own conscience, and bite me.

A Dream of Transmigration

In this dream I am reading a book about the life of Aristotle.  There is a passage concerning the development of the theory of transmigration of souls in Greek thought.  In the passage, Plato is didactically questioning Aristotle.  Aristotle seems to be at a philosophical impasse, unable to progress.  Suddenly, Plato grabs a brass urn filled with water, and strikes Aristotle roughly on the head, and shouts, “Ask a question!”  Aristotle is stunned into a briefly altered state, and shouts out, “What is the transmigration of souls?”  By this time the dream's point of view has begun fluctuating between first person as a reader of past events, and first person as Aristotle himself.

Plato is delighted with Aristotle's question;  the phrase “transmigration of souls” is a new one in the philosophy of the time.  Together, teacher and pupil analyze the phrase etymologically.  They decide that “transmigration” must refer to a movement that is beyond migration.  It is a crossing of borders that is so emphatic that it causes the borders themselves to cease to exist.  The philosophers then turn to the word “soul.”  they are using the Greek word “psyche.”  In the dream, this word is consistently pronounced in its Greek form:  “soo-kay,” as opposed to the Anglicized “sy-kee,” because the Anglicized pronunciation is steeped in reductionistic associations of Western psychological thought (psychosis, psychosomatic, psychoanalysis, etc.).  Maintaining the Greek pronunciation holds the word in a more multidimensional, nearly trans-verbal connotation.

Still in the dream, I reflect on the tension between the Western and Eastern elements of the story.  Plato and Aristotle, the most quintessentially Western of philosophers, are engaged in a teaching method that is decidedly Zen:  Bringing the student to an impasse, then inducing satori through a sudden strike.  Whereas a Zen master would have struck with a staff, Aristotle uses an object more appropriate to his cultural milieu:  a brass urn.  Why filled with water?  Is that a Taoist reference?  And also the tension between the pronunciations of “psyche,”  which suggests a tension between the ancient, mystical roots of Greek culture (the world of the Delphic Oracle and the Pythagorean Rites), with the modernized, Anglo/Germanized philosophy that became its later development.

Holding these questions and tensions, I awaken.

Discussing the dream with T., I find myself reminded of another dream I had about twenty-five years ago, in which I overcome fear to enter a haunted house.  In the haunted house I discover an ancient brass urn, richly engraved, and compelling in its appearance.  I reach out and touch the urn, and suddenly a huge ball of light and energy bursts forth from the urn and slams into the side of my head, entering me.  It is the spirit of another person.  I am not afraid, but elated and ecstatic.  A testimony to the power of this dream is that I have carried it with me for so long.  It is a memory as clear as any significant event in my waking life.

So.  The brass urn full of water is a vessel that contains a soul.  It is that with which Plato strikes Aristotle in the side of the head, just as I was struck before.  And the transmigration of souls is a movement so complete that it erases prior boundaries.