![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
symbioidljRecently, I've seen this thread linked to in a comment on ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
metaphorge's journal.
And it's something that's gotten on my nerves a bit. The basic gist is this(for those who care not to follow the link, but it is a good discussion, so i recommend clicking through(just remember to come back!!!!!!!)): One person was going to vote for Kerry, but dislikes Edwards(this person lives in N.C.), and states that unfortunately, he now can't vote for Kerry. Another person rants that "You must want Bush? How can you vote for Bush(by not voting for Kerry)?" The other person replies with the standard rhetoric of "You will continue to perpetuate the 2 party system if you vote for Kerry."(not quite the answer, exactly, but there was an element of it in there... Really, you should just read it.)
Anyways, here's my thoughts.
Either of these positions lead to horrible muddied thinking about Democracy, and lead to a scary proposition in the long road. When elections become all or nothing, we have descended into mere binary logic, and any sense of nuance, any fine point suddenly gets thrown out of the window. I will state my position on my choice now.
I do not like the two party system, and I wish there was a viable 3rd party candidate. My ideal would be someone left-leaning. I, however, don't like Bush, and am willing to live with a corporate-state that tolerates a little drug use, some abortion/choice, a bit of free speech, and a willingness to work with other countries even in the slightest, than a raving religious nutbag who will do anything to gain more power, which includes kowtowing to his electorate, whose interests are VERY VERY VERY opposite of mine. Kerry has to at least pretend to support things on the left, and thus work moderately towards placating that segment of the electorate.
I voted for Edwards in the primaries. I've seen the support Edwards has gotten among my conservative co-workers. It's a good sign. He's too conservative in some areas, but his stance on NAFTA is certainly good.
Now, to the meat of the issue. Personally, I see the act of voting as a duty to be performed by voting what your conscience tells you. It's important to discuss and debate the merits of the candidates. But doing it in a manner that preaches fear is completely the wrong way to do it. If you like Kerry/Edwards, or if you can accept them(even grudgingly, as I do), and wish to vote for them, go ahead, but don't you DARE tell me that if I don't vote for them, I'm voting for Bush. If I happen to prefer a Green candidate, then I will vote for a Green candidate if my conscience tells me to.
Conversely, do not tell me that if I continue to vote for Democrats, I will only perpetuate the 2 party system. It may be that I'm a moderate-liberal, who sees a difference between the two candidates, and have no problem with the 2 party system. As such, my conscience tells me to vote for the Democratic candidate, because I think there is a difference. My view is different than yours, and I have a right to vote for the Democratic candidate if I so desire.
In this way, as much I hate the fact that my mother is going to be voting for Bush, and if I can try to educate her on his stances, or why I personally won't vote for him, and if she actually agreed with me(fat chance!), good. She's voting her conscience based upon certain merits of philosophy. But in the end, I respect her choice, even if I do so quite grudgingly.
When people continue to say that if you vote one way or another because of this or that, and aren't looking at issues beyond "Get Bush Out" or "Get 3rd Party In"(I know that's breaking it down into completely ridiculous stereotypes), we aren't really doing what we need to do. We need to look at the issues, and decide on a candidate that we feel we should vote for. If my choice is not your choice, so be it.
vyoma is against Kerry. And I feel bad that he has to be so defensive about it. He has his stance, and he must vote his conscience. I fear that he feels that I'd be perpetuating the two-party system with my vote, but I would hope he could respect my opinion, and realize that I'm not exactly excited about my choice, but it's a choice I can live with.
I have given this much thought in the past year, and that is my conclusion about whom I'm going to vote for(yes yes, dangling participle, I know, I know).
Instead of fighting like we are, let's work to building up our cases, not based on fear, but on merit. Clear-headed, rational thinking is quite necessary in these times. If your logic tells you to vote Green, do it. If it tells you to vote Libertarian, do it. But do it, because you've thought through why you're doing it. And if your logic tells you to vote Democrat, then do it. But again, do it because you've thought throught the ramifications.
I opposed Clinton all 8 years(and in that time frame, I went from being ultra-conservative/reactionary, to Libertarian, to Anarchist/Communist, to Green), and I will remember that when I'm voting for Kerry. People are so afraid of Bush now, that they think voting against Bush is some magical solution.
