Post-election interview with Brian Moore by Tulane University student
What were the main objectives of the SPUSA and Brian Moore in the 2008 campaign? Do you feel that the 2008 campaign was successful?
To promote the Socialist principles and platform; to encourage the populace not to be afraid of our political party that has a rich heritage in our country and which makes up the social fabric of our society today (i.e. child labor laws, women's suffrage, collective bargaining, 40-hour work weeks, workers compensation, social security, unemployment insurance, etc.). Also, to encourage membership in our party and to encourage others to run for political office on our party's behalf.
Other objectives were to raise issues and positions not addressed out of fear by the two major party candidates (end the Iraq war immediately, promote a socialized health system for all citizens and residents as an economic right, nationalize all for-profit corporations and the banks and institutions; object to the federal bailout; advocate full employment, housing and education; oppose nuclear power, militarily and commercially; reduce the defense budget in half; impeach Bush and Cheney, etc.; eliminate all intelligence agencies; promote a radical systemic economic system change)!
A final objective is to offer all Americans an alternative choice of candidates to provide them a vehicle to adequately express their protest of the system and support for new and radical ideas and for real deep change, not a superficial tinkering of reforming a broken economic and political system.
What were the greatest challenges of the 2008 campaign?
Gaining ballot access despite the cumbersome and monumental obstacles in almost every state; participating in any debates with the two major party candidates; gaining recognition and respect from the press and media; lack of funding and financial support for the campaign; partial failure by the party to support our campaign and to receive volunteer support in the individual states from party members for petitioning and financial support.
Running against a major party candidate with $650 million dollars, and his race was a major factor. Many people voted for Barack Obama solely on the basis of race. Even people in our own political party, and many others who traditionally vote third party or independent, overlooked the substance of the issues, and even his changing positions on the issues, solely because they felt electing a black man for the first time would forgive many injustices of the past, and paint a positive picture for the country to the rest of the world. Thus, I consider this election, an aberration, thereby adversely affecting all third parties and minor party candidates.
Do you feel that the media attention resulting in the claims that Barack Obama was a socialist (i.e. appearance on The Colbert Report, etc.) hurt or helped the SPUSA?
It definitely helped. Most Americans did not even know there were any other candidates for president than the two major party candidates, Obama and McCain. Secondly, even though McCain and Sarah Palin implied that "Socialism" was a dirty word, we were able to defend ourselves by accusing them of "red-baiting" and "fear-mongering."
Third, we were able to put a human face on our candidacy and our political party, and most people we had contact with had a positive image of our responses, interaction and common sense that we made in our interviews and arguments. Even my appearance on the Colbert show was perceived by many as "being game," "having a sense of humor," and not getting uptight. So I believe we gained from these experiences, accusations and the exposures turned out well (i.e. Colbert, C-SPAN, Fox-News three times, Al Jazeera TV, CNN twice, 30 national radio interviews, the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune, Tampa Tribune, St. Petersburg Times and the Milwaukee Journal; plus several French and German and Iranian communications).
Fourth, if "socialism" had not been brought up so frequently by the major candidates and the press due to the bailout, we would have been lost and stonewalled completely by the press and media. We received more attention this election, than in the past 70 years, due to the appearance and seeming relevance of "socialism" in this election.
What do you see in the future of the SPUSA?
Growth of the party and membership; more credibility with the press and media and with the populace in general; and a watershed to an alternative economic system when our capitalistic system fails and collapses. We will have to be ready and organized when that occurs.
Do you have any regrets about the way the 2008 campaign was run, or are there any aspects that you feel were especially beneficial?
Regrets: that we knew and understood the ballot access rules better and earlier and that we needed to put in place organizations of new SP members in each and every state where we felt we could gain ballot access: usually in states where the signature requirements are 1,000 to 2,000 and a few larger ones that do not exceed 5,000 required signatures. Had we been ready for that, we may have gotten on 20 states instead of 8 states, plus, being a write-in in 22 other states.
BENEFITS: Our exposure to the media and reasonably successful outcomes, our legal assistance in the state of Ohio, which turned out to be our best state (2,630 votes), the generosity of ideas and money on the part of certain key individuals who made the entire difference in our campaign.
