http://www.people.freenet.de/ukrebs/dbxconv.html
posted by geoff on 2/10/2004 01:53:40 PM
[top | permanent |
The 2000 election was the first election in which I was able to vote and the experience was one of mixed emotions. On one hand, it was exciting to have one more tool at my disposal, however weak, however miniscule to make my voice heard. On the other hand, it was a sad and frustrating experience to see the White House inhabited by a president who seems to have no concern or compassion whatsoever for humanity and whose words and policies reflect values that are polar opposites of my own. Despite some gains that were made, it is impossible to ignore that at least in one enormously significant way, the 2000 election was a huge failure.
In the 2000 election, I voted for a third party candidate whose policy plans and personal beliefs seemed closest to mine. "Vote your heart, not your fears," said the slogans and this made sense to me. Even if you're jaded at the reality of American democracy, the idea of it seems okay, and if, I thought, that all the textbooks were right when they called this a representative democrarcy, I was sure as hell going to vote for the person that seemed most like me. Obviously, things didn't work out as I would have hoped. My pick for the president didn't have a chance of getting elected, ever. I guess that I just hoped that in acting sincerely, that in "voting my heart" something good would come of it. The reality of the outcome was much more confusing and frustrating. I'd like to think that my vote helped to shift the platform of more viable "liberal" candidates further to the left. Listening to the speeches of the Democratic hopefuls this year, it seems that this may have happened in some small part. Still, I was also confronted with the possibility that I was complicit in making sure a real a-hole bullied his way into the white house. Despite the many arguments that I had about this subject. I'm still unsure of what really happened. I suspect both. I am both a dynamic force driving the policies of the left in a more reasonable direction and also an accomplice to a monster. But really, I don't think it matters. The most profound feeling I had in the wake of the election was one of frustration. I was frustrated because those who voted as I did spent all their time defending their decision and didn't take any time to consider whether we actually achieved what we wanted. And, I was frustrated by the more moderate liberals, the traditional Democrats, who were spending all their time pointing their fingers, blaming people for ruining the election, and refusing to throw up their hands, admit that "shit is fucked" and figuring out what to do next. And strangely, it seems that many of us forgot about what a shit fest the last election was and ignored the whole thought of elections until just this moment, when maybe things are too late*.
A few months after the election, I started noticing stickers around town that read "voting doesn't work, it only encourages them." For the most part I thought that statement made a lot of sense. Voting, at least in the traditional sense, sure didn't work for me in 2000 and I didn't have much faith that I would ever see a candidate who shared any of my beliefs get elected in a national election. But, looking at the upcoming election, I don't think I agree with those stickers. In fact, I think that they're really wrong. Of course voting doesn't work the way it should and I suspect it never will, but I think we no longer have the luxury of pretending that elections no longer exist.
Elections might not work in terms of electing someone reasonable, but they are important. For all the power that the ruling elite wield, they seem rather concern with keeping people from voting. History and even our recent history is filled with accounts of groups of people trying to keep other groups of people from participating in elections. So even if it feels like we've been completely disenfranchised, "he establishment" isn't completely confident in their oppression and there must be some power in that. Furthermore, it seems like elections are the one time when the media pays attention to certain issues and elections are one of the only times when there is at least the pretense of the common person being able to influence policies and have some determination in the way they are governed. So, elections might not work, but in the space surrounding them, at least, there is the opportunity for something to work.
I'll put this bluntly. I'm going to vote for the presidential candidate who is not George W. Bush and who seems to have the greatest chance of winning. It doesn't matter who it is. I am under no illusion that this candidate will have policies that are better than the current administration and for all I know, things could be even worse. But, I think that "not George Bush" offers some unique advantages over the status quo.
1. A regime change, any regime change, will send a message to people elsewhere in the world that we, as a highly privileged nation, who all, in some ways, are connected to some devastating atrocities, are making some effort to step back and make things right. A change of president might not make much difference in terms of the reality of the USA's role in the world, but given the manner in which the media operates, a change in the leadership of the US is something that is highly visible and goes a long way in terms of perception and making the world feel like we're doing something to deter our path of destruction.
2. The fact that some candidates at least give lip service to more progressive policies provides a tiny bit of leverage for progress. At least the ideas are in the public consciousness and through other means of political action, it might be possible to achieve some small gains.
3. Even if the alternative is a jerk like Joe Lieberman whose ideas are virtually identical to that of the current administration, the logistical hassles of a change in power at least offer a temporary reprieve from the carnage.
I've had a lot of arguments with members of the punk/radical community about this point of view. The most frequent criticism of the "anyone but Bush" tactic is that voting for a seemingly liberal candidate will serve as a tacit affirmation of their fucked up policies and that if the liberal candidate is elected, members of the progressive community will fell like their work is done and the momentum that has been built in the anti-war and anti-bush movements will be lost.
It doesn't have to be this way! If I've learned one thing from identifying with punk culture it's that things don't have to be the way they've always been and actions don't have to mean what they've always meant. We don't have to live in a world of strictly defined and limited options. Voting can be a tactic just like a black block or a banner drop. We can contextualize a vote however we want to. We know that voting doesn't work, and we can tell people why and why, even knowing this, we're still voting. Participation doesn't have to equal universal approval!
Think about it. We have to contextualize our decisions anyway. If we're going to vote for a 3rd party candidate, or for Mickey Mouse, or not vote and not come off to the average person as a hopeless ideologue, we have to add a context for these actions and that takes a lot of visible, complicated, communication. Since it seems that we have to contextual our actions whatever they may be, we might as well vote tactically and use direct action, our words, independent media and other resources to make it very clear that voting for a candidate doesn't mean that one supports these policies and that social change can and must start in places other than our system of government.
I know that historically, during quasi-liberal administrations, progressive and radical movements have lost momentum. People will often cite the Clinton administration as an example of this. I guess I just feel like I don't have much control over the actions of government working through traditional channels. Whatever I can do with my small vote is pretty much the extent of what I can do. But what I do have is a lot of faith in is the ability of the radical community to mobilize under any administration and to continue to push for change. It's something we can do and something we have to do. It's the only option.
This November, I'm going to vote and I'm going to try to get all my friends to vote and I'm going to try to plan actions that show people that there are things that no election can fix but that there are ways we can work together to change policies, to challenge the staus quo, to live our lives more reasonably. And when there is a throng of punks lining up at the polls I think it will be an amazing thing. It will make those in power concerned and confused because in our participation we won't be written off as a bunch of wingnuts but in our action and voice our participation cannot be confused with support of destructive policies and values.
* Not that I blame people entirely because a lot has happened since then that has taken a lot of time and energy to process let alone respond to.
posted by geoff on 2/10/2004 12:17:10 AM
[top | permanent |
tanks tanks tanks
bombs bombs bombs
nuclear heat seeking battleships
shake yr hips
raise yr fist
tell em they can kiss your ass if they come knockin for us kids
you needed a dependable work force
so you created a drug war and got one in orange.
now, on the backs of the poor, youre taking over the world by force.
whatever for?
mr rumsfield, a question from me to you: "if saddams such a jerk, then why,in 1982 did you give him a pair of gold spurs?"
if you ask me how i feel, my friend, id say "actions speak louder than words."
if you ask me how i feel mr military man, id say "actions have spoken louder than your words."
woo hoo
woo hoo
woo hoo
woo hoo
posted by geoff on 2/09/2004 02:37:47 PM
[top | permanent |