FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

You are How You Vote

If a person votes someone else’s character, than there is no point in their having cast a ballot, themself. They did not impress their individual perspective upon the process.

Voting in a democracy can be self-declaration. It can say, ‘I exist. I matter. This is what I believe.”

But there is that ideal, and then there is a disappointing reality.

In a recent interview with Huffington Post columnist Allison Kilkenny, independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader decried self-described “progressive” voters’s ballot box-betrayals of belief.

“You take the 20 leading groups supporting [Barack Obama] in the liberal-progressive pantheon,” Nader said, “Labor, anti-poverty, civil rights, women’s rights, gay-lesbian rights, environment, consumer – you name it – not one of them is putting any demands on him. Unconditional voting for the least worst of the two parties means that your vote has no political leverage whatsoever. It allows Obama to take it for granted, and not give the anti-war people anything because he knows he has the anti-war vote. Then they go to the right wing and slice off a few votes there by going more corporate and flip-flopping on offshore drilling. This is the same merry-go-round every four years.” (“The Least Worst Trap: Talking with Ralph Nader” Huffington Post, 10/28/08)

If progressive voters make no demands of a candidate prior to an election, instead uncritically enabling their ascension, they cannot reasonably anticipate subsequent sympathetic audience. They’ve already demonstrated that they will vote for the candidate not reflective of their views.

And if a candidate is victorious without altering their messages and positions, they will continue in that suit. Why would they change, if they know they’ll get progressives’s votes, regardless?

As Election Day looms only days away, progressives must carefully examine candidate options to discern genuine advocates of their ambitions from opportunists.

* Anti-war pickets have chosen to throw themselves on their plowshares rather than cast   votes against Barack Obama, though as Senator he’s voted repeatedly to fund continued   US militarism in Iraq, and has announced plans to keep US troops in that country while   sending others to Afghanistan.

* Many proponents of equal civil rights protections for gays and lesbians, including full   marriage rights, are supporting Obama despite his opposing same-sex marriage and   proffering instead the separate-but-equal “civil unions” gimmick. Only a few decades   ago, many states’s laws prohibited black and white couples from marrying. According   to critics at that time, those couples, too, were “deviant” and “not traditional.” I am   happily in one such marriage. Obama was the product of another, and should be more   sensitive to unorthodox couples’s legitimate rights to marry; he is instead casting his   fortunes with those of discriminators.

* Citizens ordinarily vocal in their condemnation of governmental spying on law –   abiding citizens and activist groups are giving Obama a pass on his senate votes to   extend the anti-citizen Patriot Act, and to grant immunity from potential prosecution to   telecom companies like Verizon and AT&T that might have been complicit in the   Bush White House’s illegal spying.

* Advocates for the poor and homeless are largely silent on the Democrat Party’s   contemporary indifference toward those issues, an indifference epitomized by Obama’s   dwelling on the middle class to the exclusion of persons less fortunate (a group whose   number grows, daily). And the candidate’s favor of execution policy mirrors that not only   of Republicans, but recent Democrat predecessors: Not since 1988 have Democrats   offered a presidential candidate who opposes capital punishment across the board.

* One might expect voters unsympathetic to corporate crime to withhold endorsement   from politicians protecting the wealthy and dismissing the rank and file taxpayer. But   Obama’s senate vote in favor of the $700 billion bailout bill for Wall Street criminals —      that included no new regulations to prevent future such circumstances, or benefits for   average mortgage-holders whose homes are being foreclosed nationwide — somehow   has not noticeably dampened enthusiasm for his candidacy.

* Those aghast at John McCain’s alliance with John Hagee and other fundamentalist   theocratic soldiers would, if consistent, be just as strong in opposition to Obama and   his own cultivated and unapologetic ties to the virulently homophobic mega-church   evangelical gospel sphere. The candidate’s sanction of Embrace the Faith events on his   behalf featuring singer and “gay reparative therapy” advocate Donnie McClurkin, and his   stated sympathy for Bush-style public-funding of privately-administered religious   efforts, are no less offensive than are such attitudes evinced by the most intolerant   conservative.

* When confronted with Senator Obama’s unprogressive record, his supporters offer as   final resort the assertion that his Supreme Court appointments would doubtless   be more in keeping with progressive sentiment than those selected by McCain.( And to   his credit, Obama did as Senator not only criticize but vote against the nominations of   John Roberts and Antonin Scalia.) But while it is probably true that he would avoid   appointing colorful and controversial right wing jurists, his record of support for the bailout   bill, Patriot Act, spying, gay couple discrimination, corporate interests, and   executions effectively dispatches arguments that Obama Supreme Court appointments   would reflect public interest sympathies. Besides, the obsession with conventional   realpolitic attitudes that shapes Obama’s current campaign could be expected to   direct any Supreme Court selections he might make far away from the Left end of the   spectrum. Concerns for re-election viability would preclude progressive indulgence.

My intention here is not to dissuade persons who genuinely accept Obama’s positions. Rather, it is to argue that others who envision themselves as ideologically distinct from his unprogressive record, and who would see progressive principles one day gain advantage, have no legitimate business voting for him or any candidate who does not advance that ambition. If they do, then progress was not truly their desire, at all.

(A common assertion justifying voting contrary to principle — one frequently made in 2004 by Ariana Huffington — is that, “When the house is on fire, you don’t worry about rearranging the furniture.” That argument’s flaw is obvious. When a structure is by design not suitable for all legitimate dwellers, its razing is not to be mourned.)

If you do not find positions Obama has taken to be off-putting, then vote for him — or for despicable conservative John McCain; exceedingly little of substance distinguishes the pair.

