December 26 & 27 -- Why Vote?
Commenters and I are always writing about why it does/doesn't matter whether or not we vote Democratic, Republican or Neither of the Above. So please share with us at least one reason -- whether or not that "reason" will influence your own vote (its still a secret ballot, after all!) -- progressives should vote Democratic, Republican or neither.
Or write about something else.
Also, thanks again for your comments over the holidays.
Update: My column in today's New York Times eXaminer is on Ross Douthat's column, which he titled "The Cratchit Tax Credit." I call it the "Ebenezer Scrooge Tax Break," and I explain why. I guess Douthat is one good reason to vote. Somebody has to cancel out his vote. I just took dibs (though I'll accept challenges from anyone who claims a higher right to be the anti-Douthat voter). God bless us, every one.
Share Article
Reader Comments (15)
This is going to be as raggedy as a pit bull's two day old chewie toy; bear with me. I've been trying to package this thought for the last couple of days and I can't quite get my finger on the bow.
Voting is the positive side of what we have been witnessing and commenting on. I have been pondering on how and why we are letting our civil liberties slip away; that's the negative side. We are sliding slowly into a police state. Laws are being passed; toys are being produced, checkpoints are increasing, protests are being stifled. It's not a conspiracy; it's a complacency. Tiny drops in a bucket that slowly add up to a flood. The drops have been falling into the bucket before 9:11; those with power always want more power. With 9:11 fear and ignorance crested in a tidal wave of tiny little drops. Each little drop by itself; national IDs, presidential powers, E snooping, etc, etc, seems innocuous enough, each little drop can be explained and defended. The drops represent safety and security, what's a little drop of loss of civil freedom when faced with fear and the unknown? A police state doesn't arrive with banners and a parade. A police state creeps incrementally in drop by drop. The average person goes along with the flow because it's easier than fighting the current and the average person is convinced that he or she will not be caught up in the flood.
"Check my ID? Of course. Check my mail? Of course. Check under my bed? Of course. Check my thoughts..."
So the positive to all this is my vote. My vote is also a tiny little drop in the bucket. My vote says I got rights and I'm gonna' exercise them. My vote is the one positive physical action I can take that represents a counter to the negative wave I refer to above. My stupid little vote is a drop in the bucket. But my little stupid vote if combined with others can change the tide. That is why I vote. One day if I don't cast my stupid little vote I won't be able to. And one day while standing in a interment camp exercise yard I will proudly show off my "I voted" badge to my fellow undesirables. Hope you can show me yours.
The "I Voted" badges in Florida are very cheesy -- little stickers to slap on your lapel. But JJG has pointed to a reason to treasure them: we can wear them as badges of honor in our Bill of Rights Disaster Camps. I guess I'd better have the next one laminated.
I used to love the original "Columbo" series. Many of the plots revolved around fancy new technology: some trick with video cameras or answering machines -- Columbo always figured out how the killer had circumvented or used the system to set up his alibi or kill the victim. Nowadays, Columbo plots would have to be too hard for Columbo -- or the viewer -- to figure out. There are 100 ways law enforcement can figure out where you were and what you did: cell towers; store, bank, stop light, etc. surveillance cameras, Google Earth, IPO & other Internets tracking, bank & credit card records -- and if you're a target: warrantless wiretapping, sting ops, trash-diving & other forensic stuff I don't know about. If anybody -- even a stalkerbuddy -- is interested in knowing what we're doing, we no longer lead private lives.
Marie
Why vote? Well, I guess because—like @JJG—I still naively believe that it matters. But this year I’m taking a different, utterly nihilistic tack.
The Progressive participants in this forum have persuaded me that Democrats and Republicans really are pretty much alike. With some minor differences, they have all been bought and paid for by virtually the same special interests, to which they pander at the expense of the American people. And, of course, enrich themselves at the same time.
So this year my bumper sticker and yard sign will read: “Save America! Vote Them ALL Out!”
