Matt is (rightly) annoyed by all of the talk about supporting a third-party candidate, in light of Obama’s moves to the right:

All of this makes me a bit peeved when I see this tribute to Cynthia McKinney and Rosa Clemente, the Green Party candidates. There are all the usual arguments about not being afraid of spoiling, actually supporting candidates whose ideas you agree with and what not. But there’s no real way to get around the central problem with supporting left-wing third party candidates - it’s taking away votes from Democrats, it’s a de facto vote for McCain and will do very little to move Democrats to the left.

I think that all of this hand-wringing, and talk about supporting third-party candidates can be traced to one particular mistake a lot of left-liberals seem to be making.  Namely, they don’t seem to understand that in a two-party system neither party is ideologically pure.  The Democratic and Republican Party’s are “big tents” and every sense of the tired, overused phrase.  Each party contains a wide diversity of interests and groups - some even opposed to others - which vote together only because of a few shared convictions.  Yes, it’s possible to move a party to the left or right, but on the whole, it will still be a fairly marginal push.  Obama, for example, is more liberal than most Democrats, but still falls squarely within the mainstream consensus, and it’s important for left-liberals to understand this.  In fact, I actually find it kind of silly to criticize presidential candidates for not being liberal/conservative enough, because (and especially for Democrats) at that level, it should be a given that the candidate will tend towards the center; ideological orthodoxy doesn’t win primaries, much less actual elections.  In fact, I’m certain that if Cynthia McKinney or Ralph Nader were a major party nominee, they would compromise and equivocate just as much as Obama or McCain, because that’s the nature of major party politics.  Third-parties are ideologically pure more out of circumstances - they aren’t particularly influential - than conviction.

But, if you’re intent on voting for a third-party, that is your right.  Keep in mind though, that if you’re out to effect some sort of change on the party system, your vote - or even a couple hundred thousand of votes - won’t have any real impact on the direction of the party you want to punish.  Keep in mind that it wasn’t Nader which pushed the Democratic Party a bit to the left, it was the concerted effort of activists to change the party at the local and grassroots level.  As Matt said, if you’re really upset with the party’s direction, you’re focus should be on mounting primary challenges to Democrats you feel are insufficiently liberal.  Because, even if you lose, you will have gained enough influence to force a change in the Democrat’s position.  And if you win, you will have done your part to move the party a little bit in your favored direction.

Cross-posted from The United States of Jamerica