I will now utter the words that make me hate the future: I got into a political debate on twitter a few times this week. Both because we don't know how to debate effectively in this country, and twitter fails so spectacularly as a debate venue for any meaningful thought. So I'm going to explain myself in this blog post and let the subject drop, because I know who I'm voting for and I know why, and I want to have some sort of rebuttal to the odd liberal slacktivism that always seems to crop up in the last month of an election. And I'm tired of getting into arguments on twitter about it. I will understand if some readers find this too tedious to wade through.
Am I being too harsh when I declare it slacktivism? Maybe. I just think real political change takes consistent, boring, hard grass roots work and you can't just throw a protest vote at the last minute for president and expect any sort of lasting change. It's like trying to catapult yourself to the top of the mountain and hoping to plant the flag as you fly by, instead of just building a solid, stable platform to get yourself there. I firmly believe that if you want the american public to seriously consider a green (or any 3rd) party candidate as an alternative to the existing two behemoths, you're going to need to show first that they are capable of working within the existing structure. This means they're going to need to see that party working for them at the city, state and congressional level before they even begin to trust that they can get things done at the presidential level. As much as I like Jill Stein's platform, the Green party has been a spectacular failure for 20 years at building a local ground game, gaining influence in local and state politics and building name recognition. And trying to bypass all of that with accumulating enough protest votes to sneak in a quick, bloodless decapitation just seems like slacktivism to me. It's a seductive idea because it's easy, not because it's effective. You can't start an effective 3rd party from the top down, you have to start at the bottom and do the work. Presidents are typically picked from people who've worked many years as an effective state or national politician of some sort. Until the green party has one who can claim the same credentials, and the same levels of support, they're just not going to get anywhere. There isn't a shortcut to the top. That idea is too good to be true.
I've also seen the, "the Democrats will never pull to the left unless we punish them by voting for a third party" argument. Bullshit. We did this dance in 2000. I'm not sure Nader voters can make the argument that George W. Bush ushered in a new liberal paradise or a more liberal democratic party. If anything, there's been a huge backlash in people willing to vote third party, if it means we get another Bush. I think both the Tea Party and Occupy have both proved that you CAN shift the existing monoliths to the left or the right, but they both did that from within the party, not by sabotaging the party more in favor of their policies than not in general elections. Occupy didn't push Obama far enough to the left for your tastes? Then you'll have to try harder in the next 4 years, eh? In the meantime, I fail to see what publicly shivving the only viable candidate closest to your goals a month before the election achieves. Sinking Obama from the left will really only give progressives the opportunity to smugly intone "And THAT'S what you get for not being progressive enough!" while they enjoy all the liberal freedoms Romney will undoubtedly rain down upon them for their progressive purity. "Cutting off your nose to spite your face" is a thing people actually do. It's a thing to watch out for in ourselves.
And then there's the old, "they're both the same, it's all fucked up, I'm above it." Again, bullshit. Politics is messy. Every time you vote, you vote for policies you want, and policies you don't want. Political groups, especially the Democrats, are built by building coalitions with people who agree on many things, but not everything. Your vote is never now, and will never be, for a candidate that reflects your political views 100% down the line. And especially in this country, you don't get to vote for either of the existing parties without voting for some pretty icky things. And I'm not sure why anyone would suddenly think that they deserve this privilege above anyone else. Ask gays, African-Americans and women how long it took them to get the changes they wanted and how many times it took voting for candidates that had other policies they weren't exactly in love with. Why do you think your fight for a better government should be any easier than theirs? And, as mentioned above, no one has built a viable 3rd party option yet nor has shown how they're using Jill Stein vote this election to launch one. But none of this means the two existing parties are the same.