Regardless of party affiliation, and regardless of the extent to which—in the past—I deluded myself into thinking that particular candidates really shared my Conservative convictions, I will be voting for The Other Guy, the Non-Incumbent.
I have no doubt that it will NEVER happen, but I can’t think of a more potent message to send to our President and all of our current crop of crooks than for all of them to wake up on November 7, 2012 and realize that they are OUT—each and every incumbent, regardless of party affiliation.
What better way to say “Enough is enough?”
Of course, we will need to follow up with constant ‘phone calls and e-mails, reminding the newbies that they were NOT elected because we necessarily share their “ideals” or have given them a "mandate," but because it was the only way that we could send the message that WE ARE FED UP WITH BUSINESS AS USUAL. And that we can turn on them just as easily in two or four years, if they don’t take the interests of the American people to heart, instead of those of their campaign contributors.
Yes, I know that there are (a very few) honest politicians out there. We all like to think that “ours” is one of them, and therefore deserves our continued support. Thinking like that will only buy us more of the same in 2012 and beyond. They ALL must go.
So, Progressives, I’m not suggesting that you vote Democrat, Republican, or “none of the above.” I’m suggesting that you look at the ballot, and whoever is the incumbent, vote for The Other Guy.
What other message will serve?
@Marie Burns--
Thanks for including amongst "The Ledes" the LA Times article on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosive's "Fast and Furious" program.
As you might imagine, I have been following this closely through National Rifle Association publications. But I feel better when I can more or less confirm what the NRA has been saying via less partisan publications.
The article's final quote says just about all I need to know about the Federal bureaucracy's concern for the loss of a Federal agent's life vis-a-vis the "inconvenience" that it will cause for said bureaucracy.
These are the people who--we expect--will honor our civil rights?
I suggest everyone vote, at least, for House candidates, and that their vote be based on a considered evaluation and selection of the most progressive candidate with enough chops to win. No amateurs, no newbies. Only candidates who have managed to run some sort or governmental office, who have some idea of what "government" means.
@JJG (from yesterday): re Frank Zappa, yeah, he was ahead of his time. In an imagined world, I'd like to hear his "Trouble Every Day" as the theme music for a network news program!
@(all): With regard to today's issue at OTS, in an imagined, idealized world, I'd like, as I've suggested previously elsewhere, the formal option of a "none of the above", with a win by "none ..." necessitating a new election in which the previous candidates would be barred from competition. To me, that seems the fastest, most direct route to improvement of our electoral choices consistent with protection from the possibility that kooks will be inadvertently elected as a side effect of a protest vote for "the opposition". It's by no means foolproof; (continuing the musical references) we could, still, "get fooled again". But it would be a possible antidote to the situation of no trustworthy choices.
For the presidential vote, I've previously said that the Electoral College state-by-state winner-take-all system does allow for the possibility of a protest vote with no downside in states where one's unenthusiastic choice has no chance of winning. But that only applies to one office, and is only relevant for some voters.
Ultimately, a voter is forced into a complex weighing of the devil one knows, versus the devil one doesn't, coupled with the potential for improvement of one's own party when it learns through voter "tough love" that it can't take its (former) supporters' votes for granted, plus the possibility for the development of a new, better party.
I don't think there is one all-situations answer. I remain particularly disgusted by what appears to be a sellout by Obama --- how else to describe the actions of an intelligent man elected to the presidency in a time of crisis with a once-in-a-generation mandate to effect change in support of social and economic justice, who instead surrounded himself with advisers who were of the institutions that were part of the problem, and repeatedly capitulated to an opposition party that in recent years seemed to range from the blatantly selfish to the insane?
Meanwhile, as JJG and Marie point out, there has been an accelerating trend, from both major parties, towards the erosion of fundamental Constitutionally-addressed liberties that have served the nation well for two hundred years. Between such erosion, significant governmental arrogance and secrecy, and the sophistication of modern political propaganda and manipulation, our votes may soon be largely meaningless.
