Why I'll Never Support Interventionist Warmonger Obama

[timetunneler]

Persistent activism within a major party at least has a chance of making change happen over time in that party. That's how we got all the progressive legislation passed over the years. Was civil rights legislation done by a third party? When it happens, it doesn't happen instantaneously, but at least it gets involved people within your party community to think.

Amen. If neither candidate is perfect enough for you, then pick the one that will push things in the direction you prefer. (Or if you're Chlamor, go round up some fellow communists and try to overthrow the U.S. government.)

[LilyPatToo]

I'd like to thank chiggerbit for that post on the previous page--those are all points I've raised (or tried to raise, rather) with the "Only naive idiots still bother to VOTE!" contingent. It's so fucking facile to just toss off dismissive debate-silencing statements and go do something that's more fun on Election Day.

But I DO understand the genuine frustration and disillusionment with the Dems and Repugs that prompts some of the dismissiveness--the sincere kind--and I think that chiggerbit's post addresses that sort of thinking very directly and clearly. The next time someone spouts off about there being no difference between the parties or the candidates, I'm going to quote that post and not let myself be dismissed.

There IS a difference, as anyone whose been conscious and actually Paying Attention through the past few US administrations knows beyond any shadow of any doubt. It may be fashionable to feign inability to tell a Democratic candidate from a Republican one, but it's a pose. And often it's simply a lazy one that seeks to absolve its holder from actually becoming an activist and working for positive progressive change.

LilyPat

chiggerbit said:

McCain scares the hell out of me. Personally, I think the people of this country get the kind of president they deserve. Unfortunately, the problem with that is that our choice of president can have a serious impact on people in other countries, such as the Iraqi people, and those people do not deserve the American presidents that we give them. Had Ralph Nader not participated as a spoiler in the 2000 election, Al Gore would have been president. Maybe he wasn't the perfect candidate, but he would have been a hell of a lot better than George Bush. So don't anyone try to tell me they're all the same, because I know that had Gore been president, a million+ Iraqis who have died as a result of George Bush's war and occupation of Iraq would still be alive. I do not take the "lesser of two evils" argument lightly, in case you can't tell. By comparison to George Bush, Al Gore is a saint. And I wasn't that thrilled by him, to be honest, thought he was pretty boring. Obama is the only real game in town when it comes to having a chance of beating McCain, so Obama will get my vote, even if I am underwhelmed by him.

If people really wanted a chance in hell of making a difference, it should be attempted from inside one of today's two major parties, the Dem party being my choice. Third party and totally dropping out is useless, has no impact whatsoever today. There was a time in this country when maverick parties had a voice and an impact, but time has winnowed them out, and those voices either were melded into the larger party or they were silenced by their loss of a stage as the rest of their political community were absorbed into the larger organizations. The status quo has become a tradition, so much so that I doubt that there will ever be a third party that will be a threat to either of the two major ones. It's kind of like the urbanization of this country--it isn't likely that we will ever go back to the small-town tradition that built this country, because urbanization is efficient, no matter how romantically we think small-town living is. Persistent activism within a major party at least has a chance of making change happen over time in that party. That's how we got all the progressive legislation passed over the years. Was civil rights legislation done by a third party? When it happens, it doesn't happen instantaneously, but at least it gets involved people within your party community to think. Thinking is good. Thinking out loud is better. Having people listen to you as you think out loud is even better. Getting you ideas into a platform is even better. And so on. THE BEST CHANCE FOR CHANGE STARTS AT THE GRASS ROOTS LEVEL.

If you want a perfect candidate, don't vote, go to church.

[dada]

I think if you look at history, you'll find that progressive change in America has come from organizing outside of the 2 party system.

“Whenever injustices have been remedied, wars halted, women and blacks and Native Americans given their due, it has been because ‘unimportant' people spoke up, organized, protested and brought democracy alive.” - From the introduction to Voices of a People's History of the US by Zinn and Arnove

[dada]

No candidate will ever be the perfect candidate. But it's this voting for the lesser of two evils, wishing for small changes, that smacks of hopeless idealism to me. Or I guess in this case, 'hopeful idealism.'

[chiggerbit]

I think if you look at history, you'll find that progressive change in America has come from organizing outside of the 2 party system.

We don't need to quibble about who the very first person was who started any particular change, whether it was outsiders or grass roots, because the point is that it took a party to embrace that need for change and usher it into existence in law.

[LilyPatToo]

To me, if idealism isn't tempered with accurate knowledge of the way a Real World political system works and with gritty determination to do what it takes to actually accomplish goals, as opposed to just talking about them, then it's not worth much. All the "Lofty Lefties" I know (and I know many) who sit around spouting more-Liberal-than-thou sound bites they heard on NPR and sneering at anyone who tries to work from within the Democratic party are worth less than nothing in effecting social change.

Too many of them are snobs and posers. And, in the face of the evil that's been done just in the past 8 terrible years, if all they can do is whine about how supporting their spoiler 3rd party candidates is the only ethically defensible choice, then the hell with them.

