There are only three Democrats in the entire United States House of Representatives who have a less progressive record than Utah Representative Jim Matheson, who has supported just 20% of a slate of progressive policies in the 109th Congress — and who has gone along with a full third of a slate of conservative policy decisions. A few examples of Jim Matheson’s poor record since the 2004 elections:
| |
- Jim Matheson supported the Hostettler Amendment to H.R. 2862, voting to keep a ruling of a federal court from being enforced. Why? Because a judge decided that a religious monument on the grounds of the Gibson county courthouse was an unconstitutional endorsement of one religion over others. Rep. Matheson sides with those who feel that any personally distasteful court ruling can be overturned, just because. That’s not the rule of law. That’s an arbitrary violation of the separation of powers. And, in this case, it allows pushy and vocal religious groups to shove their beliefs down everybody else’s throats.
- While the Republican-controlled Congress is allowing the government’s budget to spiral wildly higher, the Bush administration irresponsibly suggests that we ought to cut taxes paid by those who can by definition afford to pay them: the wealthy. Nobody has to pay a penny for anything up to a million dollars they get in income when a relative dies. Jim Matheson supports H.R. 8, which would permanently eliminate income taxes on any unearned money over a million bucks that people receive as part of an inheritance. You and I won’t get that kind of inheritance: it’s the already filthy rich who will benefit. At this time of budget deficits, we shouldn’t be cutting away these sorts of taxes. It’s not fiscally prudent. It’s radically regressive. By supporting this legislation, Representative Matheson has decided to act in an irresponsible manner that is fiscally dangerous to us all.
- By voting “no” on the Farr Amendment, Jim Matheson voted to keep Section 102 in H.R. 418, giving a Bush administration bureaucrat the ability to nullify any law without judicial review of that decision. Where I come from, they call that dictatorship.
|
That’s just humming a few bars. Progressives and liberals are clearly not being represented in Utah’s 2nd district, and Jim Matheson has little incentive to act in a more progressive manner so long as the Democratic party apparatus continues to support his re-election. This is one of those cases in which it is time to look outside the Democratic party for a more reasonable alternative.
Bob Brister is running as a Green Party candidate in Utah’s 2nd district with a platform of withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, living wages for working families, a national health care system and environmentally responsible energy policy. While this post shouldn’t be considered a formal endorsement of Bob Brister in his run for Congress, if I were living in the 2nd district of Utah and my alternative were Jim Matheson, I most certainly would consider supporting Brister’s candidacy with a vote and a campaign contribution.
Contact Us
Have you liked the last 6 years of Bush? Would you rather have had Gore as President? In the type of election system we have, third parties aren’t viable options in congressional races. Give me a break.
Comment by Jeff — 6/13/2006 @ 2:26 pm
Yeah, man! Why won’t you just take that dirty rotten right wing Matheson? Everyone knows you don’t have a choice, so just suck it up and take it, right?
Or maybe… maybe… we could stop listening to this nonsense that says that, by definition, third parties are not viable options.
Comment by Junga — 6/19/2006 @ 7:52 pm
If Nader didn’t run, and Gore was elected president is likely that:
1. The U.S. would not have invaded Iraq. 100,000+ Iraqis would be alive, 2,500 American soldiers would still be alive, and insurgents would not infest Iraq.
2. Because of no invasion, there would have been no Dick Cheny, and thus- no torture memos, no Abu Grahib.
3. Because of no torture, there would be no unified hatred of the United States by every other country.
4. Because of no hatred, the situation with Iran today would be much different, the situation with North Korea would be much different and a positive liberal internationalism would be guiding our foreign policy instead of Bush’s devastating Realism.
5. The minimum wage would have risen twice.
Third parties give people like you something to shout and get angry about- but the unfortunate result is that you divide the democratic electorate and give the Republican the seat. It would be nice if our type of election system would allow multiple parties to be viable. Unfortunately, a First-Past-The-Post election system only can produce two parties. Period. Why do you think no third party has ever held a majority in the United States Congress? Do you think third parties haven’t tried before? If you really care about the issues and the way they effect people, then you would try to change the party from within. Third parties only hurt the people they are trying to help.
Comment by Jeff — 7/6/2006 @ 12:04 pm
Jeff,
Your argument would stand better if you would address the times in American history when a third party REPLACED one of the two dominant parties when the dominant party became out of touch with the political times.
This has happened, and that simple fact makes your protestations that we have no choice but to stay with the Democratic Party, no matter how despicable it becomes, fundamentally flawed.
