Thoughts On Not Voting

[mishalak]

Politics in America seems to me to be a mad arms race. Each side of every issue tries to pump up its supporters to write, to call, to vote, to give money by telling the public how disastrous it will be if they don't. That we are in crisis, that the revolution is near. If they get any traction this leads to the other side of the issue doing the same to their supporters. In an endless cycle of spending more money trying to shout louder and frighten people more.

Yet as young as I am I remember the same sorts of dire warnings about similar subjects many times in the past. And I cannot think of a single one that turned out anywhere near as bad as was predicted. I also have the rather different perspective of having been in the Republican Party and involved in the party politics when Clinton was about to be impeached. File off the partisan buzzwords and the same arguments could be taken over to the Democrats/Greens today and be used about President Bush.

I got turned off by my original party by the Clinton thing and when I went across the street I found the other side to be just the same in a wavy mirror reverse. So I decided to contribute to something positive, political détente; a lessening of tensions by backing off from the political arms race. It's not my job to correct every thing I see as a mistake. Just think of what a nice world it would be if more people followed my lead and we might actually get politics with people talking to each other instead of yelling past each other.

So my call is to stop voting. Or at least to stop doing it publicly. Vote in the dead of night by mail in ballot and don't tell a soul why or how you did. Don't contribute to political MADness.

Also note that the shouting does nothing to encourage me that voting for whoever is any better than a vote for Bush. So with me at least you aren't doing your side any favors with the endless stream of rhetoric.

Comments

[skylarker.livejournal.com]

I have mixed feelings on this subject. I took that political matching quiz and the candidate CLOSEST to my views was only a 77% match. Voting has always seemed to me a matter of choosing the lesser of evils, with not much to distinguish them. On the other hand - the act of voting may be the finger in the dyke, keeping a floodtide of total fascistic despotism from washing away every trace of democracy from the land.

[mishalak.livejournal.com]

Wow, 77%? Better than me. When I cram my views into the answers on those things I get between 50% and 65% for the best option.

The threat of getting total fascistic despotism in America is exactly what I'm talking about. Both sides claim this about the other and honestly I can't tell if this is smoke and mirrors or real. It seems like it is just hyperbole, because it has been in the past. I remember things like are being said about the Republicans now being said about Clinton and Regan. And going back into history this seems to be something said about every president after Hoover except for Carter.

If we are headed for despotism I honestly believe that it could not be stopped. The only thing that will cure it is getting the disease and then ridding ourselves of it. Like Japan and militarism. For better than 50 years public opinion has been so against militarism that it had no chance whatsoever. The way to cure people of the desire for war isn't to endlessly fight against having one but to let them learn that war is hell, give them a good taste. The way to end the threat of fascism is to give America a mild case of it that affects everyone and turns them off to it.

But I honestly think we are no headed for despotism.

[skylarker.livejournal.com]

I really don't know where we are headed. Maybe Inertia is the single greatest force in America and things will stay pretty much the same despite everything.

Maybe techno-anarchists will create and seed nanotechnology that will enable self-replicating machines to build a whole alternative economic system overnight: with self-building towers in which which everyone can live for free, and recycled organic foodstuffs so no one need go hungry and geothermal power and quantum computers and everyone will just ditch the old husk and move into the brave new world.

[mishalak.livejournal.com]

I don't know either. But my instict is that whoever we elect president won't have that much of an effect upon it. On the other hand who we put in charge of the local sewers does matter.

[skylarker.livejournal.com]

I used to think it didn't make any difference who was president, but things have gone so spectacularly bad under Bush that I'm beginning to think I might be mistaken.

[mishalak.livejournal.com]

I honestly think that things were just as bad under Clinton. He certainly was no friend of gay rights.

[skylarker.livejournal.com]

No, but they weren't foreclosing on my house back then -
Honestly; it seems like half the people I know have been in serious economic straits since Bush took over, especially those in the non-profit sector. I've read that foreclosures and bancruptcies have increased significantly - in the Mpls area at least.

[mishalak.livejournal.com]

Yeah, but presidents don't have much to do with that. Honestly I blame the idiots in congress that were pushing the SEC to go soft on companies during the 90s. Though even that would not have completely prevented the bubble I suspect. People were optomistic withoug reason (And I was shouting that from the roof tops from about 1996).

