(c) 2001 The Edwardsville Journal of Sociology, Volume 1

The Green Vote 2000: Unintended Consequences of Praxis

Mark Hedley

In the weeks leading up to last November's presidential election, the Democratic Party realized that its hegemony was failing. The polling data was as clear as polling data can be. If a significant proportion of the "potential" Green vote became an "actual" Green vote, the Democrats would lose the White House. The Republicans, being no less versed in the generation and interpretation of polling data than the Democrats, likewise recognized the importance of the situation. If a significant proportion of the potential Green vote actually voted Green, the Republicans would win the White House. So, the Democrats overtly set about convincing potential Green voters to vote against Bush and the Republicans covertly set about convincing potential Green voters to vote for Nader.

I voted Green. I voted Green not because I wanted to send the Democrats a wake-up call. I voted Green NOT because I was illusioned into believing that I could help the Green Party attain a voting share significant enough to provide it with federal matching funds in subsequent elections. On the contrary, I recognize that my single vote lacks the weight to send such a call to the Democrats or to influence the Feds to pay the Green Party for its political activities. In fact, I was willing to vote Green because I recognized that my vote did not matter in terms of such "big picture" concerns. My single vote, as one among millions, had no significant influence whatsoever in terms of the outcome of the 2000 election. Sure, if enough thousands or millions of others voted as I did, the election would be effected. But those thousands and millions of others did not know me and did not know who I was voting for. My vote had absolutely no influence on their votes. Had I voted differently, they would have voted the same. In sum, I did not vote in some vain attempt to influence the outcome of the election. Had I believed that my vote really mattered to the outcome of the election, I would have voted for Gore.

I voted Green purely for reasons of self-identification. I voted Green because I felt comfortable with identifying myself with the politics of the Green Party. I voted Green because I could proudly say in public that I liked the idea of a multi-ethnic single mother, the matriarch of a postmodern family, a woman who paradoxically lives on a semi-autonomous Native American reservation, to serve as our Vice President. I especially liked the idea that such a woman would represent the United States in international politics. I also didn't mind identifying myself as one who likes the idea of a consumer advocate occupying the office of the presidency. Given my recognition that my vote didn't matter in terms of who actually won the election, I voted for the ticket that I was most comfortable identifying with.

Well, the polling data was correct. A significant enough proportion of the potential Green vote actually voted Green and Bush, Jr., won the race by default. The Democrats have gasped in indignation and the Republicans have chuckled in amusement. To the Democrats, Nader is a pariah; to the Republicans, he is a dunce. What both parties have railed to recognize is that those who actually voted Green have succeeded in attaining a progressive political goal that they never even contemplated pursuing. These radical but not yet disillusioned souls have succeeded in forcing the media of the United States to educate itself and, thereby, its audience as to how non-democratic our election process really is.

If only a small proportion of those who case their votes for Nader and LaDuke last November had succumbed to the hegemonic pull of the Democratic Party, Gore's success in the national popular vote would have been much clearer to the media much earlier. Further, if this small proportion had translated into only a few thousand votes for Gore in Florida, the media's initial projection of a Gore victory in Florida would never have been withdrawn. The outcome of the election would have been put to bed before we all went to bed, and government as usual would have proceeded as usual - unencumbered by the thought process.

If this had been the case, we never would have heard about the infamous "butterfly" ballots. The words "dimpled" and "pregnant" and "hanging" would have never been attached to the word "chad" in our lexicon. We would have remained blissfully ignorant as to how black-lists for which nobody claims responsibility are routinely used to deny the franchise to multitudes of eligible voters. We would have remained unable to distinguish between "undercounts" and "overcounts" when it comes to our ballots. We would still be unaware of the corrupt use of partisan election officials to oversee the distribution and validation of absentee ballots as well as of the alleged use of law enforcement pawns to obstruct the access of motivated voters to valid polling places. We would have continued to mistakenly assume that our intentional choices between candidates are actually counted as votes. Perhaps most importantly, we would have been allowed (encouraged?) to continue under the assumption that socioeconomic status is uncorrelated with the opportunity to exercise voting rights.

I must admit that I am pessimistic regarding the fate of progressive politics over the next four or (gulp!) even eight years. Hopefully, any damage that the Bushites might accomplish in growing the global corporate beast, in eroding civil rights, in exacerbating social and economic inequalities, and in degrading the natural environment will produce exponential growth in the magnitude and dedication of contrary civil protest and progressive social movement. After all, civil protest and social movement have never really been the role of institutionalized politics. As Antonio Gramsci so convincingly argued in his Prison Notebooks, the expertise of politicians is in hegemony. Praxis is up to the people.

Even given my pessimism regarding the Bush administration, I am perhaps more comfortable with a destabilized political hegemony supervised by Bush than I am with a stable political hegemony supervised by Gore. It is my belief that the Democrats are no more adept than the Republicans at praxis and every bit as adept as the Republicans at hegemony. If we the people do actually force the politicians to deal with the electoral fiasco that is U.S. politics, then perhaps the correlation between socioeconomic status and enfranchisement can be eradicated. If this optimistic goal does actually prove to be the ultimate result of "Election 2000," then we progressives will all have the Green Party to thank for our democracy in the long term.

Mark Hedley is a faculty member in the Department of Sociology at Southern Illinois University Edwardsville. mhedley@siue.edu