Tell certain liberals and progressives that you can't bring yourself to vote for a candidate who opposes gay rights, or who doesn't believe in Darwinian evolution, and they'll nod along. Say that you'd never vote for a politician caught using the 'n'-word, even if you agreed with him on more policy issues than his opponent, and the vast majority of left-leaning Americans would understand. But these same people cannot conceive of how anyone can discern Mitt Romney's flaws, which I've chronicled in the course of the campaign, and still not vote for Obama.
Don't they see that Obama's transgressions are worse than any I've mentioned?
I don't see how anyone who confronts Obama's record with clear eyes can enthusiastically support him. I do understand how they might concluded that he is the lesser of two evils, and back him reluctantly, but I'd have thought more people on the left would regard a sustained assault on civil liberties and the ongoing, needless killing of innocent kids as deal-breakers.
Nope.
There are folks on the left who feel that way, of course. Some of them were protesting with the Occupy movement at the DNC. But the vast majority don't just continue supporting Obama. They can't even comprehend how anyone would decide differently. In a recent post, I excoriated the GOP and its conservative base for operating in a fantasy land with insufficient respect for empiricism or honest argument.
I ended the post with a one-line dig at the Democratic Party. "To hell with them both," I fumed.
Said a commenter, echoing an argument I hear all the time: I mean, how can someone who just finished writing an article on how the Republican Party is too deluded, in the literal sense, to make good decisions about anything not prefer the other party? Let me explain how.
I am not a purist. There is no such thing as a perfect political party, or a president who governs in accordance with one's every ethical judgment. But some actions are so ruinous to human rights, so destructive of the Constitution, and so contrary to basic morals that they are disqualifying. Most of you will go that far with me. If two candidates favored a return to slavery, or wanted to stone adulterers, you wouldn't cast your ballot for the one with the better position on health care. I am not equating President Obama with a slavery apologist or an Islamic fundamentalist. On one issue, torture, he issued an executive order against an immoral policy undertaken by his predecessor, and while torture opponents hoped for more, that is no small thing.
What I am saying is that Obama has done things that, while not comparable to a historic evil like chattel slavery, go far beyond my moral comfort zone. Everyone must define their own deal-breakers. Doing so is no easy task in this broken world. But this year isn't a close call for me.
I find Obama likable when I see him on TV. He is a caring husband and father, a thoughtful speaker, and possessed of an inspirational biography. On stage, as he smiles into the camera, using words to evoke some of the best sentiments within us, it's hard to believe certain facts about him: Obama terrorizes innocent Pakistanis on an almost daily basis. The drone war he is waging in North Waziristan isn't "precise" or "surgical" as he would have Americans believe. It kills hundreds of innocents, including children. And for thousands of more innocents who live in the targeted communities, the drone war makes their lives into a nightmare worthy of dystopian novels. People are always afraid. Women cower in their homes. Children are kept out of school. The stress they endure gives them psychiatric disorders. Men are driven crazy by an inability to sleep as drones buzz overhead 24 hours a day, a deadly strike possible at any moment. At worst, this policy creates more terrorists than it kills; at best, America is ruining the lives of thousands of innocent people and killing hundreds of innocents for a small increase in safety from terrorists. It is a cowardly, immoral, and illegal policy, deliberately cloaked in opportunistic secrecy. And Democrats who believe that it is the most moral of all responsible policy alternatives are as misinformed and blinded by partisanship as any conservative ideologue. Obama established one of the most reckless precedents imaginable: that any president can secretly order and oversee the extrajudicial killing of American citizens. Obama's kill list transgresses against the Constitution as egregiously as anything George W. Bush ever did. It is as radical an invocation of executive power as anything Dick Cheney championed. The fact that the Democrats rebelled against those men before enthusiastically supporting Obama is hackery every bit as blatant and shameful as anything any talk radio host has done. Contrary to his own previously stated understanding of what the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution demand, President Obama committed U.S. forces to war in Libya without Congressional approval, despite the lack of anything like an imminent threat to national security. In different ways, each of these transgressions run contrary to candidate Obama's 2008 campaign. (To cite just one more example among many, Obama has done more than any modern executive to wage war on whistleblowers. In fact, under Obama, Bush-era lawbreakers, including literal torturers, have been subject to fewer and less draconian attempts at punishment them than some of the people who conscientiously came forward to report on their misdeeds.) Obama ran in the proud American tradition of reformers taking office when wartime excesses threatened to permanently change the nature of the country. But instead of ending those excesses, protecting civil liberties, rolling back executive power, and reasserting core American values, Obama acted contrary to his mandate. The particulars of his actions are disqualifying in themselves. But taken together, they put us on a course where policies Democrats once viewed as radical post-9/11 excesses are made permanent parts of American life.