News Flash.... Bush is a problem, but so is Kerry(at least in my opinion), so when I vote Kerry in, I won't be blinded by some myopic hate-of-bush that has made me amnesiac of my understanding of the nature of power. I will watch carefully, as Kerry and Edwards continue to trample on my rights. And I will speak out against them, the same as I have against Clinton, but I believe that they will have the capability of listening to some form of sustained rational thought. I think Kerry has the opportunity to engage in rational debate. He will have an open mind, and read the papers(unlike Bush, who has plainly stated that he doesn't read the news, that his staff selects what should be filtered down to him)... That's why I'm voting for Kerry... Because he will be more likely to listen to my concerns, because his electorate leans left, and he has to at least pull in that direction.
There are some people who feel that you should vote 3rd party, and if Bush gets into office, we will further our inevitable decline and it's the best thing that we can do, because it's a necessary evil. If that's how you feel, then do so. But don't preach to me how I should vote. I don't want you to vote for someone because I tell you how to vote, or because you're afraid of the big bad wolf... I want you to vote for who you do because
YOU
FUCKING
THOUGHT
IT
THROUGH!!!
And in the end, that also means that those who don't vote, so called "Abstentionists"(such people as working class people who think all politicians are crooks, and anarchists, among others), are also voting their conscience.
People who say "If you don't vote, you're part of the problem" or "Those who don't vote, have no right to complain" are full of complete shit... Those who don't vote HAVE voted. They don't believe in the system, and are voting against the entire system.
The most important thing is to debate on the merits of the case. To discuss not the LEADERS/CANDIDATES, but their ISSUES. That doesn't mean that the candidate theirself doesn't merit an analysis... Their personality and their approach to policy is also important... But mere image alone does not a good candidate make.
metaphorge's journal.And it's something that's gotten on my nerves a bit. The basic gist is this(for those who care not to follow the link, but it is a good discussion, so i recommend clicking through(just remember to come back!!!!!!!)): One person was going to vote for Kerry, but dislikes Edwards(this person lives in N.C.), and states that unfortunately, he now can't vote for Kerry. Another person rants that "You must want Bush? How can you vote for Bush(by not voting for Kerry)?" The other person replies with the standard rhetoric of "You will continue to perpetuate the 2 party system if you vote for Kerry."(not quite the answer, exactly, but there was an element of it in there... Really, you should just read it.)
Anyways, here's my thoughts.
Either of these positions lead to horrible muddied thinking about Democracy, and lead to a scary proposition in the long road. When elections become all or nothing, we have descended into mere binary logic, and any sense of nuance, any fine point suddenly gets thrown out of the window. I will state my position on my choice now.
I do not like the two party system, and I wish there was a viable 3rd party candidate. My ideal would be someone left-leaning. I, however, don't like Bush, and am willing to live with a corporate-state that tolerates a little drug use, some abortion/choice, a bit of free speech, and a willingness to work with other countries even in the slightest, than a raving religious nutbag who will do anything to gain more power, which includes kowtowing to his electorate, whose interests are VERY VERY VERY opposite of mine. Kerry has to at least pretend to support things on the left, and thus work moderately towards placating that segment of the electorate.
I voted for Edwards in the primaries. I've seen the support Edwards has gotten among my conservative co-workers. It's a good sign. He's too conservative in some areas, but his stance on NAFTA is certainly good.
Now, to the meat of the issue. Personally, I see the act of voting as a duty to be performed by voting what your conscience tells you. It's important to discuss and debate the merits of the candidates. But doing it in a manner that preaches fear is completely the wrong way to do it. If you like Kerry/Edwards, or if you can accept them(even grudgingly, as I do), and wish to vote for them, go ahead, but don't you DARE tell me that if I don't vote for them, I'm voting for Bush. If I happen to prefer a Green candidate, then I will vote for a Green candidate if my conscience tells me to.
