Should Women Vote for a Third Party?
January 2, 2010
by Karen
|The opinions expressed herein are those of the author, not necessarily those of The New Agenda.
Neither the Democrat nor the Republican party cares about women as a whole. On the Democrat’s side, we have this Stupak and now Nelson situation, the anti-thesis of why their voters elected this new administration. On the Republican’s side, we have Arlen Specter who was considered much too liberal for the Republican party and in fact did switch parties. In fact, both parties seem to have taken all of their constituencies for granted, but women are the most expendable and exploitable.
So, if you want to find a political party that genuinely cares about your needs and interests, I recommend you chose a third party. I will not steer you in the direction of any single party. Everyone has different needs and interests, so let’s take a look at a variety of the most viable to rise into the ranks of becoming a major party.
First off is the Libertarian party whose values are neither conservative nor liberal. This party believes that the government under both parties has become too entrenched in the personal lives of each citizen. They are against nationalized healthcare and are supportive of unions or marriages between homosexuals; they believe the way Democrats and Republicans handle both issues involves too much government interference. Libertarians believe in a strong national defense system but are opposed to the pre-emptive aggression that we have seen in the past two or three decades. According to the Libertarians, a strong national defense system protects our liberty while pre-emptive aggression violates the liberty of other nations.
Then, there is the Green party, which as the name suggests, is strongly slanted toward environmental issues. Although other parties are also concerned with the environment, the Green party views environmentalism as its primary goal and believes in stronger governmental regulation to protect the environment, a policy that Libertarians interpret as “interference.” The vast majority of the Green party’s stances on women’s rights, minority rights, homosexual rights, etc., are identical to the Libertarian’s stances that fit under the guideline of increasing/protecting personal freedoms. However, the Green party believes the government must take a stronger and more active role; this is where the Greens and Libertarians differ.
Perhaps the newest political party, the Modern Whig party was established by returning veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan who were disillusioned with the Democrats and the Republicans. They view both parties as thriving on extremism that divides our nation; they believe that the majority of people disagree with both extremes. Modern Whigs are the moderate party. Their attitude toward women and other groups is “Government should refrain from legislating morality.” One goal is energy independence from foreign countries. If our nation relied upon its own sources of energy such as offshore drilling, then we would not have become involved in oil-rich regions such as Iraq and Venezuela among others. In this regard, they have taken a conservative stance (offshore drilling) for a liberal concept (opposition to war). This is a new party that I personally hope will become stronger in the future.
Finally, there are a few third parties active in individual states. Vermont has its highly successful “Vermont Progressive Party” while New York has both a Conservative Party and a Liberal Party. California has its Peace and Freedom Party. The wonderful quality of third parties is that they are founded by people who genuinely care about the issues. Because they are new and small, they understand and appreciate the importance of their voters. They will not take the votes of women for granted. Some people think a vote for a third party is a wasted vote, but if all those people vote in third party, then the third party can easily rise to power. I recommend women select a third party, whichever one suits your personal/individual interests, and help that party rise into the national government. They are small and need to be built up at the ground level. The more elected officials they receive locally, the more ballot access they obtain for state and national elections. I have donated to my own favorite third party for various town and city elections while also donating to the campaigns of Democrat and Republican women on the national level.
I’m leery of libertarians. They say they support ss marriage and choice, but in every case I’ve ever seen in my life, you hand them a tax cut and they suddenly couldn’t care less. A libertarian is just a neo-conservative who wants to smoke pot and sleep in on Sundays.
Janis, perhaps you would prefer the Green party. However, calling the Libertarians “neo-conservative” is a horrible misunderstanding and incorrect misgeneralization. Libertarians are neither conservative nor liberal.
In name, they aren’t — but the ones I’ve met have leaned so heavily in that direction without exception that I have to read past the label at this point. I wish it weren’t the case; the idea of a party that is socially liberal and fiscally conservative is very attractive.
My experiences are exactly the opposite, Janis. Individuals are likely to differ, but when it comes to platforms, Libertarians are Libertarians. Again, you might prefer the Greens.
