Oh, for sure. At this point we’re all pretty materially comfortable so no one really cares about anything outside of mass media “us vs. them” sophistry. Despite my self righteous screeds you certainly won’t catch me out there trying to do anything. I have more important things to do with my free time, like reading and playing video games. And if some unfortunate person starts talking about swell it’d be to have universal health care or some such nonsense…zzz.
George W. Bush, 2000:
Preach it.
There are any number of political philosophies that are not supported by the American mainstream, and it’s not because Americans are all brain-dead sheep. The reason hard-core libertarian candidates don’t get elected is because less than 1% of the electorate are hard core libertarians.
If you want the voters to elect people that share your political views you’re going to have to start trying to convince them that they should share your political views.
I can’t count the number of internet blowhards who are convinced that we live under tyranny. And the tyranny is so complete that no one even realizes they live under tyranny! This utterly intolerable situation turns out to be easily tolerable by the vast majority.
Yeah, yeah, plenty of commonplace attitudes today were once fringe positions, the abolition of slavery was once a fringe position, votes for women was once a fringe position, freedom of religion was once a fringe position. Except that doesn’t mean that your pet fringe positions are destined to become tomorrow’s common sense, because for every fringe position that became common sense there were thousands of fringe positions that are now even fringier. They laughed at Galileo, they laughed at Einstein, but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
I know what you’re saying, Lemur, but Einstein was taking very seriously. If he was laughed at, it was for a very brief time. And if you were traveling in a rocket ship at a very high speed during that time, it would’ve taken less than a second. 
The advantage Einstein had was that he could point at Mercury, take a few notes, and convert scientists all over the world.
This requires a mind that is permeable to facts. A worldview that proceeds from the premise that most people are fundamentally unable to see the fault lines in the world around them because they have their bread and circuses is not.
Words of wisdom. I may print this out and stick it on my bulletin board for my students.
I voted for Nader in 2000 in a swing state (and in '96 in a non-swing state), and now regret having done so. However, I still feel that based on the information available to me at the time, the decision was reasonable. I certainly would have voted for Gore had Bush been honest about his intent to govern as a radical, Constitution-shredding, war-mongering right-winger. Yes, the Democrats can say that they told me so – but since pretty much every candidate in every election tries to claim that their opponent is much less moderate than he pretends to be, I am not inclined to give them much credit for happening to be right this time.
My vote for Nader was based largely on my hope to establish the Green Party as a viable alternative to the major parties. I think this was a reasonable hope; casting a vote for a candidate who can’t win in that particular election isn’t “wasting your vote” if it is part of a long term strategy to bring about change. The GP appears to have learned the lesson of 2000 and is now concentrating on lower-level races that they can actually win, and they do continue to grow, slowly but surely. Voting for Nader as a septuagenerian independent in a race which he can’t win – don’t see the point.
This year, I will vote Democratic because of the urgent necessity of getting the right-wing loonies out of power. However, I certainly don’t feel that Obama and the Democrats have “co-opted the Green agenda”. They do appear prepared to take global warming seriously (although McCain is also a great improvement over Bush in that area). BUT, to take three issues of prime importance, they are not willing to commit to immediate and total withdrawal from Iraq, they are not prepared to establish single-payer health care, and they are not prepared to end the disastrous War on Drugs. I don’t see how anyone can seriously argue that either Democratic candidate is running on a real progressive agenda. We can only hope that, for once, we are pleasantly surprised by the difference between a politician’s campaign platform and what he actually does in office. Actually, that’s not true – we can work like hell to create the popular movements that will give him incentive to put forth progressive policies once in office.
Well, you may think we lefties are stupid, but we can read polls! I honestly don’t remember hearing a single person make this argument in 2000; it was clearly a close election, and we made a calculated decision that we would rather work on building for the future than trying to make the difference between Gush and Bore. Didn’t work. Sorry.
OTOH, the last nail in the coffin for me as far as considering Gore was when he picked Joe Lieberman (asshole-CT) as his running mate. Considering how Joe’s career has gone since, I guess I can’t criticize my judgment too harshly!