If you can honestly look at the overall voting records of the Republicans and the Democrats on issues of social justice and still believe that "the parties are the same" then you're probably beyond saving. I can see the need to compromise with the Conservatives in power in order to get through desperately needed legislation, but I don't need to like doing it.

I recommend that any idealist who's ready to give up verbal masturbation and roll up their sleeves and get to work first read George Lakoff. Here in the Real World, Liberal idealists have been taking a beating from the Conservatives' breathtakingly manipulative use of language to control people's thinking at deep cognitive levels. They're decades ahead of us in this and have lavishly funded think-tanks that spawn operatives who are then fast-tracked in the national media into positions where they can push the buttons of legions of voters.

It would be *lovely* if the power in this country wasn't entrenched the way it is and a bunch of idealistic people could form a new party and truly change things--that's still possible, I hear, in small nations. But this country is too huge and its population too dumbed down and mass mind controlled into apathy for that to work here and now. It's hitting the fan, folks, and either we get real or we--and millions of non-Americans--will suffer and possibly perish.

LilyPat

[dada]

We don't need to quibble about who the very first person was who started any particular change, whether it was outsiders or grass roots, because the point is that it took a party to embrace that need for change and usher it into existence in law.

I think it matters very much that change is influenced from outside of parties. And it does not take a party to make changes, far from it. Parties trail along behind, taking credit for the hard work of countless nameless agents of change.

Here's another quote for you:

"Poitical rights do not originate in parliaments; they are rather forced upon them from without. They do not exist because they have been legally set down on a piece of paper, but only when they have become the ingrown habit of a people, and when any attempt to impair them will meet with the violent resistance of the populace." - Rudolf Rocker

[dada]

In the spirit of George Lakoff, I'm not going to participate in a debate that is framed in those terms, LilyPatToo.

I have already said that in my opinion, those who think that things can get better by making little changes and voting for the lesser of two evils are the idealists.

We can both agree that 'idealist' is a bad word, and something one doesn't want to be, though.

[mentalgongfu2]

I'd like to thank chiggerbit for that post on the previous page--those are all points I've raised (or tried to raise, rather) with the "Only naive idiots still bother to VOTE!" contingent

I think this discussion would be much improved if people would distinguish between the idea that voting itself is a waste and the idea that voting for the Democratic party is ineffictive/insufficient/delusional/fillintheblank. There is such a distinction being made by people likr myself, but we all seem to be lumped into the same category. And I strongly object to the term "spoiler" to refer to alternatives to the major party candidates. The spoiler to me is the party of "hope" and "change" that backs the global war on terror, domestic spying and telecom immunity, REAL ID, the Patriot Act, speeding cameras, smoking bans and every other infringement on liberty that upsets me. No offense to chigger.

[Eldritch]

Thank you for your even-handed and diplomatic remarks, Dada.

Political debate inspires passion among those who really care—and "those who really care" can hold quite different opinions sometimes, as has been demonstrated here. Much more than that, it is certainly possible among those who really care to disagree strongly with someone else's point of view, but to maintain honest respect for that individual's intelligence and integrity.

When I reflect on the fact that what I consider to be true today bears such little resemblance to what I considered to be true even a decade or two ago, it becomes a little easier not to dismiss those that I might even passionately disagree with right now.

Each of us is on a journey somewhere. Who really knows what exact opinions on questions like these we might hold, when we finally get there?

[Eldritch]

I'd like to thank chiggerbit for that post on the previous page--those are all points I've raised (or tried to raise, rather) with the "Only naive idiots still bother to VOTE!" contingent

I think this discussion would be much improved if people would distinguish between the idea that voting itself is a waste and the idea that voting for the Democratic party is ineffictive/insufficient/delusional/fillintheblank. There is such a distinction being made by people likr myself, but we all seem to be lumped into the same category. And I strongly object to the term "spoiler" to refer to alternatives to the major party candidates. The spoiler to me is the party of "hope" and "change" that backs the global war on terror, domestic spying and telecom immunity, REAL ID, the Patriot Act, speeding cameras, smoking bans and every other infringement on liberty that upsets me. No offense to chigger.

I agree with you on both points.

There is often an important distinction to be made between (A) those who no longer trust the voting process itself in the United States and (B) those who no longer trust the Democratic Party.

I too strongly object to the term, "spoiler," when it is used to refer to candidates outside the failed two party system. The real "spoilers" are those within the two parties who have so repeatedly betrayed their constituents as well as their oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution.

To suggest that it is our "duty" to support a political party that has betrayed us, again and again—"because of all the great things it once accomplished!"—reminds me a little of the guy who insists that we keep eating at that bad restaurant, "because of all the good meals that were once prepared there."

I'll make a sandwich at home, thanks.

Continued support for any organization that has actually been working against our best interests is neither our "duty," nor is it advisable.

