 |
|
Add to My Group
|
November 2, 2008 at 03:03:27
The Lens with Which We View This Election by Kevin Gosztola Page 1 of 3 page(s) |
|
 
|
1
1
1
No doubt I have irked many readers and writers with my persistence and vigor in arguing on behalf of third parties in this election. I ask that you understand this persistence and vigor stems from the lens which I view this election through. A man is defined by his experiences. I have detailed my experiences through this article, which details my transformation from a Democrat to an Independent. My experiences and my transformation have created the lens that is influencing my ruminations. My transformation to me is akin to liberation. Like the scene in Dead Poets Society where the students are standing on their desks shouting “Carpe diem!” the article I wrote when I became aware of my transformation is exemplary of a moment when I finally “got it.” 
I had been working on a documentary called Seriously Green and was reluctant to ditch the Democrats. I wanted to be a progressive force within a weak and spineless party that was adept at losing elections. But, I came to the realization that it wasn’t like that at all.
René Descartes is well-known for writing, “I think therefore I am.” This came from his Meditations.
I have found what most humans do, which is that true bliss and true awareness of one’s self and one’s capability can only be reached by understanding that your thoughts define who you are.
Mikel Paul, an OpEdNews member, left me a comment that said I have a “willingness to stand naked” as I walk. This is true. I do not gain anything from hiding my passions and my logic and reasoning; the musings which I have to offer on politics and society have no value to me unless I can gather reactions to them from others who I derive support from.
We’re all in this together, right? And so, why hold back my intuition? I’ve learned to say what I mean to say and not be ashamed of saying it.
Paul’s comment also included a quote from Mark Sashine, another OpEdNews member. The quote was, “To love your country means to find, nourish, and cultivate the HONEST PEOPLE in it.” I do not disagree.
And therefore, I must confess to creating a dividing line based on whether or not I think progressives and liberals are truly finding, nourishing, and cultivating honest people to lead this country or represent us in this representative democracy. I do not think progressives are vetting their leaders or holding them to high standards like they should.
J.C. Garrett believes that I have a “strict, intolerant, and uncompromising ideology that precludes all rationality and all chance of actually achieving those goals.”
My rationality is a result of my ideology as is yours, Mr. Garrett. And I would suggest that is the case for most human beings too.
Mr. Garrett makes the choice to be pragmatic in order to ensure progress, compromise, and consensus. I make the choice currently in life to remain true to my ideals based on the conviction that the progress, compromise, and consensus which might be gained if I gave up on some my idealism would not be worth the self-censorship I would engage in when making the shift to being pragmatic.
Mr. Garrett offered up a parable to describe how ideology precludes my ability to rationalize.
The parable said my situation was "comparable to a man treading water in the middle of an ocean, and a helicopter drops him a life raft. But instead of grabbing on to the life raft, the man decides he’d rather wait until a cruise liner passes by." He added that this cruise liner had no chance of showing up to rescue me.
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.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
| 22 comments |
|
When and if there's a third party, called that or something
Kevin, you don't tell us what you are for, just that the current mainstream parties do not satisfy your hope. So once there is one third party, I'll probably do what you do. In the meantime I'll stick with the Democrats who--at least in their platform--are a little less militaristic, somewhat willing to promote workers' causes, and "fight" (terrible word, which should be "endeavor) for the middle class (I think "underprivileged"), I'll hang on. Next step, therefore, is for me to put a Democrat's feet to the flame on what I consider necessary to keep the citizens together enough to function. When there are too many third parties, known for mostly single issues, they suggest discontent. Only Nader has portrayed a solid hold on a vision which has persisted. Perot was a joke, but a healthy one against what became NAFTA. It's too bad Nader never became a viable threat to entrenchment. I remember him saying after 04 when C-Span was waiting for Kerry to make his concession speech: It's too bad he didn't listen to me, because then he would have won. You are in Chicago. I spent my working years there. One thing became increasingly clear to me. The Better Government folks were the ones to listen to. They just lacked the real deal, CLOUT. That old Chicago word is translated into what is necessary to keep the trains running on time. My suggestion to you is to go back to Obama's first book, and analyze all he says about Harold Washington and his Altgeld Garden experience. Then as he proceeds to operate in 2009, confront him with his Twenties persona. There will be a few of his assembled aids with a burr under their saddles. And you've got yourself a political home to promote. When I was in college, we had Norman Thomas on campus. It was during World War II. When I had my first job in DC I ran smack into the Senator from Wisconsin who ultimately earned the most perjorative term an elected official has worn. McCarthyism was worse than the Dixiecrats, worse than Tom Dewey's rearview mirror, and Truman ultimately beat back his "red herring." Regardless, Ike was going to be the President in 52, because everyone loved Ike. Too bad his military-industrial complex was not taken seriously. We are paying a heavy price for Reagan and the Bushes. But at least we slowed down corporatism because we sidelined Nixon. Things are worse today in my view, but not impossible. In summary: Since we call politics the art of the possible, I depend on young minds like yours to continue to seek the possible. by Margaret Bassett (45 articles, 2909 quicklinks, 42 diaries, 1852 comments [99 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Nov 2, 2008 at 7:53:16 AM  (0+)
