Karen McKim

Karen McKim
Location
Wisconsin,
Birthday
August 30
Bio
Also at http://karenmckim.wordpress.com/ Middle-aged, middle-class Midwesterner. I have conservative political values: I want to conserve things like our traditions of liberty, justice, voting rights, Medicare and Social Security, good public schools, religious freedom, and safe communities. Because I do not want to sacrifice those things to increase the profits and power of international banks and oil companies, most would call me a liberal.

MY RECENT POSTS

Karen McKim's Links

Salon.com
JUNE 12, 2012 12:49AM

My last vote for the lesser of two evils

Rate: 9 Flag

My friend Denise, a dedicated Democratic Party official in Ohio, wrote to me Friday to say:

I've been thinking of you and your hardworking friends in Wisconsin all week. How are you all? I imagine you're feeling like we did in 2004 after the Kerry campaign.

My friends have been asking those of us with contacts in Wisconsin to get some feedback from the folks on the ground.  Do you have any insights to share with us? What are everyone's plans now? Is it still too soon to know? Let me know.

Thinking of you all.  Proud of you all.  You sure put up a good fight.  You made them work for it.  And you did take the Senate !  Congratulations for that!

 Purchased Parties

I responded:

Hi, Denise! Thanks for your sympathy and concern, and for the reminder that we’ve all survived being on the losing end of an election at one time or another. If you could have been at my local grassroots club’s meeting two days after the election, you would not be worried about us. We had no time for sad talk because of talk like this:

  •  “The grassroots club in Fort Atkinson is going to start a Move To Amend effort, and they’ve asked to meet with us to talk about our success in the Town of Westport. Who can go?”
  • “Our bank account is still the one that Ron opened in his own name. We need to get moving on incorporation and get a real bank account, because we’ve got a fundraising opportunity at the village summer festival. Who will be in charge of that?”
  • “Let’s brainstorm a list of topics for our next teach-ins.” (I was note-taker for this agenda item. We created a list of 38 possible topics.)

So much had been put on the back burner during the recall that this meeting was an explosion of ideas. A naive observer might have thought we had all recently returned from vacation.

As for insights, I can’t speak for everyone, but I learned a lot.

For one thing, I learned that victory is not guaranteed by getting out the vote. On Election Day, I was knocking on doors in a solid blue working-class neighborhood. By suppertime, I was going very fast, shouting through each screen door, “I’m here to make sure you know the polls close in 45 minutes. Have you voted?” On the other side of dozens of doors, I found only one person who had not yet voted—an older woman whose knee was acting up. I told her next-door neighbor about the problem, and she got a ride to the poll. We got out the vote and Walker won anyway.

I no longer believe the candidate with more money will always win. Walker’s millions enabled him to carpet-bomb our televisions, phones, radio, and Internet with his ads, but he barely jiggled the needle between 2010 and 2012. 

So what does matter?

I hate to say this to someone who loves the Democratic Party as much as I know you do, but here it is: A party cannot prevail when its main selling point is being the lesser of two evils. I learned that—paraphrasing the classic advice regarding small dreams—the lesser evil has no power to move the hearts of men. In Ohio, you were able to vote on the right to collective bargaining by itself, and you won. In Wisconsin, we had to wage our battle as Republican-versus-Democrat, and we lost.

In the 2010 Massachusetts Senate election, Scott Brown got the vote of everyone who passionately opposed government involvement in health insurance, and he won. Martha Coakley got the vote of everyone who passionately supported something that in a few years might remind them of the single-payer system they once hoped for. She lost. In Wisconsin last Tuesday, Walker got the vote of everyone who passionately supports smaller, cheaper, weaker government, and he won. Barrett got the vote of everyone who passionately supports not making our government small, cheap, and weak quite so quickly. He lost.

Settling for the lesser evil undermines the policies, parties, and politicians who could genuinely lead us in the right direction. Walker’s victories will do some permanent damage to Wisconsin, but they have also given impetus to a new generation of younger, more progressive leaders. When you hear  Congressional candidate Kelda Helen Roys talk, you start to see the light at the end of the tunnel. You’ll be hearing more from her, Kathleen Vinehout, Jon Erpenbach, Mahlon Mitchell, Lori Compass, Donna Seidel, and others.

I know my decision to forswear voting for the lesser evil increases the likelihood the greater evil will win some elections in the near term, but electing the lesser has its unique dangers. For example, look at Obama’s policy that a president can arrest, detain, and murder American citizens on his personal say-so. If a Republican president had decided secret internal White House deliberations constitute due process of law for imposing the death penalty on an American citizen, every Democratic candidate across the nation would be speaking out and in the process, educating and winning voters' hearts and minds. But instead most are silenced. We have no leaders to stand up for this basic sacred American right.

Just as Walker has revived a long-sleeping populist energy on Wisconsin’s left, a Romney victory in November might call forth the muscular progressive leadership America so desperately needs. It might give Democratic progressives the opportunity to grab the party's rudder from the Clinton-era corporatists or, with voters like me,  jump ship to a newly viable third party.

