I’m not Statesian (thank god!), but I’ve been paying some attention to Cornell West’s campaign since he announced it.
He’s not a Marxist, seems to be some kind of Christian socdem/demsoc, but I’ve noticed he’s pretty willing to denounce US imperialism, structural racism and genocidal practices. He seems to have gained some repercussion recently due to his support for Palestine, and he also has a history of cooperating with American Indigenous groups.
I know that the PSL has also announced their candidates (though tbh I haven’t heard much about them), but I want to start this discussion regarding the pragmatic decision to try and get West in one of the presidential debates.
I have no hopes of Statesians ever getting a Marxist from PSL there, but I think it’s in the realm of possibilities to have a third-party socdem to attack the DemRep duopoly for the sole purpose of building distrust from the population in both parties.
What do y’all think, does West deserve a little bit of critical support?
Yes. Anything that breaks the dupoly’s iron grip on any part of the electoral process is tactically beneficial. Not because we expect anything substantive to come from electoral means but because the process itself can be used as a platform for radicalization and agitation.
This is not to say that Cornel West will be the one to play this role on any but a very small number of issues where his role as controlled opposition “from the left” allows him to do so. Rather the opening up of debates to third party and independent candidates can set a precedent that might open the floodgates to more radical anti-establishment and anti-imperialist candidates. Regardless of the actual chances of winning of such candidates, it would be a disaster for the bourgeois dupoly to have their narrative challenged on such a large platform by non-systemic opposition.