|
|
I Agree with You
I agree with you that this country would be much better off if more political parties participated in our elections. What I have found offensive in so many articles on this topic though is when the article takes the approach of the negative campaign. Put more bluntly, urging the growth of new political parties is not the same as twisting facts to put Obama in the worst possible light. The fact is that the problem that we have with our elections is systemic, not personal. We have a flawed electoral system that malfunctions whenever a third party gains significan strength. Most other countries have recognized this problem and have designed their electoral systems to avoid the problem of spoilers. The U.S. and Jamaca seem to be the only exceptions. One way to solve the problem in our presidential voting it to institute instant-runoff voting. With this system, each voter assigns an order-of-preference to each candidate. This allows a voter to, for example, choose Nader as a first choice, Gore as second and Bush as last. In the Florida tally then, Nader is first eliminated as having less than half of the vote and, assuming most of his voters chose Gore as a second option, Gore would then have won the election in Florida. However, notice that people had the option of voting for Nader without denying a vote for Gore. They got to vote in a way that still said that they really preferred not to have Bush as President. There is a strong likelihood that Nader would have received a much larger portion of the vote under this system. There is almost a certainty that there would be greater third-party activity and a more lively political debate leading up to the election. Australia has adopted IRV, but most democracies have opted for a parliamentary system. In this system, citizens vote for members of parliament, but never directly for the head of state. Instead, the parliament elects a leader and that leader becomes the head of state. We know for a fact that minor parties can thrive in such a system. My point is that people who truly want there to be more parties participating in our democracy should direct their efforts, beginning next year, to changing the system. Personally, I think IRV would be an easier path than to change to a parliamentary system, but either path could work. Simply trying to promote minor candidates within the existing, flawed electoral system will not lead to any good end. It is likely to again put in office a candidate who has the least support among the voters. by PrMaine (13 articles, 13 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 510 comments [22 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Sunday, Nov 2, 2008 at 7:56:25 AM (0+)
|
|
vote for patriotism
It's good to see we all agree that the system in place only gives us the choice of "the lesser evil". All through the primaries I waited for the media to say something about any of the other candidates,nothing. This is the first time Ralph Nader has been on the ballot here in Kentucky.I debated wether to vote for him or Barack Obama.Would I really be helping McCain? I don't think it will matter given what's happened the last two times.Also the fact that Ky is solidly for McCain(despite the rise in poverty and drop in healthcare and jobs under republican rule).Just having the choice of a third party candidate was the deciding factor.If I don't support CHOICE then I would feel like I have surendered . It sounds cliche but I believe it is the patriotic thing to do. by Sherry Gadberry Turner (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 26 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Nov 2, 2008 at 9:32:14 AM (0+)
|
|
Obama's Grass Roots -- a new party?
Kevin, At the outset Obama's campaign defined itself as long-term, not just an organization for the 2008 Presidential Campaign. It will continue to represent a markedly different sort of political organization. It has been a paradigm shift. Absent the Bush Administration to unite against, it remains to be seen what will evolve after 1/20/09, but you can bet there will be a strong effort to keep the enthusiasm and momentum the organization has. I pray that it will be a force for good in a nation that so sorely needs hope and direction. by Richmond Shreve (30 articles, 70 quicklinks, 17 diaries, 157 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Nov 2, 2008 at 11:24:58 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Nader/Gonzalez hopes to establish Citizen Congress
The campaign has been using their presidential campaign to build towards the establishment of Congress watchdog groups in every district in America. They offer these tools to shift the power. Obama supporters should join the movement Nader/Gonzalez has ignited among youth and others in this country. by Kevin Gosztola (302 articles, 146 quicklinks, 81 diaries, 1082 comments [77 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Nov 2, 2008 at 12:06:37 PM (0+)
|
|
NEW WORLD
After this election is over African American fashions will be the rage and skin heads will grow dregs. Some will call it the start of the second civil rights movement. Get ready for the loudest celebration in American history when Obama wins. by melpol (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 28 comments) on Sunday, Nov 2, 2008 at 3:13:28 PM (0+)
|
|
Kevin.
