Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter Share on Facebook 11 Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend 3 (14 Shares)  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites View Article Stats   40 comments

Exclusive to OpEdNews:
OpEdNews Op Eds

Voting Green in a Swing State

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 2 of 4 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (more...) ; ; ; , Add Tags  (less...) Add to My Group(s)

Must Read 8   Well Said 8   Supported 4  
View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com Headlined to H2 10/26/12

Become a Fan
  (8 fans)

Some of these are marginal too. He's deported more people than ever, but made some concessions on immigration. Others are not entirely his doing. (Congress helped, passing the NDAA for instance.) Some, like making life hell for medical marijuana growers, are difficult to understand. But unfortunately the seriousness of some of his actions is on a different scale entirely.

The country has been bankrupted by war and its reputation ruined, but the lies that got us there will never even be investigated; that was ruled out by Obama practically the moment he took the oath of office, the first of many betrayals of expectations he engendered in his supporters. The banksters who tanked the economy and destroyed the nation's wealth likewise received blanket immunity. The "stimulus package" given to financial elites was many, many times bigger than the one the rest of us had to share, locking in the material ruin of the working class. He expanded the pointless war in Afghanistan and extended military assaults to many other countries in Nixonian secrecy. He continued every Constitutional excess of the previous administration and extended them to include new grants of executive-branch secrecy and extra-judical power, to include not just war-making, kidnapping, and indefinite detention, but assassination even of American citizens.4 Obama has done more to render the U.S. Constitution a dead letter than every previous right-wing administration combined.

If that is something you can put on the same scale with credit-card reform and call it even, I respectfully suggest you re-examine what is usually meant by the words "progressive" and "liberal." And "American," while you're at it. The presidential oath of office is to defend the Constitution, and this president knowingly betrayed it. That issue isn't even partisan:  Some, no,  every future president is going to use these precedents, and when they are used against you you will have no judicial recourse thanks to Barack Obama.

So if you think Obama is not so bad, really, and has done a lot of good and could do more, then by all means vote for him. And you can stop reading now--the rest of this essay will be of no interest to you.

The rest of us, reviewing this administration's record and its likely future course with dread, face just one question. Must we reelect Obama to save the country from something worse? This is a serious question, and calls for considered analysis.

Notice first that "Romney's worse so we have to vote for Obama" isn't an argument, or even a syllogism. What people really mean is something like this. (1) A Romney presidency would be worse than a second Obama administration, and (2) if Obama isn't elected then Romney will be, so therefore (3) we should vote for Obama, at least in any state where our vote might make a difference.

Certainly one can't quibble with the second premise. The probability that neither Obama nor Romney gets elected is exactly zero. The first premise too at first blush looks irreproachable from a progessive perspective. Mere common sense seems to endorse the conclusion once the premises are stipulated, and most folks think no further.5 They don't have to agitate their consciences over voting for the war criminal, corporate lackey Obama, they can just vote against the likely greater war criminal (and proudly greater corporate lackey) Romney. And all the rest of it follows too: maybe Obamacare is a sell-out to big-insurance and big-pharma, but at least they won't get their greedy mits on Medicare. (Well, this time. Probably.) And so on.

Those of us growing gray about the temples are struck most by the argument's familiarity. We have heard it--and consented to it--often before, in fact about once every four years. Replace Romney/Obama with McCain/Obama, Bush/Kerry, Bush/Gore, Dole/Clinton, Bush/Clinton, Bush/Dukakis, Reagan/Mondale, Reagan/Carter, Ford/Carter--no wonder it rings bells. In every election for 36 years a center-left Democrat has run against a center-right Republican, each campaign pandering to their more ideological supporters, and in each case the elected administration tossed a few bones to their left/right base while dutifully serving elite interests.

Meanwhile, as elections come and go, both ideological conservatives and ideological progressives find the country moving away from them; not towards their ideological counterparts, but towards a corporatist, oligarchic security-state. The electorate is apparently not in charge.

Those who are in charge find the partisan electoral process useful because it keeps a potentially dangerous population quiescent, occupied like loyal sports fans not with what is actually being done to them, but with the business of "winning." This is a classic method of control, used by elites in one form or another throughout the ages. Tiny little England built a global empire using it. It works equally well on the unsophisticated and the ostensibly educated. Check yourself: if you have mentally colored yourself red or blue, if you see the country as made up of red, blue, and purple blotches, then your political identity is no longer yours. You have been co-opted. Occupied. Welcome to the game.

