We're Not Allowed to Back Candidates But ...
One of the vexing things about running a non-profit news operation is that the same restrictions that apply to regular non-profit organizations also apply to us. So we are not allowed to back candidates for elected office in this pages until we come up with some kind of legal arrangement that allows for it. I find this rather ironic considering that corporations are able to exercise huge amount of direct influence on government, and corporate-owned news operations absolutely have the right to back candidates chosen by their editorial boards. However, since we don't want Open Media Boston to become a corporation and haven't yet launched our cooperative (what coop, you ask? you'll be hearing more about that soon enough), we'll play ball for now. So residents of Boston, Cambridge, Somerville and other Massachusetts municipalities that may check us out from time to time should know this: we can't tell you exactly who to vote for in this week's election, but the editorial board of Open Media Boston strongly encourages our viewers to vote for the best progressive candidate you can find in any given contest.
Regular viewers will immediately realize that many of these candidates will be Democrats, and that OMB is a publication with an editorial line to the left of the Democratic Party. A broadly socialist editorial line, we're proud to say. But, as we've mentioned before, American progressives are fish swimming in a capitalist sea just like everyone else in our fair country. So we're not saying that you should vote for candidates that are just plain bad, unethical or unfailingly pro-corporate. We're saying that if there is a decent candidate for an office you are able to vote for, then do so. We think it's fine to refrain from voting in contests where all the choices are bad. But where there are some good choices, please, by all means, go for it. You're wasting your franchise - however limited - if you don't. And we cover lots of rallies and lobby days run by immigrants working really hard to get voting rights in local elections among other things; so we don't think you should take the rights of citizenship for granted. Especially in a mid-term election when most of the races are municipal.
Now as to what we mean by left-wing, that's a long conversation, and those of you who read our editorials week-to-week will already have a good idea what we're driving at. As short-hand I often say that the left-wing broadly believes in human rights, social justice and the rule of law. But in doing so I recognize that each phrase in that summation is contested within left circles. For example many anarchists would inveigh against stating we would ever want to appeal to the rule of any law, no matter how seemingly progressive. Many communists would point to the long misuse of the term human rights. And leftists of all stripes would debate what social justice means.
In the main, however, when our editorial board says that people should vote for progressive candidates, we are referring to candidates who really seem to care about the people they are going to represent - not about the needs of the elites. Candidates that put heavy emphasis on their commitment to helping working families get back on their feet and get ahead in a tough economy through collective effort. And fighting for full equality for all peoples before the law. And helping to heal the environment. And fighting for the laws that defend the public interest over the private interest - except where said public interest might contravene civil rights and civil liberties (in which case, we would say it would not be the public interest at all). And working to curb American military adventures in defense of the profits of various multinational corporations, and the ability of America to maintain dominance in regions that control resources like oil that said corporations deem vital. Etc. Etc.
Most municipal office holders aren't going to have many chances to weigh in on big ticket items like military spending. But when they do they should take them, and in the interim do everything they can to help their constituents have good jobs, enough food to eat, decent places to live, efficient and economical public transportation, the cleanest environment possible, and first-class educational and recreational options. All of which, it should be said, we believe will help ameliorate crime and other social ills.
Any candidate that looks like they're going to put in good faith efforts on those kinds of important pro-people policies is going to be a candidate that Open Media Boston could get behind. If we were allowed to do so in a more direct way.
And whether such people are Democrats or not right now, they probably would not remain in that party if social movements arise that make it possible for left-wing third parties like Green-Rainbow to finally become mainstream parties. As it happens, many municipals races are non-partisan anyway; so party affiliation plays less of a role in this election than it does in elections where there are more candidates for higher offices. So that should make things easier for those many of us on the political left who don't have a party affiliation in the absence of better alternatives.
Anyway, that's our take on that. Go forth on Tuesday, and vote your politics and your heart. Even if you only vote for a single candidate, you'll be helping to keep our government as responsive as possible to the needs of working families for the next couple of years. For those of you who are denied the right to vote - even in local elections - because of your immigration status, keep fighting for justice and a more rational U.S. immigration policy. Open Media Boston - and the many Boston area progressives in our audience - will keep backing you all the way.
Jason Pramas is Editor/Publisher of Open Media Boston
