This sums up my position on the 2012 presidential election…
All meaningful votes for president are at best a choice for a lesser evil. What abstinence or voting for nothing but vanity candidates is supposed to accomplish I have no idea, but nothing good and much bad would come from it. (Like Henry, I’m assuming that we’re not discussing “how any individual should cast her meaningless vote” but are making an argument about how progressives should vote. If any individual wants not to vote for Obama as a moral statement on the grounds that it won’t actually have any consequences, knock yourself out. I’ll only note that the ineffectuality argument cuts both ways — if your vote doesn’t matter, abstaining doesn’t somehow morally insulate yourself from the consequences of bad American policy either. Refusing to vote for Obama because you’d prefer to wait for Godot isn’t actually any kind of meaningful moral statement, and you can’t escape moral consequences by refusing to vote for anyone who might actually become president.)
While there’s no denying President Obama has had some significant accomplishments during his first term in office (Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, saving the U.S. auto industry, the elimination of Osama bin Laden), he’s also made some decisions that should give any Democrat/liberal/progressive reason to pause.
After all, President Obama has actually expanded the use of unmanned drones to kill suspected terrorist, with Obama’s administration now using drones to assassinate American citizens in foreign countries without affording those citizens any of their Constitutionally-guaranteed due process rights. The Obama administration has also defended its “indefinite detention” policy, which I’d expect from a Republican administration, but not from a Democratic president who once taught Constitutional law.
I would say that the diluted Affordable Healthcare Act we have is a big accomplishment, even sans the Public Option, which would have been quite the Jewel in that Crown.
As for detention policy, Obama tried to close Gitmo right off, but no states would take the inmates, not even for processing for eventual release. Congress went along with this refusal and blocked funding for any such transition.
So, I never talk of wasting my vote, I talk about spending it; since we vote in the economy with out dollars, we might as well spend our votes in the election. I do spend mine on Mr.Obama with enthusiasm. For him, and against Mr. Romney, whose foreign policy risk is even higher than his domestic policy skews.
Our country is simply too large for the nominating process to give any choices besides Big Fund Raisers, and Rousing Speakers. Most of the elections in living memory were cast in this light of lesser evils, so I see nothing exceptional about this one being so cast.
I voted for lukewarm Dems like Dukakis, Carter, and Kerry. I voted for vital Dems like Clinton, who won, and Mondale, who lost. My late father even voted aginst the lukewarm Republican Dole, a WWII veteran of his own generation. If he could do that, him being a lifelong GOP-er, I can easily vote for Mr. Obama, and not even think once that I am only voting aginst Mr. Romney.
Ronald Reagan was the progenitor of most of the ills that my GOP friends complain about in their party, yet they continue to lionize him. He started borrowing instead of taxing, AND taxed more to boot. HE started expanding government, and deregulating the economy simeltaneously, a pretty good trick. HE courted the Religious Right, and hopped into bed with that hypocritical cast of thousands…
Until the GOP repudiates him, and finds some new direction, embracing Mr. Obama as a continuation of at least some of the Bill Clinton legacy seems like a reasonably smart thing to do. I know my GOP friends are not at ALL happy to vote for Mr. Romney, who impresses them not at all. Be glad that Mr. Obama is well-intentioned, articulate, prudent, incremental, and moderate in his speech and positions, because Mr. Romney is NONE of those things, and any other candidate one could vote for will not get the chance to show whether or not they possess these traits…at least for the moment.
I belive the USA needs 4 parties. A genuine progressive left, a anti-abortion left-center, a fiscally conservative but socially open right, and a socially conservative and hawkish right. THEN we’d have some real choices, and have to make coalition government a reality, instead of the “Let’s Get Back to Bi-Partisanship” hyped lip-service we get now. Voting early, anyone? MBB
correction…”since we vote in the economy with OUR dollars…sorry ’bout tha’.
MBB
Zach, I’d like to think of myself as a “Progressive” both in my politics and in my religion using my conscience to determine the moral propriety and reasoning to arrive at a political solution to a difficult problem.
So let’s test it in the two political dilemmas that you allege President Obama has failed.