Comment by Truman — 7/6/2006 @ 12:11 pm
A third party has never ‘replaced’ any major, national party. There were two times where a new parties emerged, but those cases were unique- and not reaction to the actions of other major parties. In fact, when those parties emerged, there was only one other major political party- thus, by definition, they were not ‘third parties.’
The Washington-Madison period is generally known as the First-Party System, because only one political party held any weight at one time (i.e., The Federalist Party held power during the second Washington administration and during the Adams administration, but rapidly declined thereafter and the Democratic-Republicans of Jefferson took control.) After this period the Second-Party system came to be between the Whigs and the Democrats. The primary difference between these parties was separation of power between Congress and the Executive. When Henry Clay (the creator and leader of the Whig Party) died, he took the party with him. Lincoln created the Republican Party in the 1850’s to primarily, oppose the increasing power of slaveholders in Congress and in administrative positions. The Democratic split over the slavery issue gave Lincoln the Presidency in 1862- not the demise of the Whig Party.
So, to make a long story short- the Democratic-Republicans, the Whigs, and the early Republicans were never ‘third parties’ and they never had to compete against two reigning parties- as a First-Past the Post election system automatically produces.
So, Truman, your statement: “This has happened, and that simple fact… makes your protestations fundamentally flawed” is false. It has never happend, and never will happen in our election system.
The only time a third party has ever effected national electoral politics is in 1892 when the Populist Party Presidential candidate garnered 22 electoral votes. Obviously, he didn’t win- but that massive showing forced the Democratic Party to adopt Populist principles in their party platform.
Nader surely showed the Democratic Party that they needed to come back to their base and promote issues that benefit working people. However, the by-product of that is the last six-years of the Bush Administration. Was it worth it? That’s only a question you can answer. But, there are much better ways to promote progressive policies then forming a third party. Or, we will continue to be divided while the Republicans run the country to hell.
I would be the first one to promote a proportional representation electoral system, but until that happens- we have to work with what we have.
Why you may not agree with Jim Matheson on every single issue, he still plays a vital role in advancing a positive agenda for this country. He was the only Congressman to stand up against congressional pay-raises and donate his increase to charity. He stands up (often times alone) against increased nuclear testing and the expansion of new nuclear weapons. I don’t agree with him on every issue, but he is a great Congressman. He helps his constituents and is a good, moral person.
Comment by Jeff — 7/11/2006 @ 3:38 pm
Oh, that’s logic for you. Something has never happened before, and so it will never happen in the future.
So, we’re supposed to vote for this scoundrel Matheson? No. We have a choice, and the only thing that will prevent us from changing our country for the better are people like you who say it can’t be done, and so we should just accept what our leaders tell us to take.
No. Not going along with that.
Comment by Fruktata — 7/11/2006 @ 4:50 pm
Once again, you show that you choose your own anger against reason and pragmatism. Words like “this scoundrel matheson” are pathetic and contribute to the perception of negativity that plagues the left.
I didn’t make the argument you suggested, which is “Because it hasn’t been done before, that it can’t be done now”.
But, I’ll make it now: A third party will NEVER triumph in a national American election. It is absolutely, scientifically impossible. Its not that I don’t like Nader or other progressives and their agendas- its just that they can’t win. Nothing less of national emergency will ever lead to a third party, and if history is correct- it will only form after the decline of another party. Lets stop the games and childish epithets and unite.
Comment by Jeff — 7/11/2006 @ 6:10 pm
Irregular times writes:
The Patriot Act is a betrayal of the great American tradition of liberty because it encourages the government to spy on the legal, personal activities of Americans who have not broken the law. The Bush Administration is using that power to grab information out of commercial and public databases and assemble them into a single giant computer database through which the private affairs of every American citizen can be tracked by government officials. Although the Patriot Act reauthorization passed, Rep. Matheson took a brave stand by voting NO, protecting traditional American liberties. We need more Americans in government like Rep. Matheson.
I couldn’t agree more.
Comment by Jeff — 7/11/2006 @ 7:00 pm
Jeff says: “Nothing less of national emergency will ever lead to a third party, and if history is correct- it will only form after the decline of another party.”
Have you not noticed that the Democratic Party is in decline?
Comment by Fruktata — 7/11/2006 @ 7:47 pm
If by decline you mean that the Democrats are taking some positions that you don’t agree with, then, yes the Democrats are in decline.
If by decline you mean that the Democratic Party is close to folding and dissolving- then obviously, the Democrats are not in decline.
The trick, which seams to be going over the heads of progressive third parties, is to be realistic. Anything less then realistic is a disservice to the millions of Americans suffering under the Bush Administration.
Comment by Jeff — 7/11/2006 @ 8:57 pm