Why shouldn't I support Obama? He's way better than McCain or Hillary!
Well I think it is more complicated than just comparing the few viable candidates. The first thing you need to do is let go of your idea that the United States of America is a democracy. It isn't. Look, Dr. Chomsky says so:
He's really fucking smart, so you ought to really give this notion some consideration. America isn't a democracy.
Yeah, but, like, we have elections. We get to vote, right? That makes it a democracy!
Not really. All elections mean is that the public has a choice between various candidates. It doesn't mean that those candidates represent the interests of the people, or that the people have any say in the decisions that are important to them. All elections mean is that people can choose between candidates. The real power is in who chooses the candidates.
Uh, so... who chooses the candidates?
Well, first look at a what all the candidates have in common. You might notice that they're all politicians. They all have lots of money behind them. They're all Democrats or Republicans.
Yeah but wait, if they're all the same, how come there are Democrats and Republicans?
They aren't all exactly the same. There are some minor differences between them, perhaps even some major ones. But even major differences are dwarfed by their profound similarities. And the reason they have so many similarities is because the big money that backs them generally comes from people with very similar interests.
So now to answer the question, there are Democrats and Republicans for a few reasons, but two main reasons stand out. First, while the people who make the decisions have vast areas of common interests, they do have some differences. And so factions form that compete with each other over those minor areas of disagreement.
But far more importantly to you and me, there are Democrats and Republicans because it creates the illusion of choice for the public. The interests of the people in power, the people who control both the Democrat and the Republican parties, are very different than the interests of the public. So it is important that they make it seem as if the public has meaningful choices. Parties are kind of like marketing gimmicks. They create appealing slogans that generates enthusiasm, and use various methods of deception to get the public to overlook the fact that their actions and their rhetoric don't match. The vast majority of their actions favor the interests of those elite few, at the expense of the general public and the rest of the world.
Ok, well that all makes sense, and I kind of agree. But still, Obama is way better than McCain.
He certainly wants you to think that. It is possible that it is true, though I think it is much harder to predict than most people seem to think. Like Chomsky says, the campaigns are designed to highlight character qualities, rather than positions on meaningful issues. It seems to me that Obama has been highly evasive on issues, and quite willing to outright lie.
Regardless, putting your efforts, your time, your money, your hope, into Obama is putting your efforts, your time, your money, your hope into the Democratic party. And that Democratic party is a crucial part of that whole corrupt and disorienting system that gives the illusion of choice without actually providing one. Its primary function is to attract the votes of progressive/liberal-minded people. It does this by saying things that progressives like to hear, and very rarely by passing measures that progressives like (so long as they don't conflict with the interests of the elites), but then primarily using their electoral success to serve the interests of the elites and maintain their own personal and party power.
Yeah, I kind of felt that way after the last election...
Exactly! In 2006 you supported Democrats because you wanted them to end the Iraq war. The war escalated. You wanted Democrats to stop the US from torturing people and holding them without charges. They not only stopped it, they legalized it. You wanted them to impeach Bush and Cheney for their obvious crimes, but they said impeachment was off the table.
So just because Democrats have always claimed to offer a better alternative to Republicans, just because they've said they stand for the things that are important to me, and just because they've never actually done a single thing to back up those claims, and just because there's an extremely painful recent example for me to dwell on... wait but Obama is changing everything. He's different!
Argh! Nobody gets to the position he's in without being completely a creature of the system. Big business is pouring money into his campaign; he's selling out his friends because they say true things that are politically inconvenient; he wants to increase the size of the military; he refuses to acknowledge the turmoil wrought by Israeli action in the Middle East; the list goes on forever. He's not different.
But he's better than McCain!!
Again, he very much wants you to think that, but I'm not sure I see how. You could certainly look at one very narrow issue and conclude that Obama would handle things better in than McCain in that domain. A popular example of that is military belligerence. It might well be the case that Obama is less likely to bomb Iran, for example, although Obama seems quite unwilling to advocate non-aggression. Even if Obama is less likely to launch another war of aggression, he could be more likely to inflict massive harm on people through economic sanctions, as Bill Clinton did in Iraq. Or he might be more inclined to use his beefed up military for "humanitarian" interventions, which never seem to have humanitarian outcomes. Or Obama might have the acquiescence of a Democratic Congress that allows him to pass various measures that cause long-term harm, whereas a McCain presiding with a Democratic Congress wouldn't allow much of anything to pass, preventing harmful measures from proceeding. Or....
The point of that isn't to argue that Obama will be worse or as bad as McCain, but to illustrate the difficulty in figuring it out. Which is once again why I say supporting Democrats is a huge fucking waste of any good intentions you have, because you're supporting the system that allows a decision that is seemingly so important to be contested by people who offer you no meaningful commentary on the important issues.
So you're just saying I shouldn't support anyone? I shouldn't vote? Well then what should I do? You aren't offering any alternatives.
Why does pointing out the massive flaws of the system have to be accompanied by a specific plan of alternative action? Whatever causes you support, whatever ideals you hold that you think Obama might be slightly more likely to represent than the other idiot, you'd be better served pursuing them in other ways. Presidential elections don't change that shit. They're a huge brick wall between you and your vision, and you're just slamming your head into that wall by supporting candidates. If I come along and point out that slamming your head against the wall isn't going to knock it down, isn't that pretty fucking useful information right there? But I guess some people have hit their head so many times that they can't even recognize the futility.
I'm still going to vote for Obama.
I know you are. That's the fucking diabolical beauty of the system.
9 comments:
nice post. 3 words. illusion of choice.