Conversely, do not tell me that if I continue to vote for Democrats, I will only perpetuate the 2 party system. It may be that I'm a moderate-liberal, who sees a difference between the two candidates, and have no problem with the 2 party system. As such, my conscience tells me to vote for the Democratic candidate, because I think there is a difference. My view is different than yours, and I have a right to vote for the Democratic candidate if I so desire.
In this way, as much I hate the fact that my mother is going to be voting for Bush, and if I can try to educate her on his stances, or why I personally won't vote for him, and if she actually agreed with me(fat chance!), good. She's voting her conscience based upon certain merits of philosophy. But in the end, I respect her choice, even if I do so quite grudgingly.
When people continue to say that if you vote one way or another because of this or that, and aren't looking at issues beyond "Get Bush Out" or "Get 3rd Party In"(I know that's breaking it down into completely ridiculous stereotypes), we aren't really doing what we need to do. We need to look at the issues, and decide on a candidate that we feel we should vote for. If my choice is not your choice, so be it.
vyoma is against Kerry. And I feel bad that he has to be so defensive about it. He has his stance, and he must vote his conscience. I fear that he feels that I'd be perpetuating the two-party system with my vote, but I would hope he could respect my opinion, and realize that I'm not exactly excited about my choice, but it's a choice I can live with.I have given this much thought in the past year, and that is my conclusion about whom I'm going to vote for(yes yes, dangling participle, I know, I know).
Instead of fighting like we are, let's work to building up our cases, not based on fear, but on merit. Clear-headed, rational thinking is quite necessary in these times. If your logic tells you to vote Green, do it. If it tells you to vote Libertarian, do it. But do it, because you've thought through why you're doing it. And if your logic tells you to vote Democrat, then do it. But again, do it because you've thought throught the ramifications.
I opposed Clinton all 8 years(and in that time frame, I went from being ultra-conservative/reactionary, to Libertarian, to Anarchist/Communist, to Green), and I will remember that when I'm voting for Kerry. People are so afraid of Bush now, that they think voting against Bush is some magical solution.
News Flash.... Bush is a problem, but so is Kerry(at least in my opinion), so when I vote Kerry in, I won't be blinded by some myopic hate-of-bush that has made me amnesiac of my understanding of the nature of power. I will watch carefully, as Kerry and Edwards continue to trample on my rights. And I will speak out against them, the same as I have against Clinton, but I believe that they will have the capability of listening to some form of sustained rational thought. I think Kerry has the opportunity to engage in rational debate. He will have an open mind, and read the papers(unlike Bush, who has plainly stated that he doesn't read the news, that his staff selects what should be filtered down to him)... That's why I'm voting for Kerry... Because he will be more likely to listen to my concerns, because his electorate leans left, and he has to at least pull in that direction.
There are some people who feel that you should vote 3rd party, and if Bush gets into office, we will further our inevitable decline and it's the best thing that we can do, because it's a necessary evil. If that's how you feel, then do so. But don't preach to me how I should vote. I don't want you to vote for someone because I tell you how to vote, or because you're afraid of the big bad wolf... I want you to vote for who you do because
YOU
FUCKING
THOUGHT
IT
THROUGH!!!
And in the end, that also means that those who don't vote, so called "Abstentionists"(such people as working class people who think all politicians are crooks, and anarchists, among others), are also voting their conscience.
People who say "If you don't vote, you're part of the problem" or "Those who don't vote, have no right to complain" are full of complete shit... Those who don't vote HAVE voted. They don't believe in the system, and are voting against the entire system.
The most important thing is to debate on the merits of the case. To discuss not the LEADERS/CANDIDATES, but their ISSUES. That doesn't mean that the candidate theirself doesn't merit an analysis... Their personality and their approach to policy is also important... But mere image alone does not a good candidate make.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-07-07 07:47 pm (UTC)I'd be a lot more comfortable voting for a third party candidate if their views more closely matched mine, which isn't the case with the options we currently have, entirely aside from the other reasons not to vote 3rd party in this particular election.
Outside of that, I'm thinking of starting a California version of the Monster Raving Looney party once I get moved, and not entirely for the obvious ridiculousness of it, either.
no subject
Date: 2004-07-11 07:39 pm (UTC)I don't know what I think of psychedelic oriented parties. I mean, political parties. I like non-political psychedelic oriented parties, of course. :) I tend more towards a Hakim Bey theory when it comes to such things, in that a TAZ is more appropriate than a political machine for this approach. I'm not quite making sense, am I?