There is a candidate on the ballot in at least 47 states, and probably in all 50, who regularly speaks out against that post-9/11 trend, and all the individual policies that compose it. His name is Gary Johnson, and he won't win. I am supporting him because he ought to. Liberals and progressives care so little about having critiques of the aforementioned policies aired that vanishingly few will even urge that he be included in the upcoming presidential debates. If I vote, it will be for Johnson. What about the assertion that Romney will be even worse than Obama has been on these issues? It is quite possible, though not nearly as inevitable as Democrats seem to think. It isn't as though they accurately predicted the abysmal behavior of Obama during his first term, after all. And how do you get worse than having set a precedent for the extrajudicial assassination of American citizens? By actually carrying out such a killing? Obama did that too. Would Romney? I honestly don't know. I can imagine he'd kill more Americans without trial and in secret, or that he wouldn't kill any. I can imagine that he'd kill more innocent Pakistani kids or fewer. His rhetoric suggests he would be worse. I agree with that. Then again, Romney revels in bellicosity; Obama soothes with rhetoric and kills people in secret.
To hell with them both.
Sometimes a policy is so reckless or immoral that supporting its backer as "the lesser of two evils" is unacceptable. If enough people start refusing to support any candidate who needlessly terrorizes innocents, perpetrates radical assaults on civil liberties, goes to war without Congress, or persecutes whistleblowers, among other misdeeds, post-9/11 excesses will be reined in.
If not?
So long as voters let the bipartisan consensus on these questions stand, we keep going farther down this road, America having been successfully provoked by Osama bin Laden into abandoning our values.
We tortured.
We started spying without warrants on our own citizens.
We detain indefinitely without trial or public presentation of evidence.
We continue drone strikes knowing they'll kill innocents, and without knowing that they'll make us safer.
Is anyone looking beyond 2012?
The future I hope for, where these actions are deal-breakers in at least one party (I don't care which), requires some beginning, some small number of voters to say, "These things I cannot support."
Are these issues important enough to justify a stand like that?
I think so.
I can respect the position that the tactical calculus I've laid out is somehow mistaken, though I tire of it being dismissed as if so obviously wrong that no argument need be marshaled against it. I am hardly the first to think that humans should sometimes "act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law." I am hardly the first to recommend being the change you want to see. I can respect counterarguments, especially when advanced by utilitarians who have no deal-breakers of their own. But if you're a Democrat who has affirmed that you'd never vote for an opponent of gay equality, or a torturer, or someone caught using racial slurs, how can you vote for the guy who orders drone strikes that kill hundreds of innocents and terrorizes thousands more -- and who constantly hides the ugliest realities of his policy (while bragging about the terrorists it kills) so that Americans won't even have all the information sufficient to debate the matter for themselves?
How can you vilify Romney as a heartless plutocrat unfit for the presidency, and then enthusiastically recommend a guy who held Bradley Manning in solitary and killed a 16-year-old American kid? If you're a utilitarian who plans to vote for Obama, better to mournfully acknowledge that you regard him as the lesser of two evils, with all that phrase denotes.
But I don't see many Obama supporters feeling as reluctant as the circumstances warrant.
The whole liberal conceit that Obama is a good, enlightened man, while his opponent is a malign, hard-hearted cretin, depends on constructing a reality where the lives of non-Americans -- along with the lives of some American Muslims and whistleblowers -- just aren't valued. Alternatively, the less savory parts of Obama's tenure can just be repeatedly disappeared from the narrative of his first term, as so many left-leaning journalists, uncomfortable confronting the depths of the man's transgressions, have done over and over again.
Keen on Obama's civil-libertarian message and reassertion of basic American values, I supported him in 2008. Today I would feel ashamed to associate myself with his first term or the likely course of his second. I refuse to vote for Barack Obama. Have you any deal-breakers?
I'm mostly disturbed at my friends who cried "atrocities!" under Bush but think every move President Obama makes is the right one.
Seriously. The hypocrisy kills me.
It's actually one reason I've almost left this board - and it's not really the hypocrisy of others, it's what I see in myself that I don't like. I find myself being something I don't want to be and being partisan over shit I don't even care about just because of things said here that irritate me. I'm not a Republican. I'm not even registered that way! I seriously hate both parties, but I don't know what it is about election years that bring out the worst in me.
I'm mostly disturbed at my friends who cried "atrocities!" under Bush but think every move President Obama makes is the right one.
Seriously. The hypocrisy kills me.
It's actually one reason I've almost left this board - and it's not really the hypocrisy of others, it's what I see in myself that I don't like. I find myself being something I don't want to be and being partisan over shit I don't even care about just because of things said here that irritate me. I'm not a Republican. I'm not even registered that way! I seriously hate both parties, but I don't know what it is about election years that bring out the worst in me.
Please. Who thinks every move Obama makes is correct? Not I, said the fly.
Lots of things Obama has done have made me mad. I just think life under Romney would make me madder. This is not lofty thinking here. It's a pretty mundane way of voting.
Does anyone plan to support Gary Johnson or Jill Stein then? Obviously neither will win (and are very different candidates) but I've only voted in a few elections and I'm tired of choosing between two bad candidates.