Have you ever heard of out-of-touch "youthful enthusiasm"? You have quite a case of it. And Nader must have picked Gonzalez as his Veep-to-Be in part to appeal to just such as you. One question. How do you get those links to your other pieces included in articles and comments? by GLloyd Rowsey (104 articles, 65 quicklinks, 60 diaries, 828 comments [4 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Nov 2, 2008 at 4:58:35 PM (0+)
|
|
Your lens needs polishing
Count me in as one who shares Garrett’s view of you holding a “strict, intolerant, and uncompromising ideology that precludes all rationality and all chance of actually achieving those goals.” You demonstrate the accuracy of his statement by your response, when you say, “My rationality is a result of my ideology as is yours, Mr. Garrett. And I would suggest that is the case for most human beings too.” You have mixed up cause and effect. Ideologies result from the beliefs one has adopted. The single requirement for a belief is that it can neither be proven True nor False, since it exist outside the world of evidence. We call such beliefs, Faith. The best example of belief is an expressed certitude in the existence of a supernatural entity, which much of the Western world has named “God.” We all hold beliefs. They are formed rather early in one’s life, and are largely immutable to change. The reason for this is easy to understand; beliefs are accepted as self-evident truths. Thus, no argument can prevail against what is clearly true. Perhaps an illustration will bring some clarity here. Somewhere around 10th grade, you took a course called “Geometry.” The father of that mathematical discipline was Euclid. One of a number of self-evident truths, or as Euclid called them, Postulates (sometimes Axioms) was that, “Two parallel lines are everywhere equidistant.” This means that these lines can never meet. From that single statement, you were taught to derive proofs, theorems about the relationships between angles, lines, and polygons. Euclid developed some 23 of these postulates, which largely were unquestioned for almost 2,000 years. Then, finding that some mathematical phenomena were unexplained by Euclidean Geometry, new, Non-Euclidean Geometries arose which laid waste to this fundamental assumption. Should you be interested in further exploration, you will find that much of modern Physics could not have developed, were our mathematical views circumscribed by the limitations of Euclidean thinking. All of which may seem far removed from the subject at hand. How about the great ideological questions of our day? There are those who see 9/11 as a self-evident conspiracy engaged in by the United States Government, while others see it as an attack by 19 members of a terrorist organization. Then, there are those who insist that evolution is a flawed explanation for the presence of man on Earth; those who believe that life begins and is to be protected at the moment of conception; those who perceive Gay marriage as a “threat to all we hold sacred.” For all who hold these beliefs, there is no changing their views. Taking something on faith, is the opposite of Rational. Instead of making choices, taking decisions from the available evidence, those who are irrational in their strategies for addressing and meeting problems insist on basing their approach on emotion, regardless of where the verifiable, reliable, and testable evidence would take them. Sadly, you happily have declared yourself to be among those who have made this choice. "I make the choice currently in life to remain true to my ideals based on the conviction that the progress, compromise, and consensus which might be gained if I gave up on some my idealism would not be worth the self-censorship I would engage in when making the shift to being pragmatic." I say sadly, because with knowledge far beyond your years, with your passion, energy, and charisma which attracts many followers, you have great potential for being an agent for change, were you only willing to deal with a world that is, rather than the world you demand it be. by Sherwin Steffin (16 articles, 26 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 119 comments [11 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Nov 2, 2008 at 6:23:51 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: With all due respect
tell this to George Washington and other founding fathers of our Constitution. by Nick van Nes (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 596 comments [150 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Monday, Nov 3, 2008 at 12:51:51 AM (0+)
|
|
Ignoring the Life Raft
Mr. Gosztola, For the purposes of clarity, here is the parable in its entirety: It's comparable to a man treading water in the middle of an ocean, and a helicopter drops him a life raft. But instead of grabbing on to the life raft, the man decides he'd rather wait until a cruise liner passes by, even though the chances of that happening are so remote as to be practically nil. And even worse, the man is so set on settling for nothing less than the luxury ship that he is blinded to the fact that getting on the life raft greatly increases his chances of surviving long enough for the right ship to reach him. What you fail to realize is that in the parable, it is not really you that perishes (although that is the logical ultimate result). It is your goal of climbing aboard that luxury liner. by JC Garrett (40 articles, 65 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 604 comments [10 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Nov 2, 2008 at 8:25:45 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: One problem
I don't think my vote determines whether I survive or not. So, your parable doesn't quite work. by Kevin Gosztola (302 articles, 146 quicklinks, 81 diaries, 1082 comments [77 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Nov 2, 2008 at 8:38:17 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: NOT YOUR LIFE
Your goals. by JC Garrett (40 articles, 65 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 604 comments [10 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Nov 2, 2008 at 9:44:38 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Still 10 feet from the island.