[...] article at The New Agenda makes the case that the Democratic and Republican Parties consider women voters to be [...]
Honestly, I’ve chosen my “party.” Anyone with a vag.
I’m with you, Janis. I really don’t care what party she represents. There is no party that I can count on to represent me no matter what the party platform says.
Sign me up for the Modern Whig party!!
Seems that Marianne Williamson over at HuffPo agrees with your piece Karen:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....08557.html
I’m with Janis on this one—-vote for the woman-of any party!!! We just need lots more women in office….
I think it would be a mistake for women to give up their political powers by voting for a useless Third Party. What women need to do is MAKE the Republicans and the Democrats court their vote. Democrats take African Americans for granted and have for a long time. Some went Republican and it made the Democrats take notice. Women need to do the same.
Third Parties are never going to fly in this Country people may be disatified with both parties but when it comes time to form a third party most people can’t do it. I have no intention of throwing away my vote. I decided the Dems and the Repubs have to fight over my vote. Whomever is better for women and Roe Vs Wade has nothing to do with how I vote. I will vote for whomever I like as long as they are good for women and they are good for the hood.
I vote for women also, however there will be many times when there is not a woman on the ballot. So for those offices I will probably vote Republican. Rs tell women up front and point blank they don’t support our reproductive rights. Democrats also don’t support women’s health care but they lie to everyone and self righteously say they do support us and they have a long history of using Reproductive rights as a scare tactic. That is three strikes against Dems when Republicans only have one. If there were a new third party I would go with them. You pretty much have your choice of liars in the Democrat and Republican parties or your crack pots in the smaller parties at this point. I find the tea party movement very interesting.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by the new agenda, Ken Schaefer. Ken Schaefer said: The New Agenda » Blog Archive » Should Women Vote for a Third Party?: http://bit.ly/6lFJ1w via @addthis [...]
For me it’s simple. I live in California where there is a feminist socialist party on the ballot. Peace and Freedom Party has been ballot qualified most of the time since 1968. Lots of women candidates. The rules of the party require at least 50% of the officers to be women.
[...] This post was Twitted by beckychr007 [...]
The Modern Whig Party has some Ideas I definitely agree with. The name Modern Whig is not going to help their cause at all.
What you need to understand about Libertarians is that there is a difference between their personal world view and their political world view.
I have always found that people of all political persuasions come in two primary flavors. Either their burning motivation is in the area of personal freedom or of economic freedom. The difference with Libertarians is that regardless of which direction they’re coming from they understand that freedom is freedom and you can’t have one kind without the other. I suspect that the reason some of you have felt uncomfortable around some Libertarians is not because of their political perspective but because you’re trying to interest each other in things which are not the other’s primary concern.
The reason that many people see the Libertarian party as being closer to the GOP than to the Democrats is simply that most government bodies deal with more economic issues than they do ones that impinge on personal freedom. But if you examine the libertarian position on all issues you will find that they align far more frequently with Democrats on social issues. That is why we prefer to identify people’s political position using the two dimensional Nolan chart rather than the typical left-right single axis spectrum. (If you’re not familiar with the Nolan chart you can learn more by selecting “QUIZ” at http://www.theadvocates.org/)
I do not always like all the people I meet who call themselves libertarians but I know that only the Libertarian party understands that I should be free both to decide who I want to associate with and to spend my honestly earned money on those causes I believe in while not being forced to support those I disagree with.
June Genis
Libertarian Party Candidate for Texas State Senate, District 3
“I suspect that the reason some of you have felt uncomfortable around some Libertarians is not because of their political perspective but because you’re trying to interest each other in things which are not the other’s primary concern.”
In other words, a tax cut is their primary concern. Same-sex marriage and choice is not.
I just don’t get the difference between “political perspective” and “their primary concern.” When push comes to shove, every single libertarian I’ve ever met in my life online and off will flush gay rights and women’s right down the toilet for a tax break. You can tell what people really care about by what causes them to raise their voice or get up while talking.
Unfair legislation directed toward women and gays/lesbians will elicit a tsk-tsk and shaken head from all libertarians I have ever known followed by an oh-well-too-bad response. The merest whisper of a tax hike will get them out of their chairs and have them shouting to the heavens.