Or is the MRLP a PAZ in it's own right?
Having looked at Kerry, though, I think I am comfortable enough with the differences to happily vote for him. I mean, I'm merely being pragmatic, of course, and my ideal is FAR from Kerry. But he certainly will work towards certain parts of my ideal in ways that Bush never will.
Any sense of moderation at this point is preferable.
no subject
Date: 2004-07-07 07:53 pm (UTC)I'm not sold on Kerry yet, though I like the Edwards choice. They say VP's don't sway votes, but I didn't vote for Gore in 2000 cuz he was running with that assclown Lieberman. I'm still going to look at other candidates, and, like you said, make an informed choice.
And I hate the whole "a vote for a 3rd party is a vote for Bush". No, it's a vote for who you voted for!! People will come back with "this is not the year to try to trumpet a 3rd party, it's too important". But really, is Kerry any better? What happens when all of these anti-Bush votes put Kerry into office and he's no better than Bush was? My concious is best when I know I'm voting for the person I support the most, win or lose. A 3rd party vote is not a "throw away" vote any more than a vote for anyone but the winner is. Since we don't know who's going to win, they are all potentially throw away votes.
And the entire notion of parties at all to me is stupid. I wish we could get rid of them all together and just run candidates on ISSUES. How great would that be? No more democrats or republicans, etc, just PEOPLE with IDEAS. Unfortunatly, everyone wants everything to fit into nice silos to make their decision easier, so they don't have to THINK. Bah. Good writing.
no subject
Date: 2004-07-07 08:47 pm (UTC)YES.
Read his damn voting record before you ask rhetorical questions like that. He's not perfect, nobody's saying he is, but he certainly is a much lesser of the evils. I mean, he's better if you like the ACLU, he's better if you favor unions, he's better if you're into those wacky abortion rights...
Right now, with the way the system works, a 3rd party vote is, in fact, worthless. I don't like it any more than you do but this is reality. The powers that be don't care about your conscience. Hell, the Republicans are working hard to get Nader on as many ballots as possible.
You want candidates to run on the issues? Check out Instant Runoff Voting. (http://www.instantrunoff.com/) Seems like a pipe dream, but at least it's an attempt at some kind of useful reform. Not to mention that it's already in effect for lower offices in at least four states, with many more looking into adopting it.
no subject
Date: 2004-07-07 09:05 pm (UTC)I stand by my statement that a 3rd party vote isn't worthless. We'll have to agree to disagree there.
no subject
Date: 2004-07-11 07:51 pm (UTC)I see your point, exactly. But then again, politics is ultimately about compromise. To a point. There has to come a point where a stand is taken. Unfortunately it happens too often only during election time. Hopefully dems grow some balls to stand up against this onslaught by the republican hate machinery.
After having looked at Kerry's record more, I do have to say that I'm at least a bit more comfortable voting for him. I'm not holding a lot of hope out, but the fact is, he has to pander for my vote, because I'm his "constituent", and as such, he'll be more likely to push for things like banning the further construction of roads in public parks, his stance towards energy dependence is part of the platform that I've been trying to formulate in my own "political party charter"(just a sort of thought on what I think the best approach to leadership is in this day. it's my 2012 platform for president!!!) The energy issue is big enough to push me towards him. Also, his stance and abortion and sex-education and AIDS is very important, especially now that there is a large troublesome spread of the epidemic facing Asia and in the US it's on the rebound. Texas schoolbooks are now promoting abstinence only(with a teacher provided "supplement" in case the teacher wishes to hand out some info on condoms and prophylactics) The schoolbooks there are teaching kids that you should get "plenty of rest" to help prevent STD's... WTF???????? I was thinking horrible thoughts, that good. Maybe these fuckers will die off if they teach these things. Their kids will have unprotected sex and suffer from the folly of their parents. But really, the kids did nothing to deserve it. Their parents are shitheads, and they don't deserve to suffer from unwanted pregs, STDs and the like because their parents are stupid ignorant fucks. But anyways, if this administration stays in power, these are the policies that will continue to be pushed towards. And these are not sane, rational policies, these are extremist religious right philosophies.