I find your parable a great place to start! Here we all are dropped in the darkness 20 feet from shore, those who've panicked and continually swallow the feamongering (Especially during s/election seasons) are perhaps 50 feet out, those who float on their backs awaiting the daylight to see where they are find they're 10 feet out those treading water are right where many in the Corporate parties want you far enough from shore looking for a "raft" or ocean liner or helicopter OR any latest hyped up idolized dehumanized savior to do what?! pick us up and drop us further out all the while controlling the mindless sheeple further. Some such as Kevin G. are saying ENOUGH! Time to actually take hold of what's there on that island, recognize we've got everything we need to make it work, we've just got to utilize it! Meanwhile the Corporate parties are stripping that island and many others and distracting the wilfully ignorant that perpetuate the spiral to full blown Fascism. Most of the comments i''ve read thus far are perpetuating the very thing they "allude" to despising and yet it is The continued self defeating attitudes that this is where it is. Out of the water and onto the land! Let's build! by joni LeViness (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Monday, Nov 3, 2008 at 12:50:03 PM (0+)
|
|
By the by, KG.
I replied to your last post at your article: "A Progressive Interview with Matt Gonzalez"... by GLloyd Rowsey (104 articles, 65 quicklinks, 60 diaries, 828 comments [4 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Nov 2, 2008 at 9:02:03 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Great?
Were you looking for a response to it? by Kevin Gosztola (302 articles, 146 quicklinks, 81 diaries, 1082 comments [77 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Nov 2, 2008 at 11:08:47 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Certainly,
I was and I am. Just as I was and I am "looking for a response" to my non-rhetorical question above, "How do you get those links to your other pieces included in articles and comments?" My comment replying to yours at your article "A Progressive Interview with Matt Gonzalez" is not complimentary, and it should be read after reading your preceding comment, "Sure it has come from the top". But it does ask simply: "...McCain('s) will be an ultra Bush Administration. How would a better Congress matter?" Why don't you respond to it there. Then any one reading this, who is interested in your take on how Congress' makeup in a McCain Administration could matter, can click on your picture and find the article on the page which comes up. In ANY case: how DO you get those links to your other pieces included in articles and comments? by GLloyd Rowsey (104 articles, 65 quicklinks, 60 diaries, 828 comments [4 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Nov 3, 2008 at 7:03:52 AM (0+)
|
|
Kevin gets it completely
Kevin, they will never get it. And no matter if you posted the tenets of the Green Party a few days ago, ignorant people will claim you never say what you are for. The desperados wants you to join in a stretch of logic and suspension of disbelief to set yourself adrift on a three hour cruise to nowhere, a microcosm of the whole imperial agenda now obviously bankrupt, rudderless, out of supplies, and surrounded by some might big blue truth. Here is my reality. I have a lifeboat, sails, water, food, plants, mates, animals and the stars, wind, and waves to carry me to where I will, and I am leaving behind the major sick parties back in the trailer parks and Mcmansions, and dissin' all the Pirates. And when I pass the cruise ship with its salmonella and bunker and crappy brochures, dead in the water, it's like aloha oe fellas, no damn deal, no rescue, save yourselves. Obama and Biden say they want a chance to run the pirate gunships, the new gas chambers: http://afghanistanafterdemocracy.com/page10.html . by mary sunshine (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 149 comments [79 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Monday, Nov 3, 2008 at 12:37:27 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Amen, sister
Couldn'ta said it better myself. I'm with you, and Kevin. The democrats of these last eight years could hardly call themselves the "opposition party." For all the complaining about the war, how many times did they cave on supplemental bills to support it? That's right, to actually support it? Billions and billions of dollars to the military-industrial complex, to smart weapons that could wipe out the ever growing enemy around the world in its on-going and self-purpetuating, paranoid "War for Peace." They were opposed to it but voted for it? What does that tell us about the evolution of politics in our country? One could argue that it was the democrats who ALLOWED the Bush administration to get away with what it did, all the laws he broke. All the rights Bush stripped from us only further empowers the next adminstration. (And it will be interesting to see, should the Democrats get in, how many of these rights are returned to the People.) It was THEIR refusal to impeach this worst of all and most criminal of presidents. And now we should embrace them, because they are left-leaning? I've been a democrat all my life but I must say, after these last eight years, I could never trust them again. Fool me once..... I don't owe them a damn thing. This is pay back time and I encourage anyone reading this to not let them forget it come election day, even if it means things have to get worse before they get better. Don't compromise your values. by Nick van Nes (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 596 comments [150 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Monday, Nov 3, 2008 at 1:52:01 AM (0+)