[skylarker.livejournal.com]

When times are bad the man in charge is always at fault. :)

[mishalak.livejournal.com]

And I'm sorry about your house, I've definately seen forclosures go up in my work at the bank. Is there anything to be done? Gifts from all your friends and froods like me? I could forgo some books.

I've had a bad job since Bush became president, but it really isn't his fault. Though I would love someone to blame besides impersonal forces and personal faults.

[skylarker.livejournal.com]

Thank you for the kind thought of helping. I'm afraid it's gotten too far along for that - I'm something like $10,000 behind in payments, and am not pulling in enough income to keep up on new payments even if I got current again. I'm trying to sell the house while there's still hope of getting out without declaring bancruptcy - and get an apartment I can manage on my present income.

Now, if I could get a decent job in web design...

[mishalak.livejournal.com]

Maybe if you let a whole bunch of fans move in... <grin>

[skylarker.livejournal.com]

Hmmm. I like this latter prospect. Go, Techno-Anarchists, go!

[publius1.livejournal.com]

In my opinion, not voting is an abrogation of civic duty; a tacit assumption not that you don't like the choices, but that you do not care who wins.

That's fine, but I'm one of those who wonders why these people then feel like they have a right to complain about either the partisan nature of politics (which has been this way in America, by the way, since the time of Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. Popular partisan newspapers at the time called Jefferson a pedophile and Adams a monarchist who either wanted to make himself King, or give America back to the Brits.) or the people who eventually get elected.

Disillusionment is fine, but don't pretend it's a principle. I don't buy it. Not for a second.

[mishalak.livejournal.com]

This is about principle, the principle of not giving encouragement or support to spewers of apocalyptic rhetoric. It is our civil duty to not allow ourselves to be herded by our fears. It is fear that is the rootstock of despotism, not disinterest. People so afraid of the alternative that they are willing to support the lesser evil of a "strong leader". Not voting, casting a blank ballot, or at least not spreading the propaganda of the fearmongers are all good steps in my opinion.

[publius1.livejournal.com]

Well, first off, I don't buy your premise that this is either a new thing to this era, or that if it's an old thing, it's a horrible thing. It's a part of democracy, as a matter of fact, in that the rhetoric livens up the battle. It's your job not to simply give up, which is completely what you're advocating, but rather to see past the rhetoric and determine who will come closest to implementing the things you want to see.

People complained of gridlock in Washington in 1991, saying that they wanted someone who could bridge the partisan divides and get government to work for them again. Thus Perot rode in on his white horse, and about 1 out of every 5 people voted for him and looked past the spittle -- but when we finally got the politicians we said we wanted, they suddenly became too mealy-mouthed and waffle-y to stand. And so we veer back in the direction of partisanship again.

Democracy isn't easy, or clean. It by its very nature appeals to the people, and by its very nature candidates have to find ways to get their appeal across. You condemn this aspect of it; I celebrate it.

Basically: do what you want, but I think you're horribly, horribly wrong, and I hope nobody listens to you. :)

[mishalak.livejournal.com]

Out of curiosity, when is the last time you went to a school board meeting, oh advocate of civic duty? Can you name the person you elected sheriff (without looking)? Who did you vote for on your local council? These are the places where politics matter far more than who is president.

Those are the sorts of things to pay attention to. That's where my attention is. I read up on the history of school board memebers and the fearmongers in congress can go to hell.

[publius1.livejournal.com]

I don't go to school board meetings at all; I have no children. I did, however, vote in the last municipal elections, here in Chicago. We don't vote for Sheriff here.

I voted for my local alderman, Tom Tunney. The gay community in Chicago is very powerful and loud and quick to jump in.

And I reject your contention that local politics are more important than regional or national politics.

Look, I'm not trying to piss you off. You did post something that was controversial, and I jumped in. Sorry. I'll go away now.

[mishalak.livejournal.com]

I'm not pissed off by you. I'm not even particularly upset. I'm just sad to see otherwise interesting and intelligent people wasting their time on politics. I've been pruning down my frelj list lately because I realised that because of the volume of political crap I was dreading reading the next post from some people.

I do have one last thought before I follow start on no politics, even anti-politics, in my journal. I'm hardly alone in being turned off. If it is hard to get people to vote there is something wrong. And it isn't how hard it is to be registered or get a ballot. That's easier than ever.