I am not misunderstanding that. There is no way to misunderstand that. I can see with my own eyes what they care about, no matter what they say. Their words and their actions do not match, and I have no time for them. (No different from the Republicans or the Democrats. The only difference between a Republican and a Democrat is that the Republican will stab you in the front.)
Like I said, I have a party. The Vaginal Party. And I also think with absolute certainty that this is the only way forward.
Keep in mind that this means that, if I lived in your area, I’d also vote for you, and I very much hope that you are successfully elected and will celebrate if you are.
If I’m wrong please correct me, but I sense that Libertarianism does not question where our resources come from. Once they are in front of us, we are free to do with them as we please.
I can’t agree with this disconnect. It does matter where our resources come from and we should be refocused on being more self reliant.
Janis,
Women are undoubtedly under-represented in the Libertarian party. Can I thus assume that most of the Libertarians you have talked to are men?
If this is so, I can understand how you got the impression you did. This may have to do with true gender differences, both genetic and cultural. I think men are just more likely to be economic types. Regardless of what their genes may are may not be programed for, from birth they are culturally channeled onto the “bread winner” track while females are channeled into nurturing.
At the level of rhetoric I have found both male and female libertarians equally supportive of both tax cuts and gay marriage. If you try to nail them on what they are willing to put their personally energy into I think you will begin to find some divisions. To my mind the best cure for that is to get more women active in the Libertarian party.
An economically flavored Libertarian may not be willing to put a lot of effort into drafting a gay marriage law (actually the Libertarian approach to this topic is to remove all state involvement with marriage – i.e. give it back to the churches – and codify ONLY civil partnership) but without question you can trust that an elected Libertarian will always support legislation that promotes marriage equality and oppose anything which treats people unequally before the law. I strongly suspect that if you were to draft a well written piece of legislation and present it to a Libertarian legislator, he or she would be willing to sponsor it even if it was not in their area of personal primary interest (as long as it was consistent with libertarian principles of course).
I have sat through many platform debates (I’ve been an LP activist since 1974) and I can assure you that strong support is there just as much for social issues as economic ones. We just need more women to put their energy behind implementation. Come join the good fight, even if you don’t live in my district
June
Allesandro,
You are correct that Libertarians do not question where our resources come from. That is a metaphysical question, not a political one. Once you get outside the realm of political philosophy, Libertarians are all over the board. I’ve met atheists as well as born again Christians at LP events, all working toward a common goal of liberty for all.
Consequently there are many different opinions about the best ways to use resources. The point of common agreement lies in property rights. Since no one, at least on earth, is all wise or all knowing, the management of resources should be left to those who own them. This opens up a rather large can of worms about how (or if for some people) someone can come to own a resource. I would say that Libertarians generally tend toward a Lockean concept of ownership. That is, if you find a resource is a state of nature and mix your labor with it to make it more useful and thus more valuable that you have acquired the right to continue using it or to transfer your right to someone else by selling it. Of course, this use must not involve damage to someone else’s property.
I realize that this is a rather simplified answer to a complex question but I hope it clarifies things. Feel free to ask more questions if it doesn’t though.
June
I read a quote in “Contact,” the Carl Sagan book that was turned into a movie. In the book, a couple of the main characters visited a Buddhist temple, and one drily remarked to the other that, “Their take seems to be that their god is so great that he doesn’t even have to exist.”
Libertarians seem to think the same way about their government and economic policies. They’re so self-evidently natural that they don’t have to have one … :-/
“To my mind the best cure for that is to get more women active in the Libertarian party.”
I don’t doubt at all that you’re right … but I think that the larger problem is not that there are too few women in the Libertarian party, but that there are too few women in government PERIOD. ALL parties stumble when there is an imbalance in the voices in power.
(And yes, more women are Democrats, but not in positions of power when compared to male Democrats. Similarly, there are a lot of female Catholics, but how many in positions of power? Zero. It’s not just women stuffing the envelopes that are needed across the board, but women in power and women in office, in all parties.)
