Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend 3 (3 Shares)  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites View Stats   9 comments

OpEdNews Op Eds

More on "Vanity of Perfectionism"

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 2 of 2 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

Touching 1  
View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com Headlined to H3 8/3/12

If the Left's tendency to punish these imperfect Democrats for their transgressions had led to some positive result, then the argument could be made that more than vanity was involved here, that the effect of causing some Democrats to lose was to make later Democrats more progressive and thus more favorable to the Left. Or maybe that the Left is on its way to building a viable third party that can win nationally.

But any examination of those three case studies -- Elections 1968, 1980 and 2000 -- would lead to a conclusion that whatever practical goals that some on the Left had in mind were not advanced by the Democratic defeat. The Democrats did not become more progressive, rather they shifted more to the center.

All three Republican presidents -- Nixon, Reagan and Bush-43 -- extended or started wars that their Democratic rivals might have ended or avoided. Those elections -- plus congressional outcomes in 1980, 1994 and 2010 -- also bolstered the Right and helped consolidate anti-progressive attitudes on domestic and foreign policies.

More than four decades after 1968 and a dozen years after 2000, there is still no left-wing third party that can do more than play the role of spoiler.

Yet, if there has been no positive practical result from these electoral tactics in the past -- and there is no reasonable expectation for the future -- then what's the point of repeating them? There's the old saying that one definition of madness is to do the same thing over and over, expecting a different result.

Nor, by the way, is there a popular movement that can significantly alter government policies strictly through civil disobedience or via protests in the streets -- with all due respect to Occupy Wall Street. So, what's up here?

The only explanation that I can come up with for throwing away a vote on a third-party candidate or not voting for "the lesser evil" is that such a choice represents a personal expression of  anger or disappointment. And I don't mean to disparage anyone's right to feel those emotions. Given the recent history, it's hard not to.

But -- when some lives can be saved, when some wars can be averted and when the planet can possibly be spared from ecological destruction -- the true moral imperative, in my view, is to engage in the imperfect process of voting for the major-party candidate who seems more likely than the other one to do those things.

To ignore that imperative, I'm sorry to say, is an act of vanity.

Next Page  1  |  2

 

http://www.consortiumnews.com

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at secrecyandprivilege.com. It's also available at more...)
 

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Go To Commenting

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

The CIA/Likud Sinking of Jimmy Carter

What Did US Spy Satellites See in Ukraine?

Ron Paul's Appalling World View

Ronald Reagan: Worst President Ever?

The Disappearance of Keith Olbermann

A Perjurer on the US Supreme Court

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
7 people are discussing this page, with 9 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

Only in America would a matter of conscience and p... by John Rachel on Friday, Aug 3, 2012 at 10:51:09 PM
I post on a number of forums. What I am reading is... by Douglas Pederson on Saturday, Aug 4, 2012 at 9:43:18 AM
Our group the Citizens Coalition For Open Governme... by Douglas Pederson on Saturday, Aug 4, 2012 at 9:44:35 AM
I cannot stop the author from the process of human... by Mark Sashine on Saturday, Aug 4, 2012 at 10:04:31 AM
It would really be nice to see those who comment o... by michael payne on Saturday, Aug 4, 2012 at 11:31:33 AM
ans also I wrote several articles on Human Coproph... by Mark Sashine on Saturday, Aug 4, 2012 at 11:44:18 AM
Do you actually believe there's a diffenence betwe... by David Weaver on Saturday, Aug 4, 2012 at 12:08:35 PM
What a dick article.  Sorry Parry, your logic... by Joe Giambrone on Saturday, Aug 4, 2012 at 2:24:55 PM
To reward a betrayal, it seems to me, encourages m... by Billy Butterfield on Saturday, Aug 4, 2012 at 9:35:05 PM