I – Come November
Soon it will be presidential voting time again in the U.S.. That four
year cycle comes to us with the regularity of a returning comet,
accompanied by a shroud of campaign fog that makes a guessing game of
discerning fact from fiction when it comes to political promises.
A hefty minority have opted out of this process. Thus, if history
runs consistent, when the designated day in November arrives, between 38
and 40% of America’s eligible voters will automatically (without even
thinking about it) stay away from the polls. Voting appears not to be
part of their local culture: they obviously do not think the results
touch them in a personal way. They feel their vote is meaningless, and
they see the candidates as irredeemable liars not to be taken seriously.
The behavior of this minority is not in doubt.
However, there is yet another group of eligible voters whose actions
in November are in doubt. These are people who are regular voters, but
are now so put off by their usual party candidate that they refuse to
support him. They will either not vote at all or cast a vote for a minor
third party. Back in 2000 and again in 2005, when George W. Bush, Jr.
stood for election, a good number of moderate Republicans suffered a
voting dilemma of this sort. Seeing the Republican Party of Dwight
Eisenhower and Nelson Rockefeller (whatever we on the left might think
of these folks) taken over by a proven neo-con screwball like Bush Jr.
must have made many of them hesitate to vote in their usual fashion.
Maybe that is what made the elections so close that only a series of
fraudulent maneuvers got George W. elected.
This year an unknown number of progressive Democrats might feel they are facing a similar dilemma. The
level of disappointment with
Barack Obama among progressives is palpable. He has carried on his
predecessor’s attack on civil liberties, bailed out the banks instead of
jailing the bankers, failed to fight for a public option to healthcare,
kowtowed to the Zionists, and used drones to kill (mostly) civilians.
That is just a partial list of complaints. One can counterbalance this
with a list of good things that Obama has done (withdrew from Iraq,
endorsed gay marriage, restored stem cell research, etc.), or argue that
at least some of the bad things were a consequence of Republican
roadblocks. Still, for those on the progressive end of the Democratic
spectrum, Obama is a profound disappointment.
Part II – What To Do?
So what do you do? Seek out the Green Party and vote for its
candidate, Jill Stein, or boycott the polls altogether? Are such
responses to the voting dilemma good ideas?
Well, let’s take a look at recent history.
Robert Parry of Consortiumnews.com explored
this question by looking at the presidential election of 1968. In that
year, amidst a worsening war in Viet Nam, Democratic president Lyndon
Johnson decided not to run for reelection. There was strong progressive
support for the party’s anti-war candidate, Eugene McCarthy, but his
candidacy failed on the Democratic convention floor and the party
nominated Johnson’s Vice President, Hubert Humphrey–a man who was
closely identified with the war effort. His Republican rival would be
Richard Nixon, a duplicitous and dishonest fellow who was also paranoid
and egocentric to a fault. Prior to the election Nixon had secretly
encouraged the South Vietnamese not to join in Johnson’s efforts to open
peace negotiations with North Vietnam. After the election he would
expand the war into Laos and Cambodia. Ultimately, Nixon self-destructed
with the Watergate scandal.
Parry interviewed Sam Brown, a prominent progressive of that time who
served as Eugene McCarthy’s Youth Coordinator. When Humphrey became the
Democratic candidate and refused to disown an increasingly disastrous
war, Brown and those like him faced their voting dilemma. Humphrey’s
supporters sought to bring these progressives back into the fold by
arguing, “Humphrey is a good guy, trust us.” That went over like a lead
balloon and the Democrats lost an unknown number of antiwar
voters. Perhaps Nixon would have won anyway, but the situation certainly
hurt Humphrey’s chances for election. Today, Sam Brown “is not proud”
of the fact that in 1968 he “cast his ballot for a minor third-party
candidate as a throwaway vote.” He sees his action as a de facto assist
to Nixon’s campaign
Part III – Some Guidance
Brown has his own personal history to look back at and that helps
shape his present perspective. Not everyone has this experiential
background, nor do many bother to research the past for guidance in a
moment of present and personal political crisis. Given this situation it
maybe a better approach to consider a few questions that might help
resolve the voting dilemma.
