Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump have spent the past few months battling for the White House, and experts say that votes for third party candidates could be a deciding factor for who will become the next president of the United States.
With the latest polls showing Harris and Trump in a dead heat in battleground states around the country, ballots cast for third-party candidates Jill Stein of the Green Party, independent Cornel West and Libertarian Chase Oliver could be enough to tip the scales.
VOA Persian spoke with all three of them. Their responses have been edited for length and clarity.
Green Party candidate Jill Stein
VOA: During one of his final campaign rallies in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, former President Donald Trump praised you, saying he loved the Green Party and that you might be one of his favorite politicians. What do you make of this?
Jill Stein: I make of that about as much as I make of Donald Trump’s assessment of climate change, which is that he sort of believes the opposite of reality. I am in this race to provide an alternative to the two parties that are bought and paid for, that are serving Wall Street and the war contractors and definitely not the American people. So I don’t have a lot of high regard for Donald Trump’s political strategies or his values.
VOA: How much support do you expect to receive in battleground states like Michigan? There were some polls that suggested you have support of over 40% of the Arab American population there.
Stein: Exactly what the numbers will turn out to be, it depends how many people are turning out to vote. It depends how strong the vote of the, not only the Muslim population, but also many African Americans and Hispanics and young people who feel like they do not have a future under Kamala Harris, and they do not have a future under Donald Trump. At this point, it’s too soon to say. We ourselves do not strictly work based on polls. We’re really in this based on principle and for the long haul. We would be delighted if we make the 5% cut in the national poll in the national results, but it’s very hard to say at this point.
VOA: What would be your position regarding the government of Iran?
Stein: I think we need to open the door to negotiations with Iran. Iran has elected a new president who is said to be moderate and interested in improving relations with the West, and we need to explore that. I think the most critical thing in the Middle East right now is resolving this expanding war and the intention of Bibi [Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu to create a wider war and drag the U.S. into it. I think that is the greatest threat to peace in the Middle East right now and has the potential to grow into a conflict that’s even bigger than the Middle East.
Independent candidate Cornel West
VOA: How many states allowed you to have your name on the ballot and why did others not?
Cornel West: We’ve got 16 states where we have direct ballot access. We have 24 states where we have write-in access, and that did require petitions and signatures. So that required a lot of work on behalf of magnificent volunteers. But it was very difficult. There’s been a tremendous struggle, but we come up swinging.
VOA: How different will your policy be compared to what we hear from Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump?
West: Martin Luther King [Jr.] said, militarism, racism, poverty and materialism are the four forces that are sucking the democratic energy out of the American social experiment. I take very seriously his critique of militarism. I see that as a criticism of American foreign policies in which we are so eager to create these lethal armed forces rather than engage in wise diplomatic processes. And so there would be no genocide. I would have had an embargo on any kind of military or financial support of Israel as it was very clear that they were laying bare this kind of massive massacre on innocent people, especially innocent children and women and men.
The same would be true in terms of being able to bring an end to the war in Ukraine. Same would be true in terms of trying to be more diplomatic with China. I see Kamala Harris as a militarist, Black woman. That is to say she’s willing to not just provoke, but to push [Russian President Vladimir] Putin. And I think Putin himself is still very much a gangster and a war criminal in his own way, but he has a right — Russia has a right to security. And the same is true with China. There’s too much provocation, and I think that moves us toward World War III in the same way that Trump moves us towards Civil War II at home. And that was one reason why I wanted to provide some kind of alternative to Trump and [U.S. President Joe] Biden.
And then when Biden had his LBJ moment [referring to Biden’s poor debate performance] something that we talked about many, many months ago, we just predicted that Harris now is following through on the same militarism in Gaza. And of course, genocide, the crime of genocide, is a litmus test of morality of any nation, any country, and if you deny it, if you enable it, it’s a sign that you don’t have a moral fiber in your military policy.
VOA: Many people in the occupied West Bank are disturbed by Tehran’s support for militants in Gaza. How do you see this considering the moral aspects of your vision, your doctrine and your policy?