[8bitagent]

McCain scares the hell out of me. Personally, I think the people of this country get the kind of president they deserve. Unfortunately, the problem with that is that our choice of president can have a serious impact on people in other countries, such as the Iraqi people, and those people do not deserve the American presidents that we give them. Had Ralph Nader not participated as a spoiler in the 2000 election, Al Gore would have been president. Maybe he wasn't the perfect candidate, but he would have been a hell of a lot better than George Bush. So don't anyone try to tell me they're all the same, because I know that had Gore been president, a million+ Iraqis who have died as a result of George Bush's war and occupation of Iraq would still be alive. I do not take the "lesser of two evils" argument lightly, in case you can't tell. By comparison to George Bush, Al Gore is a saint. And I wasn't that thrilled by him, to be honest, thought he was pretty boring. Obama is the only real game in town when it comes to having a chance of beating McCain, so Obama will get my vote, even if I am underwhelmed by him.

If people really wanted a chance in hell of making a difference, it should be attempted from inside one of today's two major parties, the Dem party being my choice. Third party and totally dropping out is useless, has no impact whatsoever today. There was a time in this country when maverick parties had a voice and an impact, but time has winnowed them out, and those voices either were melded into the larger party or they were silenced by their loss of a stage as the rest of their political community were absorbed into the larger organizations. The status quo has become a tradition, so much so that I doubt that there will ever be a third party that will be a threat to either of the two major ones. It's kind of like the urbanization of this country--it isn't likely that we will ever go back to the small-town tradition that built this country, because urbanization is efficient, no matter how romantically we think small-town living is. Persistent activism within a major party at least has a chance of making change happen over time in that party. That's how we got all the progressive legislation passed over the years. Was civil rights legislation done by a third party? When it happens, it doesn't happen instantaneously, but at least it gets involved people within your party community to think. Thinking is good. Thinking out loud is better. Having people listen to you as you think out loud is even better. Getting you ideas into a platform is even better. And so on. THE BEST CHANCE FOR CHANGE STARTS AT THE GRASS ROOTS LEVEL.

If you want a perfect candidate, don't vote, go to church.

The elite had been planning 9/11 since the early 90's at the very least.
There was no way in hell they would have allowed Gore to win. None.
The "Nader was a spoiler" crap is total bull. I voted for Nader. I hate Lieberman, I hated the crooked Clinton regime, and I also saw the dark approaching specter of the Bush/Cheney regime.

You forget Clinton murdered just as many Iraqis or more in 8 years of nonstop carpet bombing/horrific sanctions

And you can sure bet 6000 Afghanis would have died in 2001 alone from US bombing

[LilyPatToo]

And I should never make posts about politics when I'm upset, angry and triggered--my apologies for that annoyed, frustrated post above. Not all Conservatives are unpleasant or difficult to work with and I do realize that nothing will get done without compromise. It just galls me to think of all the suffering in this world that will continue while people with widely differing ways of perceiving reality try to reach agreement.

You see, my problems with Conservative thinking are not based in ideas or ideals--they're painfully first-hand and up-close-and-personal. I was born into an abusive Conservative Republican family and then grew up to see myself bought and sold by smug wealthy Conservative businessmen and their Mobster friends. I don't believe that what happened to me could happen in any social/political system other than a patriarchal one.

Lakoff's "strict father frames" theory is highly accurate, to the best of my personal knowledge. People who are raised within a strict father framed environment are going to have a tendency to obey authority without question. And look where half a nation that thinks that way has gotten us all....

Fascism cannot flourish without that mindset. And neither can egregious abuses of human rights.

So when I see people enabling that system by refusing to see it for what it truly is, I feel rage. But I shouldn't post while in that state of mind, since it negates all the work I've done on myself over the years to undo that Conservative programing. I *choose* to be nurturant, but the ugly old authoritarian crap rises up sometimes and I feel despair at the knowledge that half the people in this country are blind to its danger.

LilyPat

[chiggerbit]

You forget Clinton murdered just as many Iraqis or more in 8 years of nonstop carpet bombing/horrific sanctions

Ok, here's where I should own up to having voted third party myself a couple of times, as a protest, not because I liked the one for whom I was voting. But I did it knowing the polls were indicating a big upset in favor of the Dem candidate. And frankly, that Republican candidate might not have been any worse than the Dem candidate.

Tell me, Nader voters, would you still vote Nader, if you could do it over again? Do you still think there was no difference between Bush and Gore? I'm really interested.

[peartreed]

A third party vote is simply a protest vote. It doesn't result in a mandate for an elected representative, so it is a "throw away", an impotent waste.

While the choice between Democrat or Republican often involves comparable levels of distrust of both local candidates, a distinction still exists at the national party level policies and the leadership candidate platforms and personalities. That is where the crunch decision rests.

While the electoral college system dilutes the direct impact of the individual voter's franchise, the system still delivers its support for the chosen party's candidate. So the ballot choice between the two parties counts. That is your voice.

In the upcoming election it is also clear to most analytical voters of conscience and critical thinking that the correct choice is obvious.

And that ain't "right"!