[publius1.livejournal.com]

Oh, and by the way, before I go -- my local US Representative, whose office is down the street (that's the way living in the big city is), is Rahm Emmanuel. I guess that since national politics doesn't matter to you, were you to live in this area, you'd have no idea who that was. Rahm Emmanuel was an economic advisor to Clinton.

Why's that important? Because the guy who was U.S. Rep before that was Rod Blagojevich. Wanna know what he's doing now? Running my state. There's local politics for you.

And finally, the guy before Blagojevich in my US Rep seat? None other than Dan Rostenkowski. Between the Daleys and the Ryans and the Rostenkowskis, the political machines in Illinois are more corrupt than you ever could imagine. And yet I still vote, and I still am active in politics, and I can't imagine being any other way.

But as I said, I didn't intend to piss you off.

[jinian.livejournal.com]

I don't tend to bring up politics all that often myself, but I do think that there are some things that are especially important. If I didn't vote and write letters (money's not so much an option right now, but when I have it I give to cause-specific organizations), I would feel like the bad things that happen were that much more my fault. They may just say that thing about one letter counting for a hundred people's opinions, but I do feel like it's important to tell my representatives what I think, even if I did vote for them and mostly trust them to do right. I feel like I don't do enough about some things, but I don't always know what to do.

[mishalak.livejournal.com]

But whom do you write to? Congress, or your local council? If the latter I applaud you. If the former it's your choice, but I honestly think you are wasting your time.

[jinian.livejournal.com]

Both. While I may be wasting my time in some cases, my local council can't do much about marriage reform or abortion rights, and those are important things. I have to try.

[mishalak.livejournal.com]

Congress isn't able to do anything about marriage reform or abortion rights either. They follow the national mood, they don't set it. Until there is a clear majority in a majority of districts in favor of either nothing is going to happen.

Look at the way prohibition went. The majority of Americans were against it by the end, but nothing was done because it wasn't a clear majority and every politician was afraid to touch it. So they had to use state conventions to ratify it rather than the usual method of submitting it to the state legislatures.

If you want abortion rights secured you're going to need to work on a generation long campaign to get a majority of people in favor of that, rather than a closely divided split like we have now. That goes double for marriage reform given that a majority of Americans are against it.

[jinian.livejournal.com]

Even by your reasoning, telling my Congresswomen what my mood is can be helpful. What people think the "national mood" is may not be what's really going on in everyone's heads. I am not under some illusion that they're going to see the light because of me alone, but I do what I can afford in terms of time and money, and I don't think it's equal to nothing.

Thanks for the advice. I am working on those things.

[redbird]

There is nothing requiring my Congressional representative (Charles Rangel, D-New York) to "follow the national mood" rather than to vote either as his district wants or as he feels is most appropriate. Saying that they can't do anything is a cop-out. And those state conventions were in fact selected by voting.

Oh, we have a secret ballot for a reason. Nonetheless: I voted for Robert Jackson for City Council (he won--and I voted for him in large part because he fights for fair school funding for the city); for Rangel (because he's sound on many issues and because his seniority has certain practical advantages for us), and for Mark Green (who lost) for mayor. We don't have an elected school board or sheriffs.

More broadly, I vote in part because it's how I was raised--not voting would be like not washing my hands--and in part because of the people and groups that would be just delighted if I didn't vote: they do their best to block city-dwellers from voting, for one, and their ideological kin spent decades trying to stop people like me--women and non-property-owners--from voting.

As a side note, I know at least one person who is, literally, alive today because she voted: 11 September 2001 was Primary Day in New York, and bugsybanana was still on the train when the airplanes hit the World Trade Center because she'd gone to vote on her way in to work. She is one of many in this regard.

[mishalak.livejournal.com]

I have voted in every election. Primaries, off year, special, every single one since I became elegable to vote in 1995. In some minor elections I was one of just 200 people to vote. Unless I vote Republican I'm part of the minority that is outvoted by a 2 to 1 margin at best. In the last election it was 4 to 1 for one of the worst representatives in the US House. The Democrats didn't even bother to run anyone for the state house in my district. I keep on voting, but it is out of a Russian sense of resignation. The elections cannot be won, but I keep voting.

What I am sick of is talking about Bush, Congress, and the rest. I don't care! It is because my friends and froods keep talking about it so damn much that I am considering not casting a ballot for President. In fact if I get pissed off enough I might just vote for Bush. He's the president this country deserves.