By itself this doesn't disprove the partisan argument, and many progressives point to such achievements as increased LGBT rights as proof that voting for the less-bad can result in genuine positive change; that likewise the assault on women's reproductive freedom shows the danger in allowing the other side to win. These are excellent examples, but those using them to urge partisan loyalty omit the essential point that these changes have been occurring independently of which party is in power, because the motive force behind them is serious activism, not partisanship. Gay rights activists have fought a long and sometimes brutal campaign characterized not by loyally supporting the Democratic Party but by confronting it, by being prepared to play hardball with politicians who won't get in line. Anti-abortion forces have done likewise.

That point deserves a double-take: The core activists driving actual political change don't hesitate to imperil a nominally allied candidate's election if that candidate appears insufficiently committed to their cause.6 This fact is obviously a key to their success, and it strongly suggests there is a problem with the partisan argument. But what, then, is the error in that argument? As it happens, this very week's news reports furnish an example that illuminates it completely.

In 2002 the Total Information Awareness program was created within the Defense Department to gather and coordinate intelligence to support the War on Terror.7 The Bush administration had to abandon this project in the face of determined opposition, especially from the left, to what was rightly seen as a grave peril to civil liberties. However, components of the planned program lived on under separate authorities until Obama took office. Like the other elements of Bush's "anti-terror" activities, the TIA program was then consolidated and expanded under new guise. We now know that domestic surveillance and data-mining has not only been greatly accelerated within a burgeoning military-security complex, but it is also now combined with the extra-judicial detention and assassination program (dubbed "the disposition matrix")--at least insofar as both have been bureaucratized within the same agency, an agency whose activities are shrouded in impenetrable secrecy.8

The relevant point is not the seriousness of this developement--which I hope goes without saying--but that no Republican president could have gotten away with it. It's the "only Nixon can go to China" principle: in a democracy only a nominally liberal leader can put in place the machinery of a totalitarian state, just as only a nominally liberal leader could gut the social safety net (Clinton), or put privatizing Social Security and Medicare on the table (Obama).

This is a clear counterexample to the claim of the first premise--that a Red president is bound to be So Much Worse than a Blue president--and thereby reveals that the partisan argument is unsound.

Let me be quite clear: it is not unsound because of the differentials on some set of policies or issues. Partisans will argue that in this election there are issues--the Supreme Court, Medicare, etc.--where there is a clear choice, and that is true. It is always true, every four years, as sure as the tides. That is by design: the political gamesmanship the argument draws us into is itself the trap. By constraining our discussion to the acknowledged differences between the sides, partisanship tricks us into supposing their similarities aren't an issue, when in fact their similarities are the most critical issue. This is because their differences will remain in contention regardless of who gets elected, but their similarities assuredly will not.

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3  |  4

 

http://bsidneysmith.com

B. Sidney Smith is a recovering math professor, gardener, and creative loafer living near Appomattox, Virginia. His autobio, curriculum vitae, favorite recipes, and much more besides can be found on his website, bsidneysmith.com.

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

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.

Follow Me on Twitter

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

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

Land of Elites

Voting Green in a Swing State

Voting For, Voting Against

All the Bunnies in the Meadow Die

Why I Don't Watch TV

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  
20 people are discussing this page, with 40 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