West: Malcolm X used to say, I’m for truth, no matter who’s for it, and justice, no matter who supports it. People can actually support just movements for motivations that themselves are highly suspicious. When the French supported the American revolutionaries, when Lafayette came to the United States, it was partly because the French were over against the British in Europe, they didn’t have a whole lot of solidarity with these colonists responding against the British Empire. … The Soviet Union supported the freedom struggles in Africa. It wasn’t always because they just love Africans so much. It was anti-United States. They had a Cold War going on, and their policies were strategic and tactical in that way. The same would be true for Iran vis-a-vis Palestinians.
So I think we have to be very truthful about the ways in which the motives might not always be attractive, but when you’re a people like Palestinians this moment, whose backs are against the wall, they need help from anybody, and it’s very important that people highlight their plight so that their babies are not crushed. But that doesn’t mean that those who are supporting them always have the right motives, and therefore we can still be critical of what those motives are.
Libertarian Party candidate Chase Oliver
VOA: In your platform, you mentioned that Libertarians seek the United States at peace with the world. How different will your foreign policy be?
Chase Oliver: It would be a drastic difference than what the status quo has been, certainly since I’ve been an adult. Since I’ve been an adult, let’s just call it the post-9/11 War on Terror kind of foreign policy mindset that we’ve had, which I think is rooted in ideas that are very black and white. You’re either with us or you’re with the terrorists.
The best way to solve a problem is through a preemptive war or through increasing our military presence in the region, to flex our muscle. And what I think that has done is actually created further instability, particularly in the Middle East, which I don’t think has been a success despite the trillions of dollars we’ve spent in both Iraq and Afghanistan. I don’t think you can say either of those nations are particularly bastions of democracy, or that the region itself is now more stable than it was.
And so for me, I would say let’s remove our military footprint and start flexing our diplomatic muscle. Let’s start meeting with world leaders directly, one on one. Let’s start forming coalitions around peaceful ideas and free trade and voluntary exchange to tear down barriers between our nations so that we can have cultural exchanges with one another. I think these are the ideas that we really need to be pushing, and not a militarized foreign policy that’s ruined the idea that the United States must be the world’s enforcer.
VOA: So you don’t see America as the leader of the free world with its responsibilities?
Oliver: I absolutely see America as a leader in terms of the markets of the world, the economic engine of the world, the diplomatic arm of the world. But it doesn’t need to be coming, using the military might of the world. Teddy Roosevelt said, “Speak softly and carry a big stick.” We have a very powerful military that can defend ourselves, and ultimately, if there were a need and if Congress declared a war, fight a war anywhere in the world with absolute certainty that we could dominate our opponent. But you don’t flex your muscle like that around the world. That’s not a position of strength. When you use that military might to push your agenda, that’s actually a position of weakness, because good ideas should not require force, and you should be able to diplomatically work throughout the world.
And I recognize the world is not perfect. The world does not lack violence. The world is not lacking for bad people, particularly governments around the world who represent good people. And Iran is no different. The government of Iran is abhorrent. They’re abusive to their people. They curtail their rights. But the people of Iran are good, innocent people who don’t deserve to have things like airstrikes and missiles raining down upon them because of the evils of their government. And I hope that ultimately, we can liberalize the world more towards more liberalized things like free speech, freedom of movement and freedom of religion. But that’s not going to come just from us beating people down.
VOA: How difficult is it to run as a third-party candidate?
Oliver: Running as an alternative party candidate has a lot of challenges because the two mainstream parties have a lot of built-in incumbency power, both in the number of elected officials they have as well as things like taxpayer-funded primaries. So they basically take taxes out of my wallet to fund primaries that help promote the candidates that are Republicans and Democrats.
And as a Libertarian, we’re kind of left in the lurch there. So there’s a lot of challenges, especially around things like ballot access. There’s a lot of solutions. And actually a big part of my platform is a thing called the voter bill of rights that will open up this process, not just for Libertarians like myself, but all sorts of other alternative parties that really need to have their voices heard.
This post was originally published on here
