:D And will, in some cases. Speaking of the General Election, I see a lot of righteous condemnation towards Hillary and other war-mongering Democrats these days, but as Chomsky would say, remember how much the power of the office magnifies seemingly insignificant differences into wide gulfs when it comes to actual results. A war enabler may not seem too different from a war monger in Congress--the exclusive binary vote sort of puts the lie to any grabs for wiggle-room in floor statements, right? Well in the presidency, that difference can be crucial. Take a trip with me to 1998, where Cohen and Albright were a bit embarrassed while touting PNAC plans:
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9802/18/town.meeting.folo/An ambitious pol fearful of being cast as weak on national security isn't anywhere near as dangerous in the presidency as a deluded and belligerent war profiteer. What the example shows above is the difference in party base reaction to imperialist war mongering--GOP voters are by their nature docile and rah-rah when it comes to wars of choice. Democratic voters are not anywhere near so easily swayed. There is a dismaying lack of courage in Congress when it comes to opposing this administration's foreign policy, but that same lack of courage and desire to stay in office will prevent those wishy-washy Democrats from engaging in wars of choice while in the office of the presidency. The link above is a good example of this, and while that motivation isn't exactly chicken soup for the conscience, the results can save (and could have saved, with Gore) hundreds of thousands of lives.
Next is SCOTUS. We all know the danger of another GOP appointee, but to reiterate I don't know how one gets big picture enough that protection of the environment, the rights of women, minorities, GLBT folks, the elderly, labor, etc. aren't worth holding one's nose for. By any rational measure the big problems with the economy won't change significantly with a mainstream Democrat as president. But the damage will be reduced at best, and slowed at worst. How anyone can refuse to take ten minutes out of their day to reduce that damage is beyond me.
There are many more reasons to hold one's nose, but these two stick out for me. When I hear people talking about voting their conscience, I want to ask how many ruined lives a salved conscience is worth. If you're expecting a candidate who doesn't break any of your deal-breakers while in office, you'll be disappointed. If you're expecting someone who talks the good talk to be treated well in the media, you'll be disappointed. It's a lousy system, but if you want to do the least harm, vote Democratic. It's the only avenue that can effect change at this time. The only candidates who talk the good game are not in any position to win. It's strange to me that people who talk proudly about withholding their vote or voting third party also complain about empty symbolic gestures coming from the Democratic majority Congress--your vote effects zero direct change. It is the ultimate empty symbolic gesture. It can only indirectly help or hurt one of the major two candidates. Until IRV comes along, that's our crappy system. You can either do the most good you can with it, or bitch about it. Hopefully both. Working for a great third party candidate or lesser-known Democrat like Kucinich will do far more than a withheld vote in the GE, and certainly you should vote your values in the primary.
Of course that doesn't mean that the Democratic candidate is a guilt-free choice (hardly--remember DOMA), it means that the Democratic candidate is the choice that does the least harm. To me, indirectly helping a Republican reach the office of the presidency is out of the question. What is the motivation then, for voting for anything but a D in the General Election?
1. You're not proving anything to the Democratic Party, or indeed the country at large by a third party vote or not-voting alone. Nobody moved left in 2000 due to progressives jumping ship for Nader, nobody gave a whit as to the inclination of non-voters (though Nader's claim that his kind of talk would galvanize them was clearly false.) Finally, no one can read the statistics of something so vast and interdependent as a national election and identify your vote or even many such votes as being caused by your dissatisfaction with the country moving right. There is no way to do that, and if there was, nobody would do it anyway--certainly not in the media.
2. You're not voting just for -you-. It's not about -you-. It's not even just about this country or its citizens. The difference in damage a Republican president can do compared to a Democratic POTUS is vast and its impact is worldwide. The difference between Gore and Bush, which Nader so often claimed didn't exist, is now upwards of several hundred thousand dead Iraqis, by conservative estimate. You have to rate your conscience above those lives and millions more, and above the institutions and rights that aren't just critical to -you-, but to the neediest people in this country, and around the world. How anybody can justify even -indirectly- assisting that damage is a mystery to me.
I don't mean to pick on Nader--he's a great activist. I think, however, he's a lousy political strategist. Also, anyone who says that the Democrats and Republicans are too much the same is exactly right, and tying yourself in knots trying to claim the differences are vast is a waste of time in my view. Given this silly rant, I'd like to hear what I've missed or what I don't understand from people who will still vote third party or withhold their vote in '08. I don't want to tell anyone what to do, but this is my opinion on such votes in the General Election.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