In both cases, I reason that we are at war, albeit undeclared by Congress, against all terrorists even Americans, but whose AVOWED purpose in life is to kill fellow American citizens. Being at war, we have a right to defend ourselves with force. I reason further that President Obama has a duty, both moral and political to protect us. In this case and if unable to capture and have the terrorists subjected to a trial, I believe the “lesser of two evils” principle is applicable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesser_of_two_evils_principle.
The alternate solution of waiting until fellow American citizens are killed is impracticable but more importantly unacceptable and morally wrong.
What would be your solution as President Wisniewski?
More later on Guantanimo.
Duane, while I certainly appreciate your point of view when it comes to killing terrorists, I think it’s a slippery slope when we give one man (or a few) who isn’t a judge the authority to make decisions to kill American citizens without affording those citizens their Constitutionally guaranteed rights.
You might not be bothered by the implications of that, but I am.
Zach, you’re endoctrination into the old Union MO is unfortunate. Obama is smart enough to realize that the numbers as well as social conventional is against the old system of consolidate workers and demand. Railing against that system which now supports only 12% of America at best is how the Republicans managed to sell their world oligarchy to the public. Well functioning unions are critical to a progressive society, but they must develop intelligent and progressive leadership instead of promoting the most attractive pugilist from their ranks.
What do unions have to do with what I wrote in my original entry?
Unfortunately the war in Afghanistan is not a major issue with either major candidate, nor even the citizens of this nation. Perhaps if we had compulsory military service, people would be reacting more to the continuing loss of life of not only our precious military but also the innocent people of Afghanistan. The loss of life is so tragic, but even the cost of waging war is adding to the enormous debt of our nation. Just on a monetary basis the war is contributing to the destruction of our financial health: the war costs us approximately $12 billion a month. Do the arithmetic– that is about 400 million dollars a day– or over a dollar a day for every man, woman, and child of our nation of 365 million. We are paying that now and adding to the debt for the future. With a Milwaukee County population of approximately one million citizens, this means the continuing war in effect COSTS A MILLION DOLLARS EACH DAY FOR THE COUNTY OF MILWAUKEE. Where is the outrage? Is public outrage only for some insignificant incident of a Green Bay Packer game?
Just think of a million dollars a day spent here in Milwaukee County instead of Afghanistan.
As far as Obama and Romney and the presidential election– whoever wins (probably Obama), our nation loses.
Every day I am thankful that my son came home from Afghanistan safe and sound…and I cry every time I see the latest casualty report in the local newspaper…this war should have been wound down years ago.
Agreed! President Obama made a mistake in accepting the advice of our military to conduct a “surge.” Rather, he should have looked at history.
My grandson recently returned from that area.
The Australian journalist Julian Assange has been classified by the U.S. government as an “Enemy of the State”. This is the first time I can remember a journalist getting such treatment from our government. This classification entitles him to potential kidnapping, torture and permanent detention, if he isn’t killed first by a sniper or drone attack. What was his crime? He published information that had been passed anonymously to him exposing the commission of war crimes by the U.S. military. War crimes…get it? The U.S. President does not seek to punish war criminals, he seeks to punish journalists and conscientous citizens who expose them. Enough is enough.
That is why I am voting for Jill Stein and for progressive Democrats down the ticket.
I suppose this matter boils down to definitional context. Lemieux situates a “meaningful” vote squarely and solely within the contours of the tiny but hyper-competitive realm of electoral politics. That limits “vote” to a weapon on the political battlefield, and for Lemieux the only choice is to win the battle. We are, without doubt, in the throes of political warfare.
Lemieux asserts a number of false assumptions for which he offers no explanation. First, he presumes abstaining from voting can produce nothing good; Second, a vote for his undefined notion of “vanity” candidates can produce nothing good. Third, he further presumes that Progressives who vote against Obama do so with the moral sentiment that “it won’t have any consequences.” Finally, he claims that abstaining from voting “doesn’t morally insulate” one from the consequences of bad American policy.
With the exception of his tacit but dismissive admission that we are engaged in political warfare he is wrong on all counts.
