Summer has yet to begin, and folks to the Left of the President are hearing the same thing we heard after the 2000 election: If Obama loses it'll be our fault.
For the record, I voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 and I don't regret that vote one bit. If there was such a stark difference between the candidates, why did Gore win the popular vote by fifty thousand out of some one hundred million cast? If Gore would have been such an awesome improvement over Bush, how do these folks explain such an inept campaign that still managed to win the popular vote, albeit by such a slim margin? Given the historical circumstances in the following year, how would a Gore Administration have differed, substantially, from Bush? Would Gore have managed to eke out a second term, given the pasting he would have received both from Republicans in Congress and the slobbering minions on the right who think anyone to the left of Robert Taft worships Josef Stalin's memory?
Considering how quickly so many liberals (*coughcough* MattYglesias *coughcough* KevinDrum *coughcough* JoeKlein *coughcough*) became enamored of our eventual invasion of Iraq, I'll just let the shouting of that particular word pass over me before I continue.
Here's the deal. Mr. Obama has failed to act decisively, through a variety of means both at his disposal and through fellow Democrats in Congress, to counteract the worst effects of the depression. He has more than flirted with an irresponsible deficit fetishism, rather than make the banal point that, were the economy righted through specific actions Congress and the Executive could take, the deficit would take care of itself. He allowed the Congressional debate over the Affordable Care Act drag out far longer than was necessary, vacillating at key points, while surrendering to rhetorical threats from the Republicans. He has failed to make clear to the American people why the Keystone XL Pipeline is not a good deal for the American people, in the process alienating potential supporters in the heart of Red America, Nebraska. The President has used his personal feelings for sexual minorities as an excuse for a failure to act more swiftly to support marriage equality, the repeal of DOMA, and the end of DADT.
President Obama has escalated the war in Afghanistan without a clear strategy; he has moved the war in to Yemen and Somalia, without so much as a serious Congressional debate; the expansion of the drone program to become one of war by remote control alters any understanding of what constitutes a combatant or a front line; he has explicitly targeted individuals, taking advantage of gatherings that include non-combatants, and defended his choice by claiming that these civilian casualties may well not be innocent; finally, he has arrogated to himself the decision to kill American citizens overseas, without so much as a fig-leaf of judicial action.
Finally, let me just say that as long as we continue to work within the current political status quo, we shall find ourselves shrugging our shoulders and accepting the candidate who sucks less. They insist we do the same, and call this realism. I, on the other hand, consider it realistic to accept that neither major party candidate is, or will be in the foreseeable future, worth a tinker's damn. As such, I am going to use the one precious thing I have to contribute to this whole thing, my vote, and give it to the person who actually deserves it. Others may do as they wish. Please, however, do not pretend that you are somehow more grown-up, more hard-headed, more realistic, or more anything because you are going to vote for Obama when, at the end of the day, the best argument any supporter seems to come up with sounds an awful lot like, "He won't be as bad as Romney!"
I'm not even sure that's true.
When November comes, I'll cast my vote for someone else for President, and the next morning, regardless of the outcome, I'll know I did what was right.
Now go call Glenn Greenwald names and leave me alone.
7 comments:
We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Not that you can't vote for whomever you want, because of course you can. And not that voting for someone other than a major party candidate is a waste of a vote, because it isn't.
Yup, Obama absolutely should win on his own merits, and not because folks like you feel like they have to vote for him. (And not that it much matters, since there's really no likelihood that Romney will win.)
Yup, there are several things I'm not thrilled about with Obama, but then, there have been several things with every President that I've not been thrilled with -- particularly in a political climate where what passes for progressivism has been pushed so far to the right it is nearly unrecognizable, and where true conservatism is completely absent.
At the same time, I think the differences between Romney and Obama are stark. The list of accomplishmets I do agree with, none of which would have happened under a Republican president is long:
http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/
So, on balance, I think those are plenty of good reasons to vote for him, and not just because he isn't Romney. -- even though that's a good enough reason that I'd vote for my cat against Romney if he was running.
I'd vote for your cat, too. Shoot, I'd vote for my cat.
Thing is, the discussions at the links I provided do all end up saying pretty much, "Romney will be worse!"
To me that isn't much of an argument. I've been busy reading Charles Darwin the past week, as well as other things, but I will check out the link you provided.
My cat would be a good campaigner, but not much of a President, I think. He's terribly nebulous on specifics on any issue that is not food or ear-scratching related.
If I lived in a swing state, a state that didn't appear to be either blue or red, I'd be much more inclined to fret about my vote.
Living in Georgia, it doesn't much matter.
I would add, if you read the arguments in the comment sections of the linked pieces, you will also see the rather disquieting tendency to insist critics shut the hell up, because it only gives Romney fuel.
So, the President shouldn't be criticized because he might lose.
That one I'm trying to work out, but it's just not happening.
Lisa - if I lived in a swing state, I might consider a vote for Obama. If I thought Romney might win this, I'd consider it. IL wouldn't go for Romney if he paid each and every voter to do so. So the whole, "If you vote for a Third Party candidate it'll be your fault" usually comes from people who don't understand the way Presidents are elected. My vote for Nader in 2000 in no way imperiled Gore's electoral chances, because he won IL with a hefty margin.
With the exception of the late 80s, I've lived in either really blue or really red states since I've been able to vote.
Come to think of it, I'm not crazy about the Electoral College.
I think it would be far more interesting, and create far better candidates, if we got rid of winner-take-all laws. Nebraska is, I believe, the only state that doesn't have a law that states the winner of the popular vote gets all of its Electoral College votes. Imagine New York, California, Texas, Virginia, Illinois, even Georgia and North Carolina suddenly becoming hotbeds of on-the-ground campaigning because there was no guarantee any of these states would go all in for a particular candidate.
That and we move the inauguration date back to March 4, which would give the Electoral College time to do its job, and Congress, if there was no clear winner (the House convenes before the President is inaugurated).
Post a Comment