The correct solution to this larger problem — to cure the whole country of its imbalance and not just one small party — is to vote for all women everywhere, in every party you can find. I plan to do that, and that should not only put more women in power in your party, but in all of them. The Libertarians would benefit from it exactly as you say, but why stop there? Why not make it so that all parties can benefit from a preponderance of women in power?
I think we should celebrate every woman who runs for any party. Hats off to you June. I’m sure you have very grounded reasons. And many times, women cannot get backing from the 2 major parties and have to go non-traditional ways.
I didn’t mean where our resources come from in a metaphysical way.
I mean it in the “you aren’t using it right now so we’ll pay your political elite to let us mine for the resources, enrich them even as they starve the general population, and call it a day.
I took the Quiz June posted above and the results were 100% Libertarian on both social and fiscal issues. That’s interesting
Janis said:
“Libertarians seem to think the same way about their government and economic policies. They’re so self-evidently natural that they don’t have to have one … :-/”
I’m sorry, Janis, but I can’t follow this one at all. There’s tons of literature available on Libertarian (and libertarian) policy on government and economics. In fact, by 2006 the National LP platform had gotten so long that there was a major undertaking to shorten it enough that people might actually read it. Personally I preferred the older version because it went more into the why of things as well as the what but I’m satisfied that the current one living at http://www.lp.org is totally consistent with libertarian political philosophy.
Janis said:
“Why not make it so that all parties can benefit from a preponderance of women in power?”
Because there are definitely women that I don’t want to see in positions of power. Namely the ones who are primarily interested in power for power’s sake. The people I want to see in office are ones who I can trust to constantly work to protect my rights. Frankly outside of a few people like Ron Paul I don’t see anyone in Congress who is willing to stand up for our rights against the instructions of their party bosses. Most of them don’t even read the bills they vote for any more. In fact, the party leadership usually doesn’t give them the time to. The Senate had less than 24 hours to review the final version of the Health Care Reform act that ran to thousands of pages which didn’t even include following the cross-references to existing legislation.
Because Libertarians always vote in accordance with the basic non-aggression principle which guides “the party of principle”, you should be able to figure out how an elected Libertarian is going to vote on any issue.
Thanks Janis. I stopped reading when someone said there were genetic differences that predispose men to put aside women’s rights issues. There need to be more women involved in nearly everything to offset both the men and women behind them who do not support women’s rights. It is clear that no one is going to support women’s rights but a small but growing population of women. And you know it makes sense for women to follow behind men as mere puppets, because men hold all the power, economically and otherwise in a system (Patriarchy) that favors them.
Alessandro said:
“I mean it in the “you aren’t using it right now so we’ll pay your political elite to let us mine for the resources, enrich them even as they starve the general population, and call it a day.”
This may sound a bit flippant, but the libertarian solution is to get rid of the political elite. There is very little left of the earth today that is not being used by someone, even if it’s as primitive a use as hunter-gathering. Whoever has established their use in some way has the right to decide if that usage should be changed. Governments should not have the power to turn over resources to new control just because they think the natives aren’t making efficient use of it. And btw, that goes for this country as well. We adamantly oppose things like eminent domain where the government can kick people out of their homes and turn the land over politically connected developers.
Thia said:
“I took the Quiz June posted above and the results were 100% Libertarian on both social and fiscal issues. That’s interesting”
That’s great, Thea! Believe it or not it is very hard to score 100/100 unless you think like a libertarian. And by that I mean that deep down inside you are guided by the non-aggression principle. Although the Advocates version of the quiz gets updated periodically to keep the questions topical, there is always one question on either side that is designed to weed out all but the hard cores. I hope you’ll look more into libertarianism and the LP. The Advocates website is a great place to learn about libertarianism as a philosophy; http://www.lp.org is the starting point for the political version. You will find extensive links both places to other reading including the web site for the local party in your state.
And I thought that the decline in the popularity of Evolutionary Psychology was due to people actually figuring out that it was junk science, put forth largely by male Psychologists who find it titillating to antagonize women whom they would otherwise have no access to, despite their so-called mental skills. Perhaps I give people too much credit, and I would imagine that Evolutionary Psychology still enjoys an audience in Time magazine.
