I felt compelled to pull these insightful remarks by Dean from the relative obscurity of blog comments (see POX AMERICANA) into the blazing white glare that is a full-blown Cipherdom entry. So, he said:
But this position (of not voting your conscience because it will only guarantee The Right will always win) hasn't worked either. Even with Clinton. Although I think he's relatively better than our current leader, he's proven to be very comfortable with compromise, for political expediency. I feel this is a huge part of the problem these days. Issues are dealt with only through voter referendum, or in the courts. The legislative process is nearly bankrupt, in the interests of power and influence. It allows PAC money to flow directly into both camps. They are the constituency now. We - the people - barely have any say whatsoever. Look to the anti-war effort, for a painful example that barely anyone in DC hears the people's voice.
Sez I: It's hard to argue with any of that. Except I'd say you're being too hard on the peacenik effort -- though you earned the right, obviously, by marching at every opportunity. As someone who didn't protest as visibly, I think the fact that Bush proceeded to bomb anyway in no way negates the peace movement, not that I think that's what you meant. Pre-war, the protests were meaningful, inspiring. Why they ended when the war began is worth pondering. Out of respect to soldiers whose lives were on the line? Out of being intimidated by charges of anti-Americanism? Out of a sense of futility? I think people should be encouraged by the protests. There's no doubt in my mind that they made it harder for Bush to undertake the war, and they make it somewhat less likely that he can do it again.
To regain our influence, enough people need to seriously put their foot down and vote their conscience. Support an Independent. A Green. Whatever third party. Hey, even vote for No Candidate. Simply opting out for the lessor of the same evil (ie; the 'opposition' party), I'm afriad won't lead to any significant change. At least I'm willing to milk that cow for a few more elections and see what comes of it.
I have to differ with you here, because the stakes are so high -- survival of the species, not to put a fine point on it. We simply don't have the luxury of a few more Republican administrations and congresses. With the rate at which our collective physical well being is now threatened, things like social justice, health care and civil rights seem like luxuries. That's exactly how Bush and Co. want us to feel, of course. It's all so convenient for them, isn't it?
But there's a legitimate chance the Democrats will nominate an anti-war candidate -- one who of course will have zero chance of being elected. I could live with that easier than I could live with seeing Bush win in 2002 thanks to Nader. The Democratic primaries will be a mini-referendum on the war. We'll see how many Dems vote their conscience. If you believe polls, a large percentage of these voters opposed the war, at least before it happened. Lefties like us would do well to help nominate someone like Howard Dean, because that could breathe life into progressive politics.
Idealism aside, splitting the Democratic party in two by promoting the Greens will give conservatives more power, not less. I don't see any other possible outcome. The idea of a more powerful Bush, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, etc. is genuinely terrifying.
Posted by Vernam at June 11, 2003 11:16 PMI agree that consumerism is at the core of all this -- it's our religion, after all!
Posted by: Vernam at June 12, 2003 06:21 PMBasking in the glow of the cipherdom spotlight. I understand your concern. 'Anyone other than Bush' is a reasonable campaign slogan.
It's expedient. I guess my basis for opting out of the two party politck is I don't feel either are addressing the real root causes for the world's issues. Accent on "world's." I feel the US has got to look much more carefully at how we exist in the global environment. Politically, economically, environmentally. The Democrats may have some better words to say about those things than the present administration, but they're not looking as strategically at the big picture, to suit my tastes.
For example, you mention survival of the species. I could probably bore the bejesus out of you (and I and god-forbid, anyone else crazy enough to be reading this!) by trying to show that the overpopulation of the planet - and an out of control consumerist mentality - are the root causes for most every problem we've got. Too many people, not enough resources - including the monetary resource. The Haves are insatiable in their consumptive habit. The Have Nots are dramatically increasing in population size. Neither party is interested in opening up that slightly abstract debate, given the 'more pressing' issues. Yet, I honestly feel someone, in this decade, has got to begin to speak to it. Or, yeah, our species very well may be doomed. Just like a runaway virus, destroying it's host.
As to why the anti-war effort atrophied, I can only speak for myself. Your third suggestion is closest to how I felt. The futility of not seeing any leadership rise to ride the wave of grass roots support. "By" the people should then begat "Of" the people and "For" the people. The later two are the mandate of democratic (lower case 'd') leadership - of which, I saw none. I felt we were left out in the cold. And for that, I do indict the Democratic Party.
But granted, there's a few more months for the Dems to try to get their act together. I'll remain open to suggestion. Never say never, right?