|
|
3rd Party
I think if you do not figure out what broke the 2 party system and fix it you would find the 3rd Party to suffer the same fate. First of all, the primaries seem designed to make sure both Parties are able to manipulate the outcome to get the pre-selected candidate nominated. They are way too long for a reason. Second, private money that finances these campaigns corrupts the system. All financing should be public financing, and if that means fewer 30 second commercials which add nothing to intelligent discourse, thats a good thing. Third, the obvious conflict of interest of the MSM from which most people get their news. The corporate sponsors of MSM fund both parties candidates, so long as both parties candidates have been deemed suitable. MSM is thus not going to discredit the candidate for either party, unless there is an obvious favourite by the corporate elite, as was the case in Bush-Kerry and now Obama-McCain (actually McCain was discredited himself by design - so he did not need MSM to help). And the debates being put on are clearly designed to ensure no serious issues get discussed in depth. MSM needs to be out of the loop in these debates, except to broadcast them. Most voters are so ignorant and uneducated, and misinformed by the MSM that they should not be allowed to vote. Our Founding Fathers only meant for the voters to vote for the representatives in the House, not the Senate or President. We were never meant to be a Democracy, we were meant to be a Constitutional Republic. That was lost when a 3rd party candidate gave the election to what might be one of the worst Presidents of all time, Woodrow Wilson (yes, even worse than Bush, he made Bush possible). The beginning of the end. Thanks to this idiot along came the Fed, allowing citizens to vote for Senator, Income tax, Prohibition, Tax Exempt Foundations, WW I, War Powers Act, etc. by pft (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 601 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Nov 3, 2008 at 3:10:22 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Very good points made here
except about Wilson. "Worse than Bush" is impossible. But keep talking. I'm listening. by Nick van Nes (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 596 comments [150 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Monday, Nov 3, 2008 at 9:42:42 PM (0+)
|
|
a century into it...
Good points, PFT. Teach your kids to read, if you have any. Wilson made Sam Bush possible. by mary sunshine (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 149 comments [79 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Monday, Nov 3, 2008 at 1:14:46 PM (0+)
|
|
another good one Kevin
In a society with a functioning democracy, it would suffice to say, "I am voting for so and so because of this and this platform..etc." without provoking any kind of personal attack on your intelligence. If you vote third party, you are labeled as naive and worse a 'spoiler'. I just heard an interview with Michael Moore on Democracy now where he said that "He hopes that Obama will not honor his campaign promises and not commit to troop surges in Afghanistan in the end." I hear a lot of these faith-based wishes, and I can't figure out how someone could logically vote for someone who makes no effort to disguise his policies that are against the wishes of the majority of people (SP healthcare, serious withdrawal from Iraq). They can wish all they want and hope for change. I can't vote this way. I naively expected that the protracted primary race between Hillary and Barack to result in some sort of progessive platform to emerge. Instead, Obama's cheerleaders gave him an unequivocal endorsement and disingenuously touted him as the anti-war candidate. Any criticism of Obama is shouted down as helping the enemy by some. Others are simply pissed that you killed their erection. We missed our opportunity to make him a better candidate long ago. In the end, we will get who we deserve. Those who had the audacity to vote their conscience can at least say they were not part of the problem. On the contrary Kevin, your articles demonstrate a wisdom beyond your years and not "youthful enthusiasm". by Alex Gekas (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Monday, Nov 3, 2008 at 6:06:39 PM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
