Political musing (feel free to skip)

[flewellyn]

Following the primaries, I'm still very much undecided whether I want to support Obama or not. Both my first choice (Edwards) and my second (Clinton) have come out in support of him, and that says a lot to me.

But then I hear about stuff like this, in which protestors and dissenters at an Obama rally were systematically excluded and dismissed by his campaign's operatives. And it makes me wonder...isn't this Bush stuff? If Obama means to unify the party, how come his campaign's actions seem geared toward unity through purge?

Very discomfitting. If Obama turns out to be Bush Lite, then my choices at the ballot box will be Bush Lite or Bush Redux. Not much of a choice, is it?

Comments

[nimbrethil.livejournal.com]

Free speech zones are reprehensible, period, whether they're instigated by Republicans or Democrats, whether they're heinous, or "just" an inconvenience. The very concept is an egregious violation of the 1st Amendment.

[cacahuate.livejournal.com]

Where did I say they weren't?

[nimbrethil.livejournal.com]

I guess I just don't see the point of splitting hairs in saying that it's not as bad as when the Democrats do it. It is unconstitutional regardless of which individual or which party is involved, and also regardless of the extent to which free speech zones are employed, and the whole "It sucks either way but X isn't as bad as Y" strikes me as just another variation on the lesser of two evils argument, which is, as far as I'm concerned, why American politics is in the shitty condition it's presently in. BOTH parties are corrupt, and using the Lo2E fallacy strikes me as a waste of time.

[cacahuate.livejournal.com]

Lesser is lesser is lesser. Unfortunately, as long as we have this voting system, we're stuck with it.

I'm sorry if I have trouble mustering up sufficient outrage about something that's been going on for twenty years and that I can do nothing about. And though they're far from perfect, I still like the Democrats and don't actually think they're evil. And I'm a radical. I'm sorry we disagree about the most realistic and effective ways to achieve our goals.

[nimbrethil.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately, as long as we have this voting system, we're stuck with it.

And that is precisely the logic I can't grasp. What leaves us stuck with this system is the mentality that we have to vote for the lesser of two evils. What's more, we're not slaves to our politicians--we CAN do something about it.

But as long as we continue to vote under that ideology, of COURSE we'll be stuck with it. It's a textbook example of a self-fulfilling prophecy. If sufficient numbers of people would vote for candidates they actually DO like and believe in, rather than settling for the "least" corrupted, the system would eventually change.

[cheekyweebisom.livejournal.com]

If sufficient numbers of people would vote for candidates they actually DO like and believe in, rather than settling for the "least" corrupted, the system would eventually change.

Okay, this is the logic that I don't get. First of all, yes, by definition, "sufficient numbers of people" are enough to effect whatever change you want. That's what makes them sufficient numbers. So, how about instead of "sufficient numbers" we go with "all the dissatisfied Democrats and all the progressives who feel so disenchanted that they don't vote at all." That's still probably a pretty big number. Is it a sufficient one? I don't know.

Then we get to "the system would eventually change." And in the mean time, how many lives are ruined? How many children don't get medical care? How many women are denied abortions? How many soldiers die? How many civilians die because of our wars? Etc.

I was 11 years old when Bush was elected. This is the political climate I've known for the entire time that I was actually paying attention. I don't feel like I can afford to play hard to get with political parties or candidates. The name of the game is damage control. Lest you think that I'm totally resigned and cynical, I should mention that I don't intend to limit my efforts to voting. I want to go to law school; I think I can better the system--even if it's in a small way--by devoting my career either to politics or to civil liberties work.

But when it comes to this election, I believe with all my heart that the country--and the world--will be better off with Obama in the oval office, so I will vote for him with head held high and a spring in my step.

"The lesser of two evils" sounds so blasé and hopeless, and my willingness to compromise is neither of those things. I prefer Voltaire: "The best is the enemy of the good."

[cacahuate.livejournal.com]

IAWTC. This is why, while I don't actually disagree with it, I generally don't use the phrase "lesser of two evils."

[cacahuate.livejournal.com]

So, have you quit IM entirely or have you just switched services or something?

[cheekyweebisom.livejournal.com]

I'm pretty much never on. I'll try to change that maybe Idon'tknowI'mkindofaflake.

[cacahuate.livejournal.com]

What leaves us stuck with this system is the mentality that we have to vote for the lesser of two evils.

I don't think that's the only thing, quite frankly. There are plenty of Democrats who are happy with the Democratic party and not liberal enough for the extreme-left third parties; even if everyone who agreed with the Green Party (for example) voted for them, they still wouldn't win a plurality. I don't think we actually have enough third parties to sufficiently splinter the Democratic and Republican voting blocs even if the Utopian fantasy of everyone voting for people who represent their views exactly came true.

If sufficient numbers of people would vote for candidates they actually DO like and believe in

I actually do like and believe in Obama. And I'm a feminist. So, yeah.