1968: No Choice
Over the past year the American people, through their involvement in the political system of this country, have tested that system and challenged it to come forth with exceptional candidates and creative leadership. That system has answered with Humphrey, Nixon and Wallace.
One could debate at length the relative merits of Humphrey and Nixon. Humphrey, once relieved of the burdens of Lyndon Johnson's presidency, might be able to lead us out of war...On the other hand, Nixon might be freer to disavow the Vietnam policies of the past...
But the truth is that both men are desperately out of touch with the mood and the needs of the people they propose to govern. Neither has come close to challenging the rationale for American aggression in southeast Asia, and neither seems capable of the kind of complete disavowal which can best pave the way for an across-the-board restructuring of U.S. foreign policy...
Why not vote for one of the two as the lesser of two evils and mark it down as a grueling but unavoidable duty? One could vote for Humphrey--were the country still not reeling under the impact of a liberal Democratic administration, had Humphrey not allied himself in Chicago with the repressive chieftains of his party, had he not stood against the minority plank on Vietnam, and were he somehow able to throw off the oppressive wieght of his own rhetoric...
How then does one vote? Often--as in 1964, when Johnson was a clear choice over Goldwater--the logic of the lesser of two evils has been persuasive. This year another course is indicated.
Voting is, of course, a political and not a moral act. But it is a myth that in this election one can have political impact only by voting for Humphrey. Nixon or Wallace and it is a myth that by refusing to support one of them, a voter is sacrificing political influence for the sake of a clear conscience.
There are several possibilities. In 23 states, it is now possible to vote for a party of the left and have one's vote counted. In these states, one should vote to the left of the three major candidates. In states like Massachusetts where no left wing candidates qualify for the ballot or for a legal write-in, one should refuse to vote for the Presidency.
None of these actions is equivalent to wasting a vote; for this year, as never before, newsmen and the major candidates themselves are going to be watching the size of the protest vote. Not only, in other words, is it possible to retain moral integrity by this course of action, but one can also effectively register opposition to the inadequacies of all three major candidates and to the backward-looking American system which produced and sanctions them.
1980: No More of the Same
An ambitious governor announced his presidential candidacy in 1974; shortly thereafter, his campaign autobiography appeared, asking a simple question--"Why Not the Best?" The question bears repeating as America goes to the polls to decide an election more frightening than inspiring. The time has come to break with conventional wisdom, to realize that none of the three major candidates is even a plausible answer to Carter's question.
This election presents a dilemma: the three major candidates do not deserve the presidency, and most votes for one will be votes cast against the others. Surely, the voters are reminded, there are gradations of evil. Surely, many reason, Carter is worth supporting, if only to keep Reagan away from the button and the Supreme Court. The argument is sound in some ways; Carter is pertibly less unnerving than Reagan. But the difference between the men is not large enough to warrant support of Carter. If the incumbent represented the spirit of the Democratic Party, if he stood even in name for progressive social and economic policies, then Carter would win our support. But he represents only himself, a coldly ambitious, unprincipled man who can do America little good and much harm.
The best rallying point for America's discontent, the most meaningful protest vote, is for Barry Commoner, candidate for the Citizens' Party. What Commoner shares with others on the left is a willingness to identify the roots of America's economic woes.
Tired of political parties too heartless to help the poor, scared of leaders hell-bent on the nation's and the world's destruction, and yet full of hope for a cooperative and peaceful future, we urge the rejection of Carter, Reagan and Anderson. The answer to the president's question is simple: Commoner and his Citizens' Party are the best choice, and they deserve support.