I won’t be hoping or working for a Romney victory, of course, and it pains me to say this to you and your Democratic friends. I know how hard you work, too, and how much you love our country.

I promise you that I will give my support to Obama and the national Democratic Party just as soon as they free themselves from corporate control and begin to fight aggressively for the 99%. Until they do, they will keep losing more elections, and I will be looking elsewhere for the people who can lead us toward the America I truly want.

Your tags:

TIP:

Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:

Comments

Type your comment below:
In this critical period, the Democrats MUST denounce political correctness entirely. They must use a harsh rhetoric to discredit the other side. It is time to tell the truth--all the negative stuff about the other side, save nothing--angrily and without fear. They also must think of every way possible to get the people to vote Democrat. Excellent post, Karen. R
You just invalidated a whole slew of people's claim to morality. They won't like that!

It's not about right vs. left, it's about right vs. wrong. It's not OK to be "pragmatic" and "adult" and "compromise" - or any other mislabeling - so we only get half a holocaust. No holocaust at all is tolerable and nothing less can be fought for.
Nicely written post Karen but under the current system voting third party when you would likely prefer Obama to Romney makes it easier for Romney to win. My dearest friend has voted for Nader in the last three elections and with her I've tried the following argument. It's as though people are choosing their ideal candidate much as you would in the first round of a French presidential election. But in France after the first round, the top two candidates (assuming no one gets 50% +1) face off. Here it's as though they scrap teh first round and let everyone proceed to the second ballot.

If this were a country whose global import were more akin to Singapore of Austria, I'd say fine, vote as your unfettered conscious dictates and even if you get the Romney candidate, no great harm is done. But the U.S. being the influential of all countries, it causes vast problems when it chooses the wrong policies, like Iraq.

While you might feel more true to your principles in voting for none of the above, Romney has advocated a hot war with Iran and an economic one with China. His Supreme Court appointees will be more like Thomas/Roberts/Scalia than Sotomayor/Kagan. And whatever you dislike about Obama's policies, a Romney presidency won't change any of that.
As long as no one ever votes their principles we'll never have principled candidates or policies. Again, a vote to sink a boat slower rather than faster is still a vote to sink it. So "pragmatic"!
Personally, I'd get deeply involved at the local level from the state legislature down to city councilors and school board members. And don't even think about the presidential race. As much as I sympathize with you, in this election a third party effort in a swing state like Wisconsin is a losing proposition.
if you insist on voting for a politician, look at the society around you, and maybe decide you want democracy. you haven't got it, you should know.
If you want to consider voting for the better candidate to be "voting for the lesser of two evils"...you are part of the problem, Karen...not of the solution.

Voting for Barack Obama in November will NOT be voting for the lesser of two evils...because neither of the two major candidates are evil. They are both human beings...products of being human; and they are candidates of the two major parties...products of how politics has always conducted itself.

Until the people who champion a progressive agenda finally wake up and see that they are being unrealistic in their expectations...all we are going to get in this country is further movement to the right.

Stop thinking about miracles...and start thinking about the better outcome.

I will vote for Obama in November...and I will do so knowing I am voting for the better outcome. I will not be voting for the lesser of two evils...and I will be lamenting that so many otherwise intelligent people will aid the rightward lurch of our country because of thoughts such as you expressed above.
I'll be voting for the better (though imperfect) candidate, Karen. I think it's a good thing, for example, that insurance companies can't exclude people with pre-existing conditions and that parents can keep their grown children on their health insurance until age 26; that the Lily Ledbetter Act was passed; that the auto industry was rescued from bankruptcy; that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was repealed; that banks are no longer middlemen in the federal student loan program; that Souter and Stevens were replaced by Sotomayor and Kagan; and so forth.

There's a long list of things that a Republican President would do differently or roll back. To me, it's worth voting.

Here's a different way to think of it: Take any President, even the ones we consider great Presidents, like Washington or Lincoln or FDR, and apply the same reasoning. Washington owned slaves; Lincoln suspended habeas corpus; FDR put 120,000 Japanese citizens in internment camps. When they went up for election or re-election, they were also the lesser of two evils. From this perspective, Americans always vote for the lesser of two (or more) evils.
honest, thoughtful and true. But you need people with power, money, and-distasteful as it is, political know how to fight power. Wilberforce needed the political skill of Pitt and his allies just as they individually needed the morality of Wilberforce.
Don't get me wrong, folks, I hear you loud and clear. You don't need to convince me that Obama is better than Romney in some important ways. I'm not hostile to Obama and I'm open to backing him as soon as he's backing me.

The Democrats lost Wisconsin because they couldn't win the votes of the majority of working class voters. They couldn't win those votes because there is so little evidence that they are any better for them. There is so little evidence of benefit for the working class because the Democratic Party's policies are so constrained by obeisance to their big-money financiers.

To help the party of the working class win more elections, I'm doing the best I can to tell any candidate who will listen that I really, really, really mean it: Freeing democracy from the control of big-money interests is my number one issue this election year, and should be theirs. If you, on the other hand, are saying that American citizens are so far removed from power that we can no longer tell politicians how to earn our votes, you're coming close to admitting that democracy is already dead.