The topic of this article differs from most in the... by B. Sidney Smith on Friday, Oct 26, 2012 at 6:05:15 AM
Plus, you have many mistakes in assessing the situ... by BFalcon on Friday, Oct 26, 2012 at 10:54:32 PM
It is the only way to make the system work because... by B. Sidney Smith on Saturday, Oct 27, 2012 at 2:03:57 AM
For improvement, not some abstract ideal candidate... by BFalcon on Saturday, Oct 27, 2012 at 2:14:47 AM
And rome didn't crumble in a day.Little by little ... by kappie on Saturday, Oct 27, 2012 at 10:06:09 AM
True Stein can't win, but  Green congressper... by Arthur M. Howard-(Scotoni) on Saturday, Oct 27, 2012 at 2:49:12 AM
Liberties lost are seldom regained without force o... by John Reed on Friday, Oct 26, 2012 at 6:20:26 AM
I disagree with the premise. I do not believe Romn... by B. Sidney Smith on Friday, Oct 26, 2012 at 9:05:47 AM
Anyone who votes for a murderer, liar, thief, need... by Daniel Geery on Friday, Oct 26, 2012 at 1:03:44 PM
"the people retain a breathtaking power: they can ... by Laura Stein on Friday, Oct 26, 2012 at 1:36:06 PM
Those in charge of the present system are unscrupu... by B. Sidney Smith on Friday, Oct 26, 2012 at 2:32:03 PM
and informing others about what is at stake?? Or ... by Laura Stein on Monday, Oct 29, 2012 at 7:48:00 AM
I did not mean to suggest that I thought you were ... by B. Sidney Smith on Monday, Oct 29, 2012 at 9:47:25 AM
If the use of nuclear terror as a practical deploy... by Michael Daly, artist on Friday, Oct 26, 2012 at 8:50:17 PM
Let's face it, Democratic presidents feel the need... by Rob Kall on Wednesday, Oct 31, 2012 at 10:13:45 AM
@John Reed:   Any vote is a kill vote. &nb... by Ned Lud on Friday, Oct 26, 2012 at 6:46:36 AM
@B. Sidney Smith:   Do you find any corresp... by Ned Lud on Friday, Oct 26, 2012 at 6:52:48 AM
You didn't actually take the time to refute any of... by Leftcoast7 on Friday, Oct 26, 2012 at 2:46:03 PM
reply to Michael Sumner:   Hi Mike (can I c... by Ned Lud on Friday, Oct 26, 2012 at 5:48:13 PM
.................Mr. Smith, along with those you h... by Robert P. Philipps on Friday, Oct 26, 2012 at 6:14:23 PM
The current trajectory is indeed alarming. All we ... by B. Sidney Smith on Friday, Oct 26, 2012 at 8:29:36 PM
, B. Sidney.  Some good comments, too.  ... by j dial on Friday, Oct 26, 2012 at 7:09:39 PM
Mr. Silbur expresses well what so many of us feel,... by B. Sidney Smith on Friday, Oct 26, 2012 at 8:39:32 PM
Finally, I have found someone who thinks like I do... by Michael McIlwain on Friday, Oct 26, 2012 at 7:57:59 PM
I'm a Christian too, as it happens. The Christian ... by B. Sidney Smith on Friday, Oct 26, 2012 at 8:58:47 PM
I'm a supporter of the Occupy movement and Green P... by Michael Daly, artist on Friday, Oct 26, 2012 at 8:35:14 PM
Not just Ellsburg, but Greenwald and Chomsky have ... by B. Sidney Smith on Friday, Oct 26, 2012 at 9:20:07 PM
Before I let myself get intimidated here in the la... by Jennifer Sullivan on Friday, Oct 26, 2012 at 10:43:56 PM
A few things were omitted and need further conside... by Robert Cowen on Saturday, Oct 27, 2012 at 6:47:05 AM
Robert, here is how this will play out. Obama will... by Shepherd Johnson on Saturday, Oct 27, 2012 at 8:21:24 AM
As I argue in the article, the "acceleration" gene... by B. Sidney Smith on Saturday, Oct 27, 2012 at 10:55:00 AM
Deja vu all over again?Many voted for Ralph Nader ... by Robert Cowen on Saturday, Oct 27, 2012 at 5:28:45 PM
Great article Mr. Smith: I also live in Virginia a... by Nancy Lewis on Saturday, Oct 27, 2012 at 7:41:14 AM
Thank you for writing this, Mr. Smith. Very though... by Susan Savia on Saturday, Oct 27, 2012 at 8:44:01 AM
HOW can we get "enough of us refusing to play the... by Randy Moor on Saturday, Oct 27, 2012 at 10:17:49 AM
It seems to me you are asking people to vote their... by B. Sidney Smith on Saturday, Oct 27, 2012 at 11:01:05 AM
I'm talking about voting in ways that will most l... by Randy Moor on Saturday, Oct 27, 2012 at 11:46:42 AM
We could debate history, but there isn't time. My ... by B. Sidney Smith on Saturday, Oct 27, 2012 at 1:29:08 PM
I agree that we need to hold leaders' elections ho... by Randy Moor on Sunday, Oct 28, 2012 at 8:15:50 AM
I very much agree with your larger point, that con... by B. Sidney Smith on Monday, Oct 29, 2012 at 10:06:25 AM