Ann said:
“I stopped reading when someone said there were genetic differences that predispose men to put aside women’s rights issues.”
Just in case that was my comment you were referring to I want to point out that I only indicated that there MAY be some genetic bias. Personally I think the cultural influences are a lot more important. What we have learned from genetics so far is that all gene influence is essentially a predisposition that can be pushed one way or the other by our environment. Again, whether it is because of true brain differences or because of culturalization, psychological studies have definitely shown that women generally go about solving problems in a different way than men do. While men use a competitive approach — “my solution is better than yours” — women tend to follow a cooperative model which builds on and combines their individual ideas.
This is, I think, is the primary advantage of more women in elective office, namely that they bring a new approach to solving old problems.
June,
I’ll have to look into the non-aggression principle. If it matches my traditional “everyone should mind their own bleeping business” principle then I guess that applies to me.
” psychological studies have definitely shown that women generally go about solving problems in a different way than men do. ”
I disagree. The burden of proof falls on Psychology, and their proof is woefully inadequate to anyone but Psychologists and True Believers; those who believe probabaly because it allows them an “opt out” of examining their own deep personal biases.
If there is a difference between men and women, in my experience, it’s that men generally tend to agree with eachother more often, and women are more likely to be dissident. Men kind of flock together, and seek agreement more readily than women and that if there is any evidence toward cooperation, that men are more likely to cooperate with eachother than women. So I completely disagree that there are any real core general personality differences between men and women in any culture or between cultures.
Of course, I’ve been known for saying the only difference between men and women are that women are humans and men are dumber humans.
I am a woman and nearly all of my posts and thoughts have something to do with Economy. But I am smart enough to realize that women’s rights and the Economy are the same thing. There may be a genetic difference that predisposes men to put aside women’s rights, but it’s called a penis.
Actually I might tentatively agree that there exists a psycho-sexual tension between men, homosexual attraction, that doesn’t exist between women, which possibly explains misogyny, or it is infact cultural. I would only agree in so far as it should be studied.
Janis said: Libertarians seem to think the same way about their government and economic policies. They’re so self-evidently natural that they don’t have to have one … :-/
Interesting. Sounds a bit like Anarchy.
June said: (actually the Libertarian approach to this topic is to remove all state involvement with marriage – i.e. give it back to the churches – and codify ONLY civil partnership)
I didn’t know that. But it pretty much sums up my opinion on marriage: Remove state involvement. Marriage is a rite, not a right. Civil unions for all.
I’m a Gynocrat and will vote for the women on the ballot regardless of party affiliation. And if there are no women or pro-women’s rights candidates to vote for, then I’ll just sit it out.
“If there is a difference between men and women, in my experience, it’s that men generally tend to agree with eachother more often, and women are more likely to be dissident. Men kind of flock together, and seek agreement more readily than women and that if there is any evidence toward cooperation, that men are more likely to cooperate with eachother than women.”
I have thought – and this is just a theory of mine – that men tend to ask themselves “how am I as a member of this group?” while women tend to ask themselves “how am I as an individual?” Nothing right or wrong with either one, just different. I think this is a matter of biology/psychology.
Me too Karen! Actually, I’ve noticed that, unfortunately, that women tend to be more introspective, as a result of their neglect. It tends to make better more moral people, but can lead to sadness and loss of interest in others. When men want women to be interested in them, they are really doing a great job of making women individualistic loners, ultimately. There are human needs and desires. Men are not any different than women with their human needs and desires. Men are different than women in that they forcefully and violently create a world in which women’s needs are neglected, causing women to become introspective as they are ignored, belittled, harassed, and focused on negatively, hoping that they (men) will be better off for it. Men, on the other hand, are humans that get their needs met, and therefore have almost no concept of individuality, or individual persona or introspection as to whether or not he is a good or bad person (it is self evident and something he doesn’t ever think about). And his focus is outside of himself, therefore he has less depression and almost no negative mood or mood whatsoever. Of course, they think this introspection and narcissistic concept of self is some negative aspect of women that they had no hand in creating.