Recently we wondered "Where are the protest toys?". Where are the protest candidates, ones with a genuine commitment to fundamental civil liberties, personal integrity and governmental openness, and a functioning government acting to increase social and economic justice and improve national infrastructure?
Well....here is a minority opinion! I could not disagree more with all of you who have written about voting either for "your conscience"--which I assume means a write-in for Bernie Sanders, who does not wish to be President. Or for "none of the above" which is a vote for the Republican nominee, probably Mitters, as is the "for conscience vote."
Get with it, people! This is reality--not a dress rehearsal. Have you all read Paul Krugman today about the EPA and the new rules for mercury in the environment? If so, do you really want to elect a Republican like Mitters who may very well defund the EPA? Why?
Yes, yes, yes......both parties are bought off by corporations and have huge bankster contributions. However, look at Obama's record of appointees (with the exception of Eric Holder and Ken Salazar). He has appointed people who are much friendlier to the middle class and the environment than are the Republicans and Tea Partiers.
Say what you will--I still think Ralph Nader screwed Al Gore in Florida. And I do not think Gore would have taken us into Iraq as Bushwack did. He was/is not a Neo-Con, and had different issues with Daddy. This was a disaster from which we will not recover in our lifetimes. Defeating Obama is NOT the answer (IMHO) for sure.
That said--I do not admire the man. I will not give money to his campaign, nor will I actively campaign for him. But I WILL give what meager resources I have to Progressive candidates and to my local Congressman--who is not particularly liberal, but is being challenged by a well-funded, inexperienced Tea Party whacko--funded by the Koch brothers. Yeech!
When all is said and done: THINK SUPREME COURT!
Yes, I anticipate absolutely negative feedback. Go for it!
After five beautiful days off, I'm lucky enough to go back to work.
Kate; the guy's going to get my little vote, don't worry here. What I've got to know is: What's a gay toilet? A gay bath house, I understand. Gay beach, yep. Gay bar, sure enough. Gay apparel; looks good. Gay ask don't tell, you're kidding me. But gay toilets that's a new one to me. I just when in and asked my Kohler
it (I don't know if it's a boy toilet or a girl toilet) said " Ron Paul is just another ass in a long line of asses." I flushed but am still confused.
You're all so fortunate to live in areas where you actually have a choice when it comes to voting for Reps. or Senators. I don't. Where I live, there is usually the choice of the conservative, the very conservative or the ultra-conservative. At least we have a choice with the Presidential election, sort of.
@JJG--You'd think that a gay man would, of course, know what a gay toilet is. I didn't so I checked with 500 of my closest friends and it seems no one knows. As an aside, I have actually named my toilet "right wing republican" and I picture some of them every hour during the night when getting up with the bladder problem. And then there's the "water closet" thing, like, Perry just can't get out of the closet, and Marcus just can't get out of the closet, and then there's that Santorum thing. Just sayin'.
Franklin D. Roosevelt emerged when the country was frightened and confused. Things were so terrible that the opposition was subdued. Terror was abroad in the land.
We will not have a political climate where change is demanded until a majority of Americans are damaged.
A Republican Senate, which is likely, with the power to extend the foolish right wing trickle down philosophy will quickly bring about economic devastation.
From the ensuing despair and fear a champion will appear. It may be a progressive with plans to refinance midddle America or a law and order dictator dedicated to protecting the anointed with clubs and courts.
The failure of our political and economic system will cause a severe response.
It is later than you think.
@Carlyle 145-
..."From the ensuing despair and fear a champion will appear. It may be a progressive with plans to refinance midddle America or a law and order dictator dedicated to protecting the anointed with clubs and courts.
The failure of our political and economic system will cause a severe response."
I take it this means you are not going to vote Democratic, and are willing to let the "chips fall where they may" Lottsa luck. I think you are excessively hopeful.
@Kate Madison
I am in 100% agreement with you and as you have stated, the Supreme Court nominations in the future are of particular concern. The only thing I want to add is that after the last eleven years, I will never vote for a republican or a libertarian for anything. The right-wing is a cesspool of trickery and greed.