The idea of "compassionat conservatism" and getting churches involved in welfare, while on the surface is a nice idea... In practice, the federal gov't since Bush has been in, has not once given any support to a non-christian religious group for charity... Only xians have received aid, even though other groups have applied. I will have to dig up the stats... If it were applied equally to all religions, I would be inclined to support the concept, with support of religion from the state, IMO, it's ok for one religion to get it, as long as ALL religions get it. But if one religion is denied, and ALL religions are to be denied. Otherwise there is a clear establishment of religion.
The biggest issue I have with Kerry is his stance towards Israel, but I can't expect much change from any fucking american politician. Even the one that I DID like (Kucinich), and the one that I sorta liked(Dean), support Isreal WAY too strongly.
I would urge you to look at Kerry. I do think that you would probably agree with many of his stances. He has a fine nuanced perspective towards leadership that is sorely needed right now.
no subject
Date: 2004-07-11 09:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-07-07 08:05 pm (UTC)I miss you guys..perhaps some time in august we can
somehow hook up and visit--my situation is up in
the air so details now aren't possible but it
has been a year so I think it would be cool
to see each other again.
talk soon
peace
k
no subject
Date: 2004-07-07 08:07 pm (UTC)*hugs*
no subject
Date: 2004-07-08 05:14 am (UTC)60% of the nations population don't vote not because they're saying we don't like the choices, the good majority don't care and are too ignorant to our problems and possible solutions to do anything about it. One day every fucking 4 years isn't too much to ask to make your statement about how you feel and to actually learn about each of your candidates for congress, for state reps, for local positions - it is all our duty to do this, but many many americans are just too lazy to follow through. I'm not saying I'll know every candidate's issue on everything, it's near impossible, but I will do the best to inform myself on which candidate is the best for each position and go from there.
-m.
no subject
Date: 2004-07-08 12:44 pm (UTC)(pointed here by
no subject
Date: 2004-07-08 10:25 pm (UTC)I know a lot of people who aren't registered to vote and simply refuse to register, despite my speeches and offers to help simplify the process for them. They usually say, "I'm not into politics." It's that kind of public thinking that gets American into trouble. And it runs rampant.
no subject
Date: 2004-07-11 08:05 pm (UTC)And I wish Americans gave a shit, and actually thought about these issues, instead of just wanting to buy the latest fucking Britney Spears CD or whatever.
I think it's sad. But also, the other question is: Do I want these people to be voting? The fact that they don't give a shit, and that they're not looking into it, means that even if they DID look into the candidates, I don't know if I would trust their judgement on who to pick.
Yes, I would like an informed populace, but at this stage, it IS too much to ask of the Americans. I'm sure you've heard of the latest report on Literacy, right?
here's a few articles on it:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0712/p01s02-ussc.html
http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/LondonFreePress/Today/2004/07/10/533986.html
But the other problem I have with this report is that it deals with "literature" and the fact is, *I* don't read "literature", and while it's important from a cultural point of view, I'm just not into fiction. I prefer philosophy, religion and politics. But I'd also suspect that the process of literacy decline also affects those genres as well(as well as science and history and other forms of non-fiction)...
The important thing is critical thinking. Even people who are involved in politics tend to only view things from some dogmatic perspective. We're ALL guilty of it. The important thing, though is to learn to question every little fucking thing you're told and believe about reality. And that's a scary phenomenon about our society. We DON'T have that critical faculty. It's why we believe in shit like Jesus walking on water, and why so many people believe what they see on TV... Multimedia literacy is an important thing now, not just the ability to read, but to discern fact from fiction, fact vs manipulation. This includes Michael Moore's films as well as Fox News. And it includes people who state a need for media observation(a la: Adbusters)
no subject
Date: 2004-07-08 06:07 am (UTC)i agree completely
im voting for kerry because of his less religious/strict stance on abortion...not because i think he's a great guy who is gonna do wonderful things for my country.
no subject
Date: 2004-07-08 08:53 am (UTC)