I really do consider our campaign a success, despite the low votes.
To promote the Socialist principles and platform; to encourage the populace not to be afraid of our political party that has a rich heritage in our country and which makes up the social fabric of our society today (i.e. child labor laws, women's suffrage, collective bargaining, 40-hour work weeks, workers compensation, social security, unemployment insurance, etc.). Also, to encourage membership in our party and to encourage others to run for political office on our party's behalf.
Other objectives were to raise issues and positions not addressed out of fear by the two major party candidates (end the Iraq war immediately, promote a socialized health system for all citizens and residents as an economic right, nationalize all for-profit corporations and the banks and institutions; object to the federal bailout; advocate full employment, housing and education; oppose nuclear power, militarily and commercially; reduce the defense budget in half; impeach Bush and Cheney, etc.; eliminate all intelligence agencies; promote a radical systemic economic system change)!
A final objective is to offer all Americans an alternative choice of candidates to provide them a vehicle to adequately express their protest of the system and support for new and radical ideas and for real deep change, not a superficial tinkering of reforming a broken economic and political system.
What were the greatest challenges of the 2008 campaign?
Gaining ballot access despite the cumbersome and monumental obstacles in almost every state; participating in any debates with the two major party candidates; gaining recognition and respect from the press and media; lack of funding and financial support for the campaign; partial failure by the party to support our campaign and to receive volunteer support in the individual states from party members for petitioning and financial support.
Running against a major party candidate with $650 million dollars, and his race was a major factor. Many people voted for Barack Obama solely on the basis of race. Even people in our own political party, and many others who traditionally vote third party or independent, overlooked the substance of the issues, and even his changing positions on the issues, solely because they felt electing a black man for the first time would forgive many injustices of the past, and paint a positive picture for the country to the rest of the world. Thus, I consider this election, an aberration, thereby adversely affecting all third parties and minor party candidates.
Do you feel that the media attention resulting in the claims that Barack Obama was a socialist (i.e. appearance on The Colbert Report, etc.) hurt or helped the SPUSA?
It definitely helped. Most Americans did not even know there were any other candidates for president than the two major party candidates, Obama and McCain. Secondly, even though McCain and Sarah Palin implied that "Socialism" was a dirty word, we were able to defend ourselves by accusing them of "red-baiting" and "fear-mongering."
Third, we were able to put a human face on our candidacy and our political party, and most people we had contact with had a positive image of our responses, interaction and common sense that we made in our interviews and arguments. Even my appearance on the Colbert show was perceived by many as "being game," "having a sense of humor," and not getting uptight. So I believe we gained from these experiences, accusations and the exposures turned out well (i.e. Colbert, C-SPAN, Fox-News three times, Al Jazeera TV, CNN twice, 30 national radio interviews, the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune, Tampa Tribune, St. Petersburg Times and the Milwaukee Journal; plus several French and German and Iranian communications).
Fourth, if "socialism" had not been brought up so frequently by the major candidates and the press due to the bailout, we would have been lost and stonewalled completely by the press and media. We received more attention this election, than in the past 70 years, due to the appearance and seeming relevance of "socialism" in this election.
What do you see in the future of the SPUSA?
Growth of the party and membership; more credibility with the press and media and with the populace in general; and a watershed to an alternative economic system when our capitalistic system fails and collapses. We will have to be ready and organized when that occurs.
Do you have any regrets about the way the 2008 campaign was run, or are there any aspects that you feel were especially beneficial?
Regrets: that we knew and understood the ballot access rules better and earlier and that we needed to put in place organizations of new SP members in each and every state where we felt we could gain ballot access: usually in states where the signature requirements are 1,000 to 2,000 and a few larger ones that do not exceed 5,000 required signatures. Had we been ready for that, we may have gotten on 20 states instead of 8 states, plus, being a write-in in 22 other states.
BENEFITS: Our exposure to the media and reasonably successful outcomes, our legal assistance in the state of Ohio, which turned out to be our best state (2,630 votes), the generosity of ideas and money on the part of certain key individuals who made the entire difference in our campaign.
I really do consider our campaign a success, despite the low votes.
Labels: media
Return to press room.