Your possible pose could also be interpreted as "intellectual-in-joe-sixpack-clothing." Chomsky's correct that our democracy is not a functioning one. Part of the reason is we are privileged little piss-pants putting on smarty-pants airs. Chomsky goes further, quoting John Dewey, "Politics is the shadow cast over society by big business." Again, this is true enough. Still, and Chomsky is an acquaintance of mine and he would not disagree, in less-privileged, or less-spoiled, societies, voting, if a right at all, is a life-or-death responsibility. And the people there, not so blinded by video games and self-important hogwash like this tripe we're commenting on, know it. If McCain ends up sitting on W's fart stains, reproductive and minority rights, media regulation and controls against corporate welfare are going even further out the window, while the probability of an attack on the Iranian population and poorer American youth-turned-hamburger, are going up exponentially as compared to if a democrat (by now that's Obama, if not both)is elected. As the band Discharge says, "You Take Part [or don't] In Creating The System." So, please get over your lame bright-eyed excuses, read Chomsky (and others) more deeply, and VOTE. If not for yourself, for the children who can't yet, and may never get the chance to. Thanx.
The first sentence of my above comment should read, "Your possible pose could also be interpreted as "joe-sixpack-in-intellectual-clothing."
Thanx.
You know that we agree on much of what you write here. Our present sytem, call it whatever -cracy fits, sucks, money trumps everything else.
So we have just two choices, fix the present system, or scrap it altogether and replace it with...something else (which will probably be dominated by the wealthy eventually).
Most of the people who support Obama want to fix the present system. Obama taks a good fight and it's easy to be somewhat optimistic about what we can accomplish with him as President, but weren't we just as optimistic after the '06 elections. If he turns out to be a fraud or ineffective, it will hasten the end of the two party system. Even now the Republican party is fracturing.
You say we shouldn't vote, we shouldn't support the Democrats. Obviously you want every liberal/progressive to withdraw from politics. Fine, so McCain and the Republicans win big and we bomb Iran, and have more tax cuts for the very wealthy, and fewer environmental controls on manufactures. And what are we doing? Throwing rocks at the system? Please, explain how our boycott of the system is supposed to help us and our kids. Yeah, it will probably hasten a revolution once the U.S. devolves into pods of gated communities protected by hired thugs, while the rest of us forage for their crumbs, but that's not the country I want to leave my kids.
Tell us your vision for the future.
I vote almost entirely on one issue. Abortion. Family Planning. Abstinence-only "education".
If Republicans win again and get to appoint any more "conservative" judges to the supreme court, there's a serious possibility that more and more state restrictions on abortions will be called OK by the court. That's totally not OK. It shouldn't be with anyone who cares about women.
And then the other part of the absurd restrictions on funding of international HIV programs that can only include abstinence-only education. It's bad enough that we condemn the children in this country to that crap.
In my future career I will do as much as I can on these issues, but it will be much harder in a Republican environment.
Even if that's the only difference, it is so very critical, it's worth voting.
megene -
I'll agree that I'm quite privileged. I'm sure there are placed where the act of voting is quite important, possibly life-or-death. That said, I'm not sure that I agree that a McCain victory would have the consequences you predict. But, if I were to vote, it certainly wouldn't be for a Democrat.
Trakker - I don't agree that we only have the 2 choices you present. I think another choice is to withdraw as much as possible from this system and let it melt away while we slowly come to other arrangements in a very decentralized way. Furthermore, I don't believe this system can be fixed from within. I don't think there's any historical case where a system like this has been fixed from within (though I'm quite historically ignorant and would love to hear of examples).
I do want every liberal/progressive to withdraw from NATIONAL ELECTION politics, and every other person whose interests aren't being represented, which is basically the bottom 99.5% of people by income. As much as the average Bush supporter might hate brown people and queers, overall his interests aren't being served by Republicans.
But if every liberal boycotted the ballot, do you really think the 15% of the population who votes would give McCain enough power to do all the things you predict? I just don't see it.
My vision for the future is a place where we create our own future, instead of it being forced upon us from the top down.
Give Arthur Silber's Tale That Might be Told a read. I promise it isn't offensive.
Cara - While we're rolling along with Chomsky citations, he generally says that everyone has to make their own choices and I agree. I think that it is possible for people to make a convincing case in favor of voting based on a narrow issue or set of issues as you (and to some extent megene and trakker) have done. However, I think that people who do this ought to very clearly acknowledge that they're willing to trade support for torture, indefinite imprisonment, war of aggression, executive lawlessness, state surveillance, and lots of other terrible things in exchange for a their one issue. Maybe that's a trade-off you're willing to make, and maybe it is a good one, but I'm not there.
For me the big all-important issue is imperialism. Imperialism is destroying the world. The controlling parties support it, and our entire system of government and societal structure is built around it. I cast my vote against imperialism by opting out of the system as much as possible. I hope more people do the same.
I just finished reading Silber's Tale That Might Be Told. You're right, there was nothing offensive (to me anyway) in it.
Do you know why I much prefer writing fiction vs. politics? Because in fiction you have complete control over how the story ends.
Tale That Might Be Told is an engaging story, as are Ayn Rand's novels, but very little in it rang true to me. In Silber's story everyone lives happily ever after because the evil politicians were vanquished (where did they go? Without office they suddenly turned into model citizens?). I believe that if people didn't vote and government dissolved (that alone seems far fetched), what would really happen is that corporations would gleefully run amok, cut every corner they could, disable anti-pollution devices...do pretty much as they please becaus there was no one to enforce the laws. Like it or not, the government makes a huge difference in our lives daily.
Call me cynical, but within 6 months Silber's happy peaceful people living in harmony would be visited by armed warloards demanding tribute in return for protection from the other warlords roaming the countryside.
Still, the story would make a nice Disney movie.
No, I'm sure the politicians didn't turn into model citizens, but the scumbags were no longer allowed to be placed into positions of extreme power. Furthermore, corporations require the government for their existence and success.
Post a Comment