@Tommy Bones--
I’m afraid that more than a few Democrats reside in that “cesspool of trickery and greed,” too.
The fact is, ever-increasing numbers of our Congresscritters are steadily enriching themselves even as they hold office, and they aren’t all Republicans or Libertarians.
From Roll Call,
“According to a Roll Call analysis of Senate financial disclosure forms filed in 2010, more than half of the chamber’s membership, 54 lawmakers, reported a minimum net worth of more than $1 million. Another four Senators fell short of that mark by less than $100,000.
In addition, more than half of the Senate’s membership saw their individual fortunes grow in 2009, the period covered by their most recent disclosure reports.” --Roll Call
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/56_42/-51039-1.html
See also: http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/politics&id=8481781
“In the past six years middle class America's net worth has dropped 8 percent while the members of Congress got 15 percent richer on average, according to the New York Times analysis of the latest congressional reporting data.” --KGO TV, San Francisco
To get more specific, consider the example of Senator Jeff Bingaman, a Democrat, from my own state of New Mexico:
“Last year, Roll Call ranked Bingaman 40th richest of the 535 members of Congress and remarked that the investment portfolio of the senator and his wife, Anne, was unusually active, "racking up nearly 600 separate purchases and sales of stock in 2009, worth a combined total of more than $20 million" -- not counting their book of untraded stocks.” --Washington Examiner
http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2011/05/ron-arnold-bingaman-senate-career-shows-how-get-rich-public-service
According to that same Washington Examiner article, Bingaman’s financial disclosure statements show that:
“[Bingaman] entered the Senate in 1983 considerably less than a millionaire, inherited a Texaco oil and gas well in Gregg County, Texas, worth all of $15,000, and yet is retiring with investments worth $7 million to $20 million, and possibly as much as $50 million.”
The author of the article asks the following questions, and so should you and I:
“...why does the chairman of Energy and Natural Resources own substantial stock in General Electric, Arch Coal, and oil companies like Occidental, ExxonMobil, Chevron, and Concho Resources, among others? And mining giants Freeport McMoran, and Barrick Gold?
And why does a Finance Committee member own stock in Citigroup, Wells Fargo, JP Morgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America and many more?
And why does a member of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee own stock in pharmaceuticals like Merck, Abbott Laboratories, startup research labs and many more?”
Can you say “Conflict of interest?” Can you say “Insider trading?” Can you say “Bingaman’s a greedy Democrat trickster, not a Republican or Libertarian?”
@Tommy Bones, please understand that I am not trying to defend or rationalize Republican/Libertarian greed and trickery by saying “Well, the Democrats do it, too!”
What I am saying is that most of our politicians of any party stripe appear to swim together happily in your “cesspool of trickery and greed,” and I condemn them ALL for their behavior, and I've had ENOUGH .
While I thoroughly understand @Kate Madison's pragmatic perspective, I say "Vote ‘em ALL out."
PS: In the interest of full disclosure, I am a political conservative who is not all that unhappy with the current composition of the Supreme Court.
@JJ; Bravo!! Hear, Hear!! Bravo!! Love your drop metaphor... Be a drop, not a drip!
I have said for decades that Demicans and Republicrats are two sides of the same coin, at this point it's kind of like the Republicans are the hardened criminal and the Democrats are the gullible sidekick who always goes along with the criminal activity and then when they get caught says "It wasn't me!"
@Kate;
So when exactly DO we vote our conscience? Isn't voting for the lesser of two evils what got us here in the first place?
Kate and Tommy: If course I am going to vote for Obama. If he wins we will diddle along as we have been with his coterie of bankers preventing change. In the long, long run we may resurrect the economy as we learn to live with low growth and and high unemployment and a destroyed generation. There is no future without radical change.
A Republican government and a corrupt Supreme Court will bring a level of fear, despair and economic failure that will ensure a radical response.