So my question for you is this: How do you propose to make Obama and the national Democrats respond to the 70-80% of Americans like us, who want to get big money out of politics? What are you doing to make them take us seriously?
Karen,

This is a fantastic response to your Democratic-Party-official friend. This is the message Democrats, in general, have forgotten. Over a year ago, I posted an essay titled WISCONSIN vs. OBAMA'S COMPROMISE in which I quoted Harry Truman’s warnings about exactly such failures of principles. Here’s what I quoted from a speech he gave in 1952:
“I've seen it happen time after time. When the Democratic candidate allows himself to be put on the defensive and starts apologizing for the New Deal and the fair Deal, and says he really doesn't believe in them, he is sure to lose. The people don't want a phony Democrat. If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat, and I don't want any phony Democratic candidates in this campaign.
“We are getting a lot of suggestions to the effect that we ought to water down our platform and abandon parts of our program. These, my friends, are Trojan horse suggestions. I have been in politics for over 30 years, and I know what I am talking about, and I believe I know something about the business. One thing I am sure of: never, never throw away a winning program. This is so elementary that I suspect the people handing out this advice are not really well-wishers of the Democratic Party.
“More than that, I don't believe they have the best interests of the American people at heart. There is something more important involved in our program than simply the success of a political party.”
Address at the National Convention Banquet of the Americans for Democratic Action (May 17, 1952)
(My emphases)
I suggested CHANGING THE NATURE OF THE WAR

If the current Democratic leadership doesn’t correct its direction in the next two years, then progressives who self-identify as Democrats must face a simple truth; we may need to lose a few upcoming battles in order to change the nature of the war so that the war becomes winnable.

I think you have presented exactly the same perspective here. The bottom line is that FEAR is dictating voters, now, and that can only lead to catastrophe.

RATED
Sorry about the formatting ...
such a damn easy question,
but impossible w/o courage.

"So what does matter? "


in a leader, honesty integrity loyalty. did i say honesty?
in a citizen: to trust a leader.

this has, uh, never been done, to my knowledge.
This is fabulous commentary from Mike McCabe, of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign.

Excerpts:
What Democrats did when public employee unions were under siege in Wisconsin is not what they did when the housing bubble burst and foreclosures exploded and large numbers of people were losing their homes. What they did for public sector unions is not what they did for little people caught in a financial vise when banks and Wall Street investment firms started behaving more like casinos and brought the economy to its knees. No walkouts. No mass demonstrations. No banksters sent to jail.

Democrats largely looked the other way at credit default swaps and collateralized debt obligations and hedge funds and derivatives and subprime mortgages and other such snake oil. Might that have something to do with the fact that you see Goldman Sachs second and JP Morgan Chase sixth and Citigroup seventh on the list of biggest donors to the 2008 campaign of the Democratic Party's national standard bearer?

When...hundreds of thousands of Americans without strong union representation were losing their private-sector jobs to outsourcing and offshoring, Democrats organized no meaningful opposition. They didn't flee the House and Senate chambers to deny Republicans a quorum and throw up an obstacle to congressional approval of "free trade" hoaxes like NAFTA and CAFTA. Hell, they helped pass those measures. Those job-killing schemes would not and could not have been greenlighted without Democratic support.
They didn't flee the House and Senate chambers to deny Republicans a quorum and throw up an obstacle to congressional approval of "free trade" hoaxes like NAFTA and CAFTA. Hell, they helped pass those measures. Those job-killing schemes would not and could not have been greenlighted without Democratic support.

What Mike McCabe is NOT saying is that we could VERY, VERY EASILY get back every job we’ve ever lost to the third world because of NAFTA and CAFTA. All we’d have to do is to lower our minimum wage to 75 cents per hour…(well, maybe 50 cents an hour!)…and get lots and lots of Americans willing to work for $20 to $30 per week.

Then Americans would be doing those jobs rather than people elsewhere.

No problem that I can see! (He said sarcastically)

Truly not trying to get on your case, Karen…I appreciate what you are doing and where you are coming from. But the problem is massive…and small solutions are not even going to make a dent in ‘em!
When mr. moron tells You that You are the problem for considering a concept such as the lesser of two evils, You shouldn't feel slighted, Karen.

The village idiot, fRANK, has arrived at Your board to troll You fresh from contradicting a former consultant to the State Department and a whole slew of legal experts, so You shouldn't feel slighted if the man who was NEVER wrong on ANYTHING in his life chides You for Your actions and words.

BTW - His first comment is scripted - he has used the same words dozens of times to admonish others. His second is impromptu, and neither have any basis in reality.


-R-
Oh, and lest I forget. Don't get angry with him - he's in a competition for the honor of being the victor in the mr. most willingly ignorant person on the planet contest held once a century in Mars, NJ. He's just using You to burnish his credentials.
I have to agree with Oldnewlefty on this one, but I do see where your thoughts are coming from. I respect your rights to choose any candidate and vote accordingly.
Just remember, when support is not given the one who may have a greater chance of winning over Romney (or any other of his ilk)we all lose.
peace to you
R for your hard work in Wisconsin