1. Is our choice between a candidate motivated by ideology and one motivated by political pragmatism?
A. For instance, when George W. Bush, Jr. was elected, the nation got
a president motivated by a mixture of aggressive ideologies. He was/is a
Christian fundamentalist, a “free market” deregulator, a neo-con
warmonger, and a government minimalist. These orientations often
superceded pragmatic politics and led Bush, Jr. to resist compromise.
You could put a million people on the mall in Washington, D.C. to shout
their disagreement with his policies and he would just dismiss them as a
“focus group.” Were his Democratic political opponents similar? Or were
they more pragmatic politicians open to influence and pressure from
various constituencies, including progressives? How do Romney and
Obama compare in this regard?
2. What is the probability of a candidate taking the country into another war?
A. For instance, presidents such as Lyndon Johnson, Ronald Reagan and
George W. Bush Jr. were quite willing to lie through their teeth in
order to involve the country in foreign wars of dubious legitimacy.
Lyndon Johnson made his misleading Tonkin Gulf speech to Congress which
led to the Resolution that expanded the U.S. presence in South Vietnam.
Reagan was constantly at war, directly or indirectly, in Central
America, the Carribean and the Middle East and most Americans did not
even know it until 241 U.S. marines died in Beirut and the Iran-Contra
Affair broke in the press. Bush Jr. and his advisers, of course,
manufactured the “intelligence” which “justified” the invasion of Iraq.
B. Barack Obama ended American occupation of Iraq only to shift
resources to Afghanistan. He has set a deadline for withdrawal from the
Afghan morass even as he escalates the use of drone warfare. While
pushing damaging sanctions against Iran, he has so far resisted pressure
to attack that country or openly support Israeli ambitions to do so.
C. Romney has pledged to follow the lead of Israel when it comes to
U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, and there is no doubt that
Israeli leaders dream of fighting Iran with American support.
Also, there is the fact that Romney’s foreign policy advisers are some
of the same neo-conservatives who served George W.
So, given a choice between Romney and Obama, which one is more likely
to attack Iran? Remember, the question addresses probabilities. Either
candidate, if elected, may or may not do so, but which one appears more
likely to go to war?
3. What is the probability of either candidate taking seriously issues of social justice?
A. Again, there is no guarantee either way, but is one of the
candidates apparently more inclined to support such issues? Here,
statements on record favor Obama when it comes to women’s concerns, to
the poor, to the healthcare crisis, to gay rights, and the like.
B. Which one will protect civil liberties? Probably neither will.
Part IV – Defining the Act of Voting
The list of questions given above is far from complete. For instance,
an important consideration is whether such a list should include the
perceived personal consequences of giving or withholding support? Do I
commit some sort of moral breech if I vote for someone I have come to
disrespect? Well, it depends on how you see the very act of casting a
vote. Is it an act that refers to you as an individual, or to you as a
member of a community?
If it is the former, it is your self-image that is at stake. You have
to take a stand and live with yourself thereafter. If it is the
latter, it is your concern for the fate of the community that is
primary. That orientation may lead you away from thinking in terms
of moral positions. Instead, it may lead you to accept the need for
compromise. Either way you act, you run the real risk of
dissatisfaction. Like Sam Brown, you might live to regret a decision
that felt right at the time. Or, you might vote for the candidate you
believe will do the least harm to your community, and have to live with a
nagging sense of cognitive dissonance.
Part V – Conclusion
This analysis has not been written to tell anyone what to do.
Instead, it is an effort to clarify a real life issue that simply does
not have an easy answer. As of yet, I am not sure what I will do.
However, it has crossed my mind that, if I do decide to vote for
President Obama, I will enter the polling station with a clothespin on
my nose.
Post Script: Richard John Stapleton, in
a short piece entitled
“Voting: Duty, Privilege or Right?” discusses growing support for a
“Voters’ Rights Amendment (USVRA) to the Constitution that [among other
things] deprives corporations of constitutional rights and denies the
equation of campaign donations and free speech.” More details are
available at www.usvra.us.
No comments:
Post a Comment