I don’t think a lot of folks took Bush to seriously either. Oh, there was a lot of hand wringing about him making abortion illegal and putting prayer back in schools and all, but my own expectations were that he’d be a one term wonder…basically just a care taker president until someone better came along. And I think he was poised to be a pretty insignificant domestic policy president, getting essentially nothing accomplished while the rest of the country yawned and changed the channel…until 9/11. It all changed for Bush at that point and he became the president we all love to hate he is today.
-XT
Agreed, xt, in fact, as I recall it, Bush was looking very much like a one-term president because he was ineffectual and his approval ratings were headed for the Marianas Trench before 9/11 changed everything!
OK, I’ll agree with that one. Sure, we screamed about the appointment of John Ashcroft. But, 2001 was looking like a dull year with a caretaker president. Pubbies had lost the Senate with the Jeffords switch. Gary Condit was the news. Faith based charities and teaching standards were being discussed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alessan
Because voting is an excercise of political power, not a form of self-expression.
Sigh… Right, 'cause it’s all about winning. (sarcasm mode) Because you’re not excercising political power unless your guy wins. So make sure you only vote for the sure thing, even if he doesn’t represent your views, 'cause that’s the way to get a politician’s attention. (sarcasm mode off)
Come on. Would anyone advocate switching from Dem to Rep if it was evident the Dem’s didn’t have a snowballs chance? To hell with the two party system, let’s make it a one party system, then everyone’s represented 'cause they all voted for the winner. (oops, there was a bit more sarcasm there.)
The only reason politicians do anything is to get votes. The only power we have over them is with our votes. The only time they pay attention is if they DON’T get our votes. Polls and petitions work on the threat of “I might not get elected if I don’t do x.” Protest voting IS an exercise of political power. When do politicians pay attention? When people stop voting for them and vote for someone else. And how do you show which policies you had issue with? By voting for someone who represents those policies.
One vote almost never puts a major party over the top. My one vote isn’t going to lose the election for anyone. So, why should I vote for “almost-as-evil-as-the-other-guy?” When you do that you encourage “almost-as-evil-as-the-other-guy” government.
I live in Canada, and we do things a bit different here. 3rd parties actually have a chance, because people vote for them. (there are other reasons, but let’s not go into it.) For many, many years, the Liberals were the ONLY party with a chance to win. Everyone knew they would win, the only question was by how much. (We still have our share of “don’t throw your vote away” thinkers.) The only power we had to influence them was by voting for other parties.
You’ve seen all the Saw movies, haven’t you?
Maybe I read through this thread too rapidly, but I don’t think I saw the correct answer to the question in the OP. I believe Nader is sincere and he genuinely doesn’t see that there is much difference in how the major political parties will govern. He really doesn’t feel that it makes any difference if he spoils the election for the Dems. Furthermore, since the Dems went to extraordinary lengths in 2004 to keep him off the ballot, after being hurt so bad in 2000, he’s pretty pissed.
I was surprised at how much I liked what he had to say in a recent interview. I wish him well, but I will not vote for him.
The person who best represents your policy positions is yourself. If your POV was the proper one, every election would result in a multi-million way tie.
Sua
'Course, if Gore had won, Lieberman would have been kicked upstairs from the Senate into a position of effective impotence, and the good people of Connecticut would have had the opportunity to elect a new Senator.
See, Gore was brilliant, and you shortsightedly failed to see the true ramifications of his choice of running mate!
Sua
Thank goodness for high barriers to the entry of elections.
I’m not running for president, so I won’t vote for myself.
There might be someone out there who is running for president who shares most of my views and who I think is sincere. Voting for him beats staying home.
Nader is merely right. We can not fix this mess with Hillary. The rights of the people are being trampled by corporations and the 2 party system.
You can’t possibly be talking about Nader, because he’s not doing this to become President-he’s only in it for the free publicity. Just like last time, he waited until it was far too late to mount an effective campaign, the highest office his running mate Matt Gonzalez has held is a chair on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors(he recently lost his bid to become mayor) and most of his friends and allies are supporting Obama. He still pushes the tired and disproved meme that Democrats and Republicans are basically the same party.
He knows that he doesn’t have a chance in hell of winning, but I’m sure he appreciates the support y’all are throwing his way.