For you, in particular, they might be relatively the same. If you're not gay, and don't need some basic human rights recognized, they're both the same. If you're not a woman, and don't need some basic protections on when you get to make your own health decisions and when you don't, they're both the same. If you don't really care about the state of the health care system, they're both the same. Because there's only one party talking about gay rights, about contraception rights, about abortion rights, about trying to make the health care system better, and it's not Republicans. It's not even on their agenda, and if it is, it's to tear down rights I feel are important. Their explicit policies with regards to health care was to change nothing. If Obama hadn't been elected, they wouldn't have even talked about it. They don't even recognize that there was a problem. And on the other issues, they're actively trying to time travel back to the 50s and demonize gay marriage, restrict abortion AND, mind-mindbogglingly, contraception and their science committee members think science is the work of Satan. And since I have some skin in the game on the gay rights issue, you're going to have to forgive me if I can't bring myself to vote against my best interests, by voting for anyone but Obama. Who is, again, the only pro-gay rights option that has any chance of affecting my life in a material way. Especially given that Romney is not exactly neutral on these topics. He will actively try and move things the other way. And really, the side that thinks science is satan's work or equal to your emotional instincts in terms of merit are JUST the same as Democrats? Please.
Economically, it's more of a mixed bag of course. Even so, the Republicans remain batshit insane on the idea that tax breaks for the wealthy lead magically to job creation. And only one party shits on the poor for being poor at every available opportunity, and has policies it would like to implement to punish them for their 'laziness'. Are they both substantially more corrupt than I'd like them to be? Absolutely. Wall Street has a strangle-hold on both. But one of them is enthusiastically planning on doubling down on the practices that nearly destroyed us and one seems like it maybe could be convinced to be less crazy economically if its base pushed them that way. I make no apology for voting for someone who at least might be convinced, cajoled or bullied by his base to see things my way. The two parties aren't great economically, but are still not "the same." Voting defensively is not the same things as being mind-controlled by the two-party system. Obama, at the beginning of his term, said, "if you want more liberal policies, you have to give me political cover in the base to do that." He's right. Maybe we should start doing that?
Foreign policy-wise? The only difference I can detect is Romney would really love to drop some bombs on Iran, and so would his base. Drone assassinations suck, but since they poll over 60% in terms of popularity, we're getting the assassinations we deserve. We're getting drones regardless, and that sucks, but I can't do anything about that. And we're backing israel mindlessly regardless, and that sucks, but I can't do anything about that. I DO think that invading Iran would be worse than not invading Iran and continuing sanctions. and I DO prefer someone relatively calm-headed like Obama, with a base that pushes for peace as commander-in-chief instead of a wish-wash like Romney in charge, with a base that will be chanting "push the button! push the button! Show them how strong we are!" at every hint of conflict. So again, I vote conservatively (by voting for Obama), because it seems flat out immoral to stack the immorality and carnage of war with Iran on top of the existing immorality and carnage of drone warfare. And we aren't getting a president who will stop all foreign aggression this year. So I vote for the less bad, because it seems so MUCH less bad.
Of course, this only matters in swing states. And if you would have normally voted for Obama, but are voting Green in protest, then you ARE helping Romney. But even there, I fail to see how spoiling the election for Obama from the left, gets the left further. "I enabled a Romney win, ???, Liberal Paradise!" is just not a winning argument to me, and I have yet to see a ??? that's anything but hand-waving and fairy dust. Your vote is a mess. It will be a mess morally so long as western culture is a mess morally. It will be frustratingly binary until the hippies in occupy or their supporters get to filling city councils, mayorships state legislatures and governorships with 3rd party politicians, so americans have a broader pool to pick from when picking experienced politicians for president. And in the meantime, the policy differences between my two choices DO matter. In the end, I choose to vote for a guy who will move it an inch in my direction, rather than 6 inches the other way OR has zero chance of moving it all in the next 4 years. I don't really lose sleep over that decision. My idealism and my pragmatism are NOT mutually exclusive.
And then there's the old, "they're both the same, it's all fucked up, I'm above it." Again, bullshit. Politics is messy. Every time you vote, you vote for policies you want, and policies you don't want. Political groups, especially the Democrats, are built by building coalitions with people who agree on many things, but not everything. Your vote is never now, and will never be, for a candidate that reflects your political views 100% down the line. And especially in this country, you don't get to vote for either of the existing parties without voting for some pretty icky things. And I'm not sure why anyone would suddenly think that they deserve this privilege above anyone else. Ask gays, African-Americans and women how long it took them to get the changes they wanted and how many times it took voting for candidates that had other policies they weren't exactly in love with. Why do you think your fight for a better government should be any easier than theirs? And, as mentioned above, no one has built a viable 3rd party option yet nor has shown how they're using Jill Stein vote this election to launch one. But none of this means the two existing parties are the same.
