Jeremy Scahill spent some time tossing whiffleballs* to Dr. Jill Stein, MD., and the results are hilarious:
JS: Which part of the Constitution says that we can only have two parties in this country?
J. Stein: Well, exactly —
Let’s stop here for a second. It’s not exactly news that there’s no affirmative cases whatsoever for third party wank voting in the United States. One way you call tell this is that people who defend it will literally argue “it’s not illegal!” as a defense. Oddly, people arguing “vote for the viable candidate closest to your views” never have to say “look, nothing in the United States Code forbids you from doing it!”
Anyway, back to the Comedy Store for tonight’s amateur stand-up:
J. Stein: No. [Laughs] And in fact, you know, when we originated, we had no parties in this country. And the parties that have always been affiliated with our real progress forward have generally been independent third parties, whether you look at the abolition of slavery. So, you know, when people call these independent third parties spoilers, that’s exactly what the abolitionists were called. They were called spoilers for daring to confront a very toxic and dangerous political system that kept us stuck in a very dangerous status quo. So, you know, there’s no doubt we need to open up with this process. We need a political process that creates multi-partisan democracy. That’s really where democracies get their best shot at moving forward and solving our crises.
The abolition of slavery came about because a large brokerage party led by a moderate who wasn’t an abolitionist when he took office won two elections, not as the result of an “independent third party.” Had anti-slavery forces coalesced as an independent party competing with the Whigs they would not have accomplished anything.
But the best part is that her promised list of examples of “real progress” coming from “independent third parties” consists of slavery and…look, Hillary Clinton’s EMAILS! Strange that she wouldn’t point out that we would never had have the New Deal and Great Society had the left not recognized that FDR and LBJ were the More Dangerous Evil and acted to throw the elections to Hoover and Goldwater.
But at least Scahill totally pressed Stein on this ludicrous historical fiction…hahah sorry, I can’t even finish that sentence.
*Speaking of HARD-HITTING INTERVIEWS, in comments keta notes this gem from the Nation‘s
fellation of interview with Oliver Stone:
The Nation: In terms of the history of documentaries, can you compare The Putin Interviews to nonfiction films that tackle and upend congealed narratives, such as Michael Moore’s 2004 Fahrenheit 9/11, Errol Morris’ s 1988 The Thin Blue Line and 2003’s The Fog of War, Frederick Wiseman’s 1967 Titicut Follies, Emile de Antonio and Mark Lane’s 1967 Rush to Judgment? These documentaries had countervailing points of view and helped changed public opinion. Can you put The Putin Interviews into that context?
Similarly, I hope everyone will read this blog post in the appropriate context among works of comparable influence and stature, such as Master of the Senate, Battle Cry of Freedom, and Black Reconstruction.