election-year dilemma
Sep. 14th, 2004 06:23 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cellioWell, except, I don't support Kerry. I don't support Bush either, and he'd be the worse choice of those two. I support Michael Badnarik, who comes closest among those running to my beliefs about government.
There are those who say that voting for a minor-party candidate is throwing my vote away. Actually, though, a vote for a minor-party candidate does more than a vote for a candidate you don't believe in. Every vote for a minor-party candidate helps that minor party get closer to the spotlight, which could (eventually) help break the stranglehold the Republicans and Democrats have on the American public's attention. By voting for the person I believe in, I (1) express what I really believe, which is supposed to be the point, (2) help keep the Libertarians on the ballot and voter-registration cards in PA, and, if enough others do the same thing, (3) get at least a few other people saying "so just what are Libertarians, anyway?". Not voting for a minor-party candidate because he can't win creates a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The alternative is to abandon those principles because "this year really matters" and vote for the least-bad viable candidate, which is Kerry. I disagree with Kerry (and his party) on many things, which is why I can't give him my first-tier support, but the thought of Bush appointing any more judges to further savage our civil liberties is frightening. Am I obligated to compromise my principles to try to prevent that outcome? But if I do, am I not just responding to scare tactics? So far as I know no one has recently won Pennyslvania by even a four-digit number of votes, let alone the few hundred that led to the Florida fiasco or the single vote that I represent. By voting for Kerry, am I not saying that minor parties are interesting as parlor games but not when it really matters? Where are those principles now? As the old joke goes, we've already established what I'd be; now we're just haggling over price. [1]
I've considered looking for a voting partner in a non-swing state. That doesn't help minor parties in PA, but it at least lets me help my candidate at the national level. I didn't support Nader, so I'm unfamiliar with how the vote-sharing scheme worked last time. How do you establish trust? Mind, I'm not convinced that this would be appropriate, but it's an option I'm open to.
With Nader in the race, I am not assuming that any other minor-party candidate will get any attention. But again, there's that self-fulfilling prophecy thing; if no one votes for them because of that, they certainly won't get any attention.
So I welcome further thoughts on the matter. What factors am I failing to consider? I ask that you take as given that I don't support Kerry; let's not do that debate here. This is about the proper application of principles in a messy world.
[1] A man in a bar asks a beautiful woman if she would sleep with him for a million dollars. She says ok, in that case she would. He then offers her $20 and she says "what do you think I am?!" He responds: "we've already established that; now we're just haggling over price".
(no subject)
Date: 2004-09-14 05:36 pm (UTC)First, "But if I do, am I not just responding to
scare tactics?"
Uh, that depends. Is the actually something to be scared of? If there is, then, no, you're not just responding to scare tactics.
(As an aside, I find this whole "voting on the basis of fear is wrong" meme to be one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. I recommend anyone who has that particular neurosis about fear and it's appropriate role in human life to read Gavin de Becker's The Gift of Fear. We have the capacity to fear for a reason: it helps keeps us alive and whole. Being alert to fear and regarding it's communications sanely is a basic survival trait -- for the individual and for the society. Simply ignoring all fear is suicidal.)
Do you have something to be afraid of? I think you do. Personally, I -- the rabid ACLU-loving don't-tread-on-me live-free-or-die-NHian civil liberties nut -- have moved way past merely being being worried about my civil liberties going away. I frankly think anyone who is stuck on the civil liberties issue is behind the curve. There's much worse stuff floating around out there gaining momentum.
Let me put it this way: If Kent State happened today, I don't think it would bother the majority of Americans. I think most Americans would think "They were protesters, they deserved to get shot! If you don't want to get shot, don't stand in front of cops holding guns!" I think we're all of one example away from the Executive branch of the goverment concluding that they've been given carte blanche by the American people to turn guns on Americans.
If it should happen that, "Oops!", some protesters get shot, and it turns out not to impact the president's polling numbers and generally doesn't scandalize the population.... then the end is nigh. They will, upon re-election, whether officially or unofficially, impose a state of martial "law" on the country -- knowing they can get away with it. At which point a lot of innocent people are going to get killed, and probably most of them will be in the northeast.
So, yes, I think you do have something to be afraid of.
As to principle: Voting for the candidate you'd best like is not a principle, it's a heuristic. It's a means of getting a result you'd like, not a moral issue. If voting for the superior candidate results in a murderous tyrant being put in control of your country, how is that, morally, any different than "opening a refrigerater door is forbidden on the sabbath because it causes the fridge light to come on"? The light may not come on, but you don't use that as a basis to excuse the action. The murderous tyrant may not be put in control of your country if you neglect to use your vote to oppose him, but why should you use that as a basis to excuse the action?
Knowing, as you, in fact, do, that voting for a third candidate cannot cause a more morally desirable outcome in this election, a vote for that candidate can only be considered to have moral purpose concerning the next election.
So the question then becomes, which do you anticipate will be more morally critical, this election or the next? Really, your question boils down to one of trading the future against the present. You want to cause the most morally desirable outcome, the question is whether to spend your influence on the moral outcome of this election, or on setting up the next. This is a long-term vs. short-term question, a bird in hand vs birds in bush (heh) question.
That makes it seem easy to me: It looks to me like the short-term is so critical, there may not be a long-term. There is no point in speculating on future elections, if an outcome of this election is plausibly that they'll suspend future elections. There's no point in speculating on future elections, if the outcome of this election is to make sure no future election is honest.
Or put another way: First defend Democracy itself, then you can worry about which people to vote for.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-09-14 08:22 pm (UTC)That makes it seem easy to me: It looks to me like the short-term is so critical, there may not be a long-term.
This is a cogent analysis. Thank you.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-09-14 08:59 pm (UTC)Me, too. I am afraid we are about to be plunged into hell, because so many of my fellow citizens want to be plunged into hell; indeed crave it with all their hearts. They will take the rest of us there whether we want to go or not.
I know why this change has happened, but I don't know how to stop what is about to ensue.