For you, in particular, they might be relatively the same. If you're not gay, and don't need some basic human rights recognized, they're both the same. If you're not a woman, and don't need some basic protections on when you get to make your own health decisions and when you don't, they're both the same. If you don't really care about the state of the health care system, they're both the same. Because there's only one party talking about gay rights, about contraception rights, about abortion rights, about trying to make the health care system better, and it's not Republicans. It's not even on their agenda, and if it is, it's to tear down rights I feel are important. Their explicit policies with regards to health care was to change nothing. If Obama hadn't been elected, they wouldn't have even talked about it. They don't even recognize that there was a problem. And on the other issues, they're actively trying to time travel back to the 50s and demonize gay marriage, restrict abortion AND, mind-mindbogglingly, contraception and their science committee members think science is the work of Satan. And since I have some skin in the game on the gay rights issue, you're going to have to forgive me if I can't bring myself to vote against my best interests, by voting for anyone but Obama. Who is, again, the only pro-gay rights option that has any chance of affecting my life in a material way. Especially given that Romney is not exactly neutral on these topics. He will actively try and move things the other way. And really, the side that thinks science is satan's work or equal to your emotional instincts in terms of merit are JUST the same as Democrats? Please.
Economically, it's more of a mixed bag of course. Even so, the Republicans remain batshit insane on the idea that tax breaks for the wealthy lead magically to job creation. And only one party shits on the poor for being poor at every available opportunity, and has policies it would like to implement to punish them for their 'laziness'. Are they both substantially more corrupt than I'd like them to be? Absolutely. Wall Street has a strangle-hold on both. But one of them is enthusiastically planning on doubling down on the practices that nearly destroyed us and one seems like it maybe could be convinced to be less crazy economically if its base pushed them that way. I make no apology for voting for someone who at least might be convinced, cajoled or bullied by his base to see things my way. The two parties aren't great economically, but are still not "the same." Voting defensively is not the same things as being mind-controlled by the two-party system. Obama, at the beginning of his term, said, "if you want more liberal policies, you have to give me political cover in the base to do that." He's right. Maybe we should start doing that?
Foreign policy-wise? The only difference I can detect is Romney would really love to drop some bombs on Iran, and so would his base. Drone assassinations suck, but since they poll over 60% in terms of popularity, we're getting the assassinations we deserve. We're getting drones regardless, and that sucks, but I can't do anything about that. And we're backing israel mindlessly regardless, and that sucks, but I can't do anything about that. I DO think that invading Iran would be worse than not invading Iran and continuing sanctions. and I DO prefer someone relatively calm-headed like Obama, with a base that pushes for peace as commander-in-chief instead of a wish-wash like Romney in charge, with a base that will be chanting "push the button! push the button! Show them how strong we are!" at every hint of conflict. So again, I vote conservatively (by voting for Obama), because it seems flat out immoral to stack the immorality and carnage of war with Iran on top of the existing immorality and carnage of drone warfare. And we aren't getting a president who will stop all foreign aggression this year. So I vote for the less bad, because it seems so MUCH less bad.
Of course, this only matters in swing states. And if you would have normally voted for Obama, but are voting Green in protest, then you ARE helping Romney. But even there, I fail to see how spoiling the election for Obama from the left, gets the left further. "I enabled a Romney win, ???, Liberal Paradise!" is just not a winning argument to me, and I have yet to see a ??? that's anything but hand-waving and fairy dust. Your vote is a mess. It will be a mess morally so long as western culture is a mess morally. It will be frustratingly binary until the hippies in occupy or their supporters get to filling city councils, mayorships state legislatures and governorships with 3rd party politicians, so americans have a broader pool to pick from when picking experienced politicians for president. And in the meantime, the policy differences between my two choices DO matter. In the end, I choose to vote for a guy who will move it an inch in my direction, rather than 6 inches the other way OR has zero chance of moving it all in the next 4 years. I don't really lose sleep over that decision. My idealism and my pragmatism are NOT mutually exclusive.
No comments:
Post a Comment