I think it’s perfectly clear whom to condemn: the assholes engaged in the behavior. I see nothing at all to indicate that the Democratic Party should be blamed for this; it’s the behavior of individual assholes, absent proof of conspiracy.
Problem is, a bully is a monolithic entity; the Republican party is not. Unless the specific voter singled out for taunts and intimidation was herself engaged in earlier voter fraud, then the attacks against her weren’t hitting a bully back: they were attacking an innocent voter.
If Joe breaks into George’s house and attacks George with a machete, George still may not go down the street and punch the next machete-owner he meets.
This is the “two wrongs don’t make a right” principle. What we need to do is to stand up for voters’ rights across the board, against whoever would threaten them, whether those threats come from Democrats or Republicans, from individuals or organizations.
So, if there is an occupying army in your country, you can’t attack any of its soldiers, unless you can prove that *that * soldier himself hurt or killed someone?
Some times, two “wrongs” *do * make a right. (Not necessarily in this case, but in general, it happens)
I agree that we should stand up for voters’ rights, in principle.
However, if one of the parties though is consistently and successfully suppressing voters’ rights, and attempts to stop this behavior are unsuccessful, I won’t feel too bad if some of their votes are suppressed.
Even if I don’t want the Democratic party to actually organize such incidents, I still can’t help but not feel too bad, since they make the election a bit more “fair and balanced”
Yes, but if a dog bites you, you’re not allowed to go kick your neighbor’s puppy. Shall we declare an irrelevant-analogy ceasefire? Or do you really think that the time to settle disputes at the ballot box is over, and it’s time to begin killing our political opponents?
And that’s precisely the position that I find repugnant; moreoever, I think that’s the kind of odious shit that destroys your credibility next time you post complaining about anti-Democratic and antidemocratic voter intimidation. I encourage other Democrats not to adopt that position.
In case my previous praise was insufficent, let me again commend Daniel’s cogent and ethical approach to this discussion. I need hardly point out the differences between his attitude and the views embraced by Polerius.
If my mission in life were to go about attacking liberal hypocriscy, a room full of Daniels would frustrate that aim; a room full of Poleriuses would ensure I never lacked a target.
Thanks, guys–I appreciate the praise! I’ve said before that one of the major benefits of this forum for me is getting to argue with folks whose views I disagree with sharply but with whom I can argue politely and respectfully. One of the great disappointments of the board is reading folks whose superficial views I agree with but with whom I must sharply distinguish myself, on ethical grounds.
All I’m saying is “let’s play by the rules.” If after several attempts to get you to play by the rules, you consistently break them, then where is my ethical obigation to continue to play by the rules?
As has been pointed out above, when you endorse harrassing an innocent voter in repayment for the other side’s harrassing an innocent voter, you’ve merely added to the total number of harrassed innocent voters. You have not “evened the score” in any meaningful way.
I have not “endorsed” voter harrassment. As I said above:
Not feeling too bad about something and endorsing it are very different matters.
Also, can you care to actually answer my previous question? That is, let’s take this question away from the election issue and look at the more general question:
Someone agrees and wants to “play by the rules.” If after several attempts to get their opponent to play by the rules, the opponent consistently breaks them, then does this person have an ethical obigation to continue to play by the rules?
'Fraid so. Ethical behavior is about what you do, not what the other guy does. If the problem is with the rules themselves, that’s one thing. If the problem is with someone else breaking the rules, that’s another.
Plus, imitating the bad behavior of the other party is tantamount to condoning it. Which makes you look like a hypocrite without actually solving anything.
There are countries where it is almost impossible to get a good job if you don’t use “connections”. We all agree that using connections to get a job over some more-qualified candidate is not right. But, if you lived in such a country, and you tried to “do the right thing” and competed for jobs based solely on your job qualifications, you would be bound not to get any of these jobs because everyone else would use connections to try and get the job.
So, do you “do the right thing” and stay jobless or in a crummy job, or do you try to use connections to get a good job that you are qualified for?
Is using connections “tantamount to condoning it”? Or is not using connections, in these types of countries, just plain naivete?
I’m actually not sure. When I was younger I would have been adamant against using connections, but now, I’m not so sure.
You are presenting a false analogy – in your scenario, there are only the two players: “you” and “the opponent.” Whatever answer I give to this question will be inapplicable to the discussion at hand, since there are many parties involved.
I would argue that ethics are not dependent on your opponent’s behavior. They are for you to adhere to, regardless of the conduct of others. There are practical reasons that support this view, but in the end, the bottom line is that remaining ethical in the face of strong temptation to do otherwise is the only sure sign of a person - or an entity - truly committed to ethical behavior.
Except that there are some situations in which (and I hate to sound so vague and relativistic) ethics are contextual. I think that it’s in general unethical to “use connections” to get a job in the US, because that gives you an unfair edge over everyone. But if everyone is doing it, then it doesn’t give you an unfair edge, it just levels the playing field.
Clearly, this principle can’t be applied to other things… the murder rate going up doesn’t make murder more ethical, for instance. But I think that there are some situations which aren’t black and white, in which it’s meaningful to determine what society as a whole deems ethical, and then apply that standard to yourself however you see fit.
The most bizarre thing happened when I went to vote today.
There were signs up for several candidates, but no one was handing out materials or wearing buttons. There was also a sign that said that there was a 100 foot limit and that no political materials were to be beyond that point.
We waited in a short line for about five minutes where we exchanged pleasantries with the folks behind us. The lady was originally from Brooklyn and had not lost her accent after 37 years. She was cute as a button.
People smiled a lot and were cordial.
I voted for Kerry and some local folks and felt good all over.
My husband wore his “I Voted” sticker for the first time in his life. Both of us beamed.
I didn’t expect trouble. I didn’t see trouble. I didn’t give trouble.
Sorry, didn’t want to read the whole thread. But did anybody point out that this thread is about democratic groups that are intimidating voters, while the majority of the other thread was how the Republican Party was systematically intimidating voters?