But, if in your heart you feel your true beliefs are at great variance with Obama’s record and apparent sympathies, then I would submit that you have a moral duty to express yourself honestly, by voting for an alternative candidate who better reflects your opinions.

In that way, political cultures change. Causes like ending slavery, womens’s suffrage, the trade unionist movement, and racial civil rights all began in the streets and with political outsiders. Who today would argue that persons advocating those interests should have ignored principle and accepted contrary conventional political realities?

During a 1924 debate on the death penalty, opponent Clarence Darrow noted the many torturous forms of punishment once common. “Gradually, the world has been lopping off these punishments,” he said. “…[T]he only way we got rid of these laws was because juries were too humane to obey the courts.”

Just so, electoral progress in the public interest begins with appropriately-voting citizens.

With each presidential election cycle, it becomes more obvious that not only are the two major parties inadequate to the legitimate task of representing the diversity of American political sentiment, but that they do not even wish to do so. Which means many real citizens with real concerns are not served by the closed duopoly.

The looming “realignment of American politics” of which Nader has of late spoken will ensure that interests presently ignored and effectively disenfranchised by the corporatized major parties will enjoy voice and practical visibility. The changing of the electoral system, its widening to accommodate diverse voices and choices representing all Americans, is a crucial and noble ambition. I believe a multi-party system to be in America’s future.

Work toward that end must begin now, with groundwork construction. It is a long-term proposition, and not one promising instant satisfaction.

But then, an ethical person doesn’t do what they believe to be right only when success looms. They do what they feel to be right, because they feel it to be right.

Only when citizens vote truthfully and by so doing declare their core principles can identifying melody be discerned from the surrounding cacophony of lockstep conformity.

DC LARSON, of Iowa, is CD Review Editor for Rockabilly Magazine. Among his freelance credits are Goldmine, Blue Suede News, No Depression and Rock & Rap Confidential. This piece originally ran on his blog, http://www.dclarson.blogspot.com. He can be reached at: dcltrueleft@yahoo.com

 

 

 

More articles by:
July 18, 2018
Bruce E. Levine
Politics and Psychiatry: the Cost of the Trauma Cover-Up
Frank Stricker
The Crummy Good Economy and the New Serfdom
Linda Ford
Red Fawn Fallis and the Felony of Being Attacked by Cops
David Mattson
Entrusting Grizzlies to a Basket of Deplorables?
Stephen F. Eisenman
Want Gun Control? Arm the Left (It Worked Before)
CJ Hopkins
Trump’s Treasonous Traitor Summit or: How Liberals Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the New McCarthyism
Patrick Bond
State of the BRICS Class Struggle: Repression, Austerity and Worker Militancy
Dan Corjescu
The USA and Russia: Two Sides of the Same Criminal Corporate Coin
The Hudson Report
How Argentina Got the Biggest Loan in the History of the IMF
Kenn Orphan
You Call This Treason?
Max Parry
Ukraine’s Anti-Roma Pogroms Ignored as Russia is Blamed for Global Far Right Resurgence
Ed Meek
Acts of Resistance
July 17, 2018
Conn Hallinan
Trump & The Big Bad Bugs
Robert Hunziker
Trump Kills Science, Nature Strikes Back
John Grant
The Politics of Cruelty
Kenneth Surin
Calculated Buffoonery: Trump in the UK
Binoy Kampmark
Helsinki Theatrics: Trump Meets Putin
Patrick Bond
BRICS From Above, Seen Critically From Below
Jim Kavanagh
Fighting Fake Stories: The New Yorker, Israel and Obama
Daniel Falcone
Chomsky on the Trump NATO Ruse
W. T. Whitney
Oil Underground in Neuquén, Argentina – and a New US Military Base There
Doug Rawlings
Ken Burns’ “The Vietnam War” was Nominated for an Emmy, Does It Deserve It?
Rajan Menon
The United States of Inequality
Thomas Knapp
Have Mueller and Rosenstein Finally Gone Too Far?
Cesar Chelala
An Insatiable Salesman
Dean Baker
Truth, Trump and the Washington Post
Mel Gurtov
Human Rights Trumped
Binoy Kampmark
Putin’s Football Gambit: How the World Cup Paid Off
July 16, 2018
Sheldon Richman
Trump Turns to Gaza as Middle East Deal of the Century Collapses
Charles Pierson
Kirstjen Nielsen Just Wants to Protect You
Brett Wilkins
The Lydda Death March and the Israeli State of Denial
Patrick Cockburn
Trump Knows That the US Can Exercise More Power in a UK Weakened by Brexit
Robert Fisk
The Fisherman of Sarajevo Told Tales Past Wars and Wars to Come
Gary Leupp
When Did Russia Become an Adversary?
Uri Avnery
“Not Enough!”
Dave Lindorff
Undermining Trump-Putin Summit Means Promoting War
Manuel E. Yepe
World Trade War Has Begun
Binoy Kampmark
Trump Stomps Britain
Wim Laven
The Best Deals are the Deals that Develop Peace
Kary Love
Can We Learn from Heinrich Himmler’s Daughter? Should We?
Jeffrey St. Clair
Franklin Lamb, Requiescat in Pace
Weekend Edition
July 13, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Brian Cloughley
Lessons That Should Have Been Learned From NATO’s Destruction of Libya
Paul Street
Time to Stop Playing “Simon Says” with James Madison and Alexander Hamilton
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: In the Land of Formula and Honey
Aidan O'Brien
Ireland’s Intellectuals Bow to the Queen of Chaos 
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail