Don't vote for Bush

[nancylebov]

I'm apparently not as nice and civic-minded as the typical person who writes about politics. I care more about who you vote for than whether you get out and vote.

If you just can't bring yourself to vote for Kerry--you might dislke any number of things about him or just feel unsure of him or have bought into the idea that a Democrat is a certain sort of a person and you're not so you just can't vote for a Democrat--don't vote for Bush. And if it means you not voting, I can live with it.

If you don't vote, you can still complain. Complaining is a fundamental human, pre-human, and non-human right, recently guaranteed by the First Amendment. Your odds of getting listened to are fair-to-middling, and not dependent on whether you vote.

I'm not doing any sort of emotional blackmail around this election. I do not intend to lose any friends over it (though it's hard when I get really pissed at someone's reasons as well as their choice).

Now for some reasons for not voting for Bush. My reasons center on civil liberties. The American justice/penal system was already pretty bad (I can't see the difference between a plea bargain and a coerced confession), and I don't think we can afford an administration which is philosophically committed to the idea that it's ok to disappear people--to hold them indefinitely without naming or charging them. It doesn't surprise me that people so held are kept in bad conditions or that whether they are any danger to the US wasn't investigated promptly. Don't kid yourself, being a US citizen will not protect you against that sort of thing if it's standard practice.

Niemoller's quote ("first they came for the Jews/Communists/trade unionists) doesn't have the edge it should because it's about people who are now either respectable or at least semi-ok. Try it as "first they came for the drug dealers and terrorists" and I think you'll get more of the point.

Now we get to Abu Graib. While it's a natural outgrowth of the way a lot of Americans think about prisoners (if you're accused, you're guilty, and if you're guilty, whatever treatment you get is your own fault), it was an enthusiastic and especially stupid application of those theories.

Unqualified Offerings (page down to "faithless electors") has a fine rant on the evils of war. It's not just a matter of the war being pursued incompetently. I will add a small point. We've gone ballistic over 3,000 dead out of a population of 300 million. Is it entirely reasonable to expect Iraqis to be good sports about at something between 5 and 33 times as many dead out of 27 million?

Still, incompetence is more fun to write about. Here's one that may have gone past you in the recent news overload. Josh Rushing was the Marine who was featured in the movie The Control Room.

Since the link is to a longish chunk of audio, here's a summary. Rushing was a Marine, and intelligent and dedicated. What he wasn't was an expert on Iraq. Much of what he knew about the country he learned from _Iraq for Dummies_ which he read on the plane trip to the country. He didn't know Arabic.
As junior officer, he was given the job of speaking for the US to Al Jazeera, a major news source for some 45 million Arabs. He wasn't even given his own translator. Now, this isn't the fog and hurry and desperation of war. This is the people in charge just not bothering to pay attention.

When Rushing showed up in The Control Room (when he was interviewed for the movie, he thought it was just a student project and had no idea it was going to be shown at Sundance), he was given orders not to speak about it, and to tell his family not to, either. His family didn't obey, and he got so frustrated with not being allowed to defend the military (many people who saw the movie interpreted him as a lone voice of sanity), he left the Marines.

Bush is the President who doesn't think he'd do anything differently in Iraq if he could do it over. Please don't vote for him.

Comments

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

If you don't vote, you can still complain. Complaining is a fundamental human, pre-human, and non-human right, recently guaranteed by the First Amendment. Your odds of getting listened to are fair-to-middling, and not dependent on whether you vote.

Technically true.

However, it is also said that complaints without solutions are empty. And it seems to me that casting a vote is a straightforward first step toward a solution, if the problem is a dislike for those governing (and their policies). There are lots of other solutions, but short of working outside the system or in different directions in the system (litigation, for example) to achieve changes, voting is an explicit signal of intent to create the government one wishes.

So I disagree, mostly. If you don't vote, you have a significantly less valid complaint about the government than those of us who do, unless you have done the work outside of voting that makes up for it.

*****

On a whole other topic, I urge you to read David Neiwert's reporting at Orcinus (http://dneiwert.blogspot.com), if you don't already do so. His writing is not light, nor easy, but he addresses some serious and valid concerns, and his recently completed series of posts on what he calls pseudo-fascism in America is superb. (Part 1 (http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2004_09_19_dneiwert_archive.html#109028353137888956) Part 2 (http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2004_09_26_dneiwert_archive.html#109563628314780505) Part 3 (http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2004_10_03_dneiwert_archive.html#109596147171278590) Part 4 (http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2004_10_10_dneiwert_archive.html#109694976530359103) Part 5 (http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2004_10_17_dneiwert_archive.html#109755467135245579) Part 6 (http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2004_10_24_dneiwert_archive.html#109858062597237163) Part 7 (http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2004_10_31_dneiwert_archive.html#109902109250035295)) Let's hope that this sort of reportage is not only still permitted post this election, but that it becomes less necessary.

*****

And with that, and the kids waking up (I promised they could come with me to the polls), I am off to vote. I just wish I lived in Ohio, or Pennsylvania, or Florida.

[nancylebov.livejournal.com]

It's technically true and emotionally true, and it's counter to something people keep saying. That struck me as a good enough reason to lj about it. Furthermore, I've never heard anyone say, "You didn't vote, so I won't listen to your complaints", let alone actually not listen.

I voted because I'm so comprehensively pissed at Bush that I was willing to apply a slight and possibly ignored shove in the right direction, but I can only see two strong arguments in favor of voting, and I'm not sure that either of them are strong enough to apply to individuals.

One is that countries with voting are generally more pleasant places to live. It isn't obvious that having a higher proportion of voters will improve matters above that level.

The other is the efforts made by the powers that be to keep some people from voting suggest that voting matters. Maybe the only people who really need to vote are those who face significant obstacles.

I used to read Orcinus pretty carefully. At this point, it's gotten so repetitious that I just skim it to see if there's anything new.

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

I've never heard anyone say, "You didn't vote, so I won't listen to your complaints", let alone actually not listen.

I've heard it. I've never said it -- and never will -- but my response will usually begin with "So what have you done or are you doing about it?" In at least one case, the responder pointed out the massive amount of nonvoting work he does in the community, intended to bring about change, and I acknowledged that what he does is worth far more than his vote. But for many folks, not voting and not doing anything about their complaints is the norm; that combination strikes me as wanting their cake and eating it too. And the complains that follow seem hollow, by comparison.

[snippy]

If you don't vote, you have a significantly less valid complaint about the government than those of us who do, unless you have done the work outside of voting that makes up for it.

Massively disagree. The government has a responsibility to represent and be responsive to *all* of its citizens, regardless of their personal beliefs--and that includes their choice to vote or not. For example, Jehovah's Witnesses don't vote (as it's part of their religion not to participate in earthly governments except by following such of their laws as don't conflict with G-d's), but they are still citizens and the government is still responsible to them. And they still complain: they even file lawsuits to enforce their rights.

I assume you're exempting people who can't vote (minors, convicted felons) as well.

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

The government has a responsibility to represent and be responsive to *all* of its citizens

Absolutely. We're agreed on this.

Where we disagree is on this point: those who vote are exercising their best efforts to create a government that will (as best they can ascertain) represent them and their point of view. Those who do not vote are effectively stating that they are unable or unwilling to make such a selection. That being the case, their responsibility to have made such a choice abrogated, they lose (IMO) a great deal of their justification for complaint.

Jehovah's Witnesses don't vote (as it's part of their religion not to participate in earthly governments except by following such of their laws as don't conflict with G-d's), but they are still citizens and the government is still responsible to them. And they still complain: they even file lawsuits to enforce their rights.

To what extent do they work to bring about the laws which don't conflict with their Deity's? I understand that their litigation is important, and a part of such a strategy, but I cannot help but believe that humans are not called to create a government on earth that reflects their beliefs, rather than trusting to others to do so.

I assume you're exempting people who can't vote (minors, convicted felons) as well.

Yes; sorry, I thought it was implicit, but you're right. My point is that if you are eligible to vote and fail to do so, you have forfeited the moral authority to complain about getting the government you didn't want. (If your choice is the losing side, you can at least note that you did what you could.)

[snippy]

We disagree. I don't think you abrogate your right to representation (including complaining) by choosing not to vote, for the very reason that voting is a choice you get to make, not a requirement in order to be entitled.

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

Hm. It seems I wasn't clear.

We agree on this point: The government is responsible to all citizens at all times. Everyone has the right to representation, including complaints about not being represented, up to and including litigation.

HOWEVER, it is (or should be) clear to aware citizens that there is a choice (even when it's minuscule) between the candidates available to them on Election Day. And that it is more likely that one or the other (or, if they're lucky -- which luck ought not to be necessary, in that we ought to have more than two choices as a matter of course -- three or more) of the candidates will more likely represent their views and positions more of the time than the other(s).

My specific point is that if the government then takes actions which are in line with the projected positions of one candidate, when the nonvoter would have preferred the positions in line with the stated position of the other candidate, then IMO the nonvoter has a significantly diminished moral/ethical right to complain.

If you can see it coming and do nothing about it, don't complain when it hits you. It's the surprises or refusals of representation that everyone has the right to bitch over.

[nancylebov.livejournal.com]

Hi. I'm pleased that I had an impassioned anti-Bush piece without setting off your "too nasty to deal with" reaction.

[snippy]

And I appreciate it, too. Thanks.

[zenlizard]

>If you don't vote, you can still complain

Thank you. I'll sick and tired of the hypocritical shit I get from people about voting.

For the record, I am voting. For Kerry. Not because I like Kerry, he's still dedicated to the oppressive, capitalist/imperialist state that is the US today, but because I am part of the "anybody but Bush" crowd, and because any protest vote I cast will get swallowed up in the maw of inertia unless I vote for someone who has a realistic chance of winning.

[nancylebov.livejournal.com]

What's hypocritical about what (many?) people say about voting?

Oddly enough, I'm pissed at Kerry because he isn't free market enough--he's clearly a protectionist. I'm hoping that if he gets in, he won't be able to get protectionism through, or at least no more than Bush has.

[zenlizard]

Basically, it boils down to "If you don't choose between what the system offers you between Tweedeldum and Tweedledee, then you have no right to complain". Unlike you, I have been told that (thought not quite in those stark terms), and told to shut up because I have on occasion, refused to vote.

Rememgber, that in a contest between the Demoncrat, and the Republifascist, the people can only loose.

I'm one of the 'hyprocrites' who say voting is a duty.

[still-asking.livejournal.com]

I've seen lots of elections where there were some match-ups wherein I could find no one to vote for (and in fact, I more often vote 'against') but I've never seen a (governmental*) election in which I could not cast an uncompromised ballot on ANY of the races or ballot initiatives.

- Karen

*there have been some volunteer groups that I've quit when I realized I thought ALL of the choices were irreparably tainted.

[zenlizard]

And then I read:
http://www.livejournal.com/users/sirwagsalot/11645.html

(Pseudo-blog of a hearing-assistance dog of a friend of mine)

[nancylebov.livejournal.com]

Brilliant. I'm adding sirwagsalot to my friends list.

[nellorat.livejournal.com]

Great LJ entry! Since you told me you want that type of comment, I'll say that this is well organized and coherent, as well as having excellent individual points.

I like your statement that those who don't vote still have a right to complain. I'm voting for Kerry for practical reasons; but if my principles just wouldn't let me vote for him, and I was still against Bush, I would refrain from voting rather than split the vote. I hope anyone in that situation would do so, too. There are less close and less critical elections--including many non-Presidential elections being held today!--in which to develop third parties. Or, in states like NY, you can vote for Kerry, but under the imprimatur of a third party, as agrumer points out.

Really great revision of Neimoller's famous saying.

[nancylebov.livejournal.com]

Thanks. I'm glad it works as an essay. I was a little concerned that the emotional tone didn't flow well, but it pretty much followed how I was feeling. People with Emotional Focus Deficit Disorder (a just-invented syndrome) deserve essays, too.

I don't think that voting for a third party candidate splits the vote in any injurious way if you weren't going to vote for the major candidate anyway. The point wasn't that people were voting for Nader, it's that people who otherwise would have voted for Gore voted for Nader instead.

In re revising Niemoller: One thing I realized during the run-up to the war in Iraq is that history is a lot harder when you're in the middle of it.

I Live Journal and I Vote

[moonpuppy61.livejournal.com]

I have found out who and what is on my ballot. I've researched who they are and what they stand for. I have made one small voice in the hub-bub. My duty to my heritage as an American Citizen and to freedom.