AOC understands how to encourage progressivism without handing elections to the GOP
AOC backs Biden
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is not a centrist Democrat. But she is backing the centrist/corporate Joe Biden for President in 2024. That political calculation shows AOC understands American politics far better than some other members of the Democratic Party’s left wing. In 2020, AOC was a Sanders supporter. But after Sanders dropped out of the race, she switched to Biden — not some third-party candidate.
In 2023, her backing of Biden is equally realistic. This Thursday, on “Pod Save America,” she announced her support for the President, with commentary. When asked how Biden was doing, she replied,
“I think he’s done quite well, given the limitations that we have. I do think that there are ebbs and flows.”
And when asked if she supported Biden over RFK Jr. and Marianne Williamson she said
“I believe, given that field, yes.”
Predictably this caused wailing on the left of the left. Former Bernie Sanders senior aide Briahna Joy Gray, for example, tweeted:
“Endorsing Joe Biden now is a betrayal of progressive interests. It was true of Bernie Sanders’ endorsement & its [sic] true of AOC.
*Most* Democrats don’t want Biden to run. Bernie and AOC are tragically out of step w/ the movement & the moment.”
Who does Gray want to run? She does not say. Not nominating an alternative Democratic candidate makes it likely that Gray is contemplating a third-party candidate.
Joe Biden has never been a favorite of Bernie Sanders’ core supporters. But Sanders himself is another democratic socialist who understands the reality of American presidential races. On January 20th, 2025, when Roberts swears in the 47th President of the United States, that person will either be a Democrat or a Republican. Therefore he supports Biden.
Third-party voting
This reality pisses a lot of people off. So much so they will vote for a third-party candidate and celebrate the purity of their politics. These dissidents are certainly entitled to do so. But I wonder what they think they are achieving. A third-party candidate cannot win. A vote for that candidate does not advance the third-party voter’s policies.
However, extremists, who vote for a minor party candidate whose policies best resemble their own, can result in the winner being the major party candidate who least represents their philosophy.
The Nader effect
Take Ralph Nader in 2000. Had Nader not contested Florida, Gore would have won the state and the Presidency. I understand that Gore did not win his home state, that the Florida GOP did all they could to cook the books, that the US Supreme Court was biased, and Gore should have fought harder. However, all that would have been moot without Nader’s 97,488 votes in the Sunshine State.
Nader believed — as I assume did his supporters also — that there is no difference between the two major parties. In their eyes, Republicans and Democrats are two sides of the same corporate-sponsored coin. If that were true, I would understand third-party voting. But the two parties are not the same — not even close.
Consider abortion, taxation, civil rights, ecology, medical insurance, climate change, corporate accountability, and unions. Anyone who thinks there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans is delusional. Of course, there are things a centrist Democratic candidate will support that are anathema to progressives. But how voting in a way that makes it more likely the Republican wins is good for the progressive cause is beyond me.
Progressives, who want a voice in running the country, must support winning candidates - there are no moral victories in politics. If they want more progressives to win, they need to do two things. One, build a new progressive party from the ground up. Two, change how America votes.
Nothing is more egotistical than some disaffected candidate swanning up every four years to run a look-at-me spoiler campaign. Let them put in the effort. in 2000, Ralph Nader ran as the Green Party candidate. What did he do for the Green Party in the years before the election? Was Nader in the weeds building the organization? Did he recruit Congressional candidates, or help Greens run for state, local offices, school boards, et al?
(Aside: Far from helping the Greens, Nader hurt them. Had the Greens received 5% of the national vote in 2000 (instead of 2.74%), they would have qualified for federal funds in 2004. Nader could have got them close to the promised land by campaigning in New York, California, and other large liberal states. Instead, he chose to campaign in Pennsylvania, Florida, and other swing states, becoming a spoiler after promising not to do so.)
Ranked voting and proportional representation
All activists looking for an alternative to the two major parties should work to change how America votes. Minor parties need to lobby for ranked choice voting and proportional representation. Ranked choice would allow people to initially vote for a minor candidate knowing that if their preferred choice lost, their vote for a candidate with a chance of winning would still count. This multi-candidate option would encourage more people to vote for minor candidates.
Note: Maine, Alaska, 47 US cities, and some GOP primaries already use ranked voting.
The current system — first past the post — guarantees that all or almost all incumbents will be from the two major parties. A third party that wins 25% of the vote in a state would still be empty-handed if they did not have a candidate who finished first in any individual race.
On the other hand, proportional representation allows minor parties to gain a foothold in the federal and state legislatures. For example, if the Greens won 12% of the total congressional vote in Texas in the 2024 elections, proportional representation would give them 4 US Representatives. The Democratic Party would be attentive to their needs in that case.
A welcome effect of proportional representation is that it would make gerrymandering irrelevant and ensure that parties large and small would try to appeal to the most voters.
Conclusion
This essay is written from a liberal perspective. It is meant to suggest how progressive Democrats could get more attention for their policies without handing elections to Republicans. However, the same arguments are equally valid for right-wing voters who would love to vote for conservatives who are not MAGAs — but do not want to help Democrats win.