Are women better people than men? Absolutely. Do men even think about it? no. They completely lack the concept. When they do have the concept, they call it Philosophy. lol
One interesting psychology I noticed with men and women is that if you say “you are” to a man, whether it is good or bad, they have a complete shutdown, almost like a syntax error that they cannot process, and they don’t like it, when forced to contemplate themselves. It is completely alien to them. And this is probably normal well-adjusted human development. Now on a woman it has an opposite effect, especially if it is a good assessment.
But congratulations men on creating a world in which there isn’t a single woman who really gives a goddamn shit about you, except your mommy.
Kiuku, you have… taken my theory to quite a bad extreme. I do not attribute this introspection to having needs met or not not met; I do not attribute it to neglect, either. I simply attribute it to differences in biology and psychology. And introspection is NOT a bad thing, and introspection typically occurs once our basic needs are met.
Introspection usually occurs after the fulfillmet of our basic needs; this is part of why our greatest philosophers and artists came from the wealthy elite.
Take poverty for example; it is impossible for both men and women to be introspective when they are struggling to figure out where their next meal is.
It’s pretty funny. I could write one of those dating books a lot better than any man could. We don’t care about you. We might have some limerant type of affection for you depending on how wounded we are, and in fact, any kindness is like a breath of fresh air for a woman, but soon we even tire of that. We only care about how you affect us, and improve our lives. We do not enjoy marriage, and the moment the focus becomes on you, is the moment we try to figure out how best to kill you in your sleep so we can have all of your finances.
Kiuku,
I have to differ on an important point. TNA has members that are women AND men. Our country thankfully is filled with enlightened men (as well as many not so enlightened). But this is a respectful community for women and like minded men – of which our membership is about 10%.
I agree Amy. For me this isn’t about being anti-man, it’s about being pro-woman.
on some of the anti-man sentiments here. Haven’t we seen lately tons of male ignorance to anything vaguely associated as female. just remember the policies to deny us preventative health-care. yes, a lot of the electorate men and women are awakened of the hope feelings for Obama. new literature on Hillary is coming out. but there are still armees of partisans out there calling us clinton dead-enders, gving a female voting block no chance. women voting block is so ferociously denied a chance that I wonder. the latest I heard from PUMA was about “TONRs” stands for “tried Obama now Republican”. that a large block long left the dems over the Hillary treatment and that these independents may vote for women all across is silenced in the media. I still know middle age couples where she is for Hillary and he pro-obama, still fighting. I even have recently heard that pro women voting is ‘racist’. yes not every man is a rapist or women batterer and I welcome all our alliances, but the extent of male ignorance is quite far reaching. or haven’t you seen little, elementary school boys using harassing language when girls start their breast development and nobody makes it a topic. the school talks about like we all use nice language, but they don’t address the sexual content.
I mean, TNA should not make a fuss when anti-male sentiments are raised. a lot of us have a lot of reasons for those sentiments. they need to get a space. just my opinion.
To me, libertarian philosophy sounds too much like “live and let die”. Ugh. I agree with Janis in being a vagina voter.
[...] GOP is having problems with Libertarians Losertarians. “…”…First off is the Libertarian party whose values are neither conservative nor liberal. This party believes that the government under [...]
Leave your Response Want an avatar? Get a gravatar!
Community Room
February 22, 2012 at 11:22 am
February 17, 2012 at 2:39 pm
February 6, 2012 at 4:25 pm
January 30, 2012 at 2:36 pm
January 26, 2012 at 4:38 pm
January 23, 2012 at 1:04 pm
January 15, 2012 at 11:37 am
January 9, 2012 at 6:36 pm
BUILD your NETWORK
Our Network of College Women
Protecting our Teenage Girls
We’re in the Media »
Click to see our latest stories in the media
More Stories »Recent Comments
The Latest from our Blog
Archives
Pioneer Mentors
Blogroll
Find us Online
Subscribe Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS)
The New Agenda is a 501(c)(4) organization dedicated to improving the lives of women and girls by bringing about systemic change in the media, at the workplace, at school and at home. More...