My counter to Lemieux is this: One’s vote is precious and more valuable than any monetary contribution anyone can give to any candidate or any party. If my vote is used as a weapon, a notion which I despise, then I want it wielded brilliantly to win the war, not the battle. If my vote is to be waged in the service of political war it will be the war of my choosing. I have a number deal-breaking “wars” that I’ve chosen as matters of conscience and reason; Obama and the Democratic agenda are on the wrong side of all of them. For voters and for candidates/political parties the underlying impetus is the same; there is a force tugging at each beyond that of moral imperative, and that is called political will.
To Lemieux’s falsities:
Abstaining can produce nothing good assumes that the corrosive GOP agenda will be the only force at play affecting change in this country. That is not so. It also presumes that once the American people (and for that matter the world community) see the GOP agenda in action it will be uncritically embraced. That, too, is not a given. Both are fearful dangers to be sure. But neither are inevitabilities. Lemieux also assumes that the Democratic agenda is less corrosive than the GOP’s. I don’t find any evidence for that presumption either. It isn’t a lesser evil; it is equally evil. The only differential is in how evil manifests itself. In other words, concentrated versus distended evil.
What is a vanity candidate? The mere suggestion echoes the cynical arrogance of Conservative extremism. Its is equally hollowed and divisive.
Lemieux falls far too deeply into another GOP logic trap – that motivations for abstaining are defeatist. Hardly. If we are in political war then abstaining can be a conscientious act of civic disobedience as civil disobedience would be to the Viet Nam War or U.S. intervention in El Salvador, or Iraq, or Afghanistan. And given the heightened atmosphere of suppressing protest and dissent, civic disobedience is a peaceful, reasonable alternative. One could argue that the Tea Party has used a form of punitive civic disobedience to great effect in motivating their candidates to operate more in alignment with their overall goals. Albeit that effort an odd astroturf inversion strategy – it has worked well at cementing the Right Wing Extremist agenda into place with some potential for legislative permanence. If our votes do matter, then conscientiously withholding them is the highest form of political resistance we can engage in.
From the perspective of civic disobedience, abstaining isn’t synonymous with Waiting for Godot as Lemieux suggests. It is a moral imperative which, contrary to Lemieux’s cynicism, satisfies the conscience with a degree of moral insulation that voting against one’s beliefs and interests does not. As to his notion of moral insularity – ultimately whatever the outcome of an election, as voters of conscience we are not responsible for the policies of elected officials we do not vote for. We are, as a matter of conscience, responsible for the policies of those that we do elect.
As to those voters enveloped in pessimism who do not vote because it is “meaningless” – I would ask Lemieux if he thinks his heavy-hand persuades. I should think not. I should think he doesn’t quite get the distinction between optimist and pessimist. For the pessimist, inaction is the morally preferable option. Camus might disagree, but Camus isn’t a 21st Century political strategist. Perhaps Lemieux might take a few lessons from “The Rebel” if his intent is to persuade the “inactive” in this moment of absurdity we find ourselves in.
To “significant accomplishments” – I will not give credit to baby steps which are not part and parcel of comprehensive solutions. The Lily Ledbetter Act is a band-aid. It neither solves nor addresses the structural problems of pay inequity and places the burden of equity on individual women in the workplace who are forced then to choose between going uncompensated or enduring potentially long, painful, damaging circumstances in order to achieve recompense.
DADT and marriage equality fall into the same category. It is the 21st Century. Regarding these matters as profound accomplishments can only be perceived so if the comparison point is Conservative Medievalism. There is no cohesion within the Democratic Party concerning social issues, therefore there is no concerted agenda to ensure Progressive, comprehensive policy with respect to social issues.
On economics, the Democratic agenda is everything BUT Progressive. The more the DNC tries to redefine Progressivism ala the DLC, the further from the Democratic party will I move. I will take my vote elsewhere – to where my vote is aligned with my conscience. For me, every individual vote matters precisely because voting is an action of conscience and principle.
The Democratic Party is no more the populous endeavor than the GOP and it is no less the party of Epimetheus (hindsight). Unlike Lemieux, I define a “meaningful” vote one that is an affirmation of insightful possibilities, not a resignation unto the inert.
“Real Generosity towards the future lies in giving all to the present.”
~Albert Camus, The Rebel