I'm horrified by a lot of the military actions of the last 12 years. I'm disgusted that both sides are corporate owned.
I'm more horrified by continuing the same under someone who's also anti-gay, anti-woman, and thinks all rich people are job creators.
Small tweak up there and this is where I stand.
I think no politician is 100% right. I also think that there might be things a Presidential candidate wants to do but when he gets elected comes to realize that it is not as easy to follow the path he hoped.
It's actually one reason I've almost left this board - and it's not really the hypocrisy of others, it's what I see in myself that I don't like. I find myself being something I don't want to be and being partisan over shit I don't even care about just because of things said here that irritate me. I'm not a Republican. I'm not even registered that way! I seriously hate both parties, but I don't know what it is about election years that bring out the worst in me.
Please. Who thinks every move Obama makes is correct? Not I, said the fly.
There are people like that out there; I'm related to some of them and it's frustrating as hell.
I find it very difficult to get most people to be honest about their party's misdeeds. Including myself on occasion and I'm not even a Republican! That's more what I'm talking about then saying people agree with everything one party does or doesn't do. If it's their party, or their candidate, they tend to dismiss a LOT, but jump all over the other candidate. That is the hypocrisy I'm talking about.
I'm considering voting for Gary Johnson, but I'd be lying if I say I'd do that if I was in a swing state. I think if I was in a swing state, I'd be less likely to vote that way.
Does anyone plan to support Gary Johnson or Jill Stein then? Obviously neither will win (and are very different candidates) but I've only voted in a few elections and I'm tired of choosing between two bad candidates.
Did any of the elections happen to be the 2000 clusterfuck that gave us W? Because that was my first election and it has seriously shaped the way I view 3rd party candidates.
I have been torn on this. I agree that parts of this administration have been a major disappointment. I was leaning towards voting third party or write in, but the DNC really motivated me to care about the Democrats again. I am not yet sure what I will do.
Fortunately, my rep is awesome and more in line with my values than just about anyone else in Congress, so I can have at least one feel good vote. Barbara Lee FTW.
Basically I don't believe the time to experiment with 3rd parties is during the presidential. Because at that paint all you are doing is fucking w/ outcomes at the highest level with the most at stake.
Basically I don't believe the time to experiment with 3rd parties is during the presidential. Because at that paint all you are doing is fucking w/ outcomes at the highest level with the most at stake.
Absolutely. A small voting block in a Pres election is not going to suddenly give us a 3+ party system.
If this country is committed to a third party which eventually leads to a viable 3rd party presidential candidate there has to be a foundation for it. I believe this foundation starts at the local level.
If this country is committed to a third party which eventually leads to a viable 3rd party presidential candidate there has to be a foundation for it. I believe this foundation starts at the local level.
I think this is a good point, because until there is a good base in a lot of states, there's no way a 3rd party has a chance other than to take votes away from the candidate closest to their views.
I still may vote 3rd party, but like I said - if I were in a swing state, I'm not sure I'd consider it.
If this country is committed to a third party which eventually leads to a viable 3rd party presidential candidate there has to be a foundation for it. I believe this foundation starts at the local level.
Winner winner chicken dinner.
I have voted for some wonderfully qualified 3rd party candidates in local elections. I do believe it's going to take a real bottom-up effort, but all the Nader lovers threw their eggs in that basket and probably rarely even looked at their local level. Local is how Libertarians got a voice (until that voice was usurped by the Tea Party).
Post by EllieArroway on Sept 26, 2012 15:30:11 GMT -5
I don't think we can get a viable 3rd party at the national level unless we get rid of our FPTP voting system & switch to something like a preferential/ranked system. Until then I won't be voting 3rd party in national elections because IMO it's a waste (even though my vote is a waste in this state anyway).
If this country is committed to a third party which eventually leads to a viable 3rd party presidential candidate there has to be a foundation for it. I believe this foundation starts at the local level.
Agreed. I just got my November ballot, and a number of local, even state level, positions have viable 3rd party candidates. One of the positions didn't even have a republican option.
Oh, but actually? I think the libertarians should take over the Republican Party. The GOP isn't using it to any good purpose anyway.
Only if they are true Libertarians, not TP wackos. And they shouldn't take over, they should become a viable 3rd party and also let another left party, like the Greens, join in the fun.
Oh, but actually? I think the libertarians should take over the Republican Party. The GOP isn't using it to any good purpose anyway.
Only if they are true Libertarians, not TP wackos. And they shouldn't take over, they should become a viable 3rd party and also let another left party, like the Greens, join in the fun.
I think it's easier to take over a major party's platform than it is to run a successful third party. JMO, nothing to back it up.
Only if they are true Libertarians, not TP wackos. And they shouldn't take over, they should become a viable 3rd party and also let another left party, like the Greens, join in the fun.
I think it's easier to take over a major party's platform than it is to run a successful third party. JMO, nothing to back it up.
that's ok. I won't demand a citation. ;D There isn't one out there anyway since this has never happened in the US system.