Homework for heretics
Predictably, some responses to Glenn Greenwald's tweet that links to my rebuttal of The Nation's Obama-endorsement editorial are employing a maneuver one might term "homework for heretics" (H4H).
For example:
The subtext is "vote for Democrats until you somehow make third-party candidacies viable."
It is a call for conformity wrapped in an ostensible plea for grassroots action. It is a brushback pitch.
Activism to redress the flaws of our two-party electoral system may be a worthy endeavor. Do it or don't do it. It's your choice, as is whom to vote for or whether to vote at all.
Note: unless one possesses George W. Bush's ability to look into others' souls, one could on occasion mistake a legitimate plea for activism with an instance of H4H. If the gentlemen quoted above are earnest advocates for alternatives to America's political duopoly, I apologize for citing them as exemplars.
Regardless, the H4H ploy is very real and very familiar to the 2L4O among us.
Publicly advocate that one or more Democrats have not earned your vote, and in no time you'll hear demands that you perform some feats of activism before—i.e., instead of—voting as you see fit.
For example:
Simon Carroll And:@I8uridea4brekki@ggreenwald@vastleft Solution: do the hard work of creating a real third party alternative; keep supporting Occupy and other non-state mv.s
Joshua Jabbour Homework for heretics is the assertion that those unmoved to vote for Democrats must put their shoulder to the activist wheel.@joshuajabbour.@ggreenwald@vastleft “one time in 4 yrs that voters have their say.”=BS It’s also least effective time. Make yourself heard before voting.
The subtext is "vote for Democrats until you somehow make third-party candidacies viable."
Activism to redress the flaws of our two-party electoral system may be a worthy endeavor. Do it or don't do it. It's your choice, as is whom to vote for or whether to vote at all.
Note: unless one possesses George W. Bush's ability to look into others' souls, one could on occasion mistake a legitimate plea for activism with an instance of H4H. If the gentlemen quoted above are earnest advocates for alternatives to America's political duopoly, I apologize for citing them as exemplars.
Regardless, the H4H ploy is very real and very familiar to the 2L4O among us.
Publicly advocate that one or more Democrats have not earned your vote, and in no time you'll hear demands that you perform some feats of activism before—i.e., instead of—voting as you see fit.
posted by Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy at 8:15 AM
34 Comments:
First off, let me try to avoid an unnecessary flame war...I agree with the general critique that Obama does not represent progressive/left/liberal politics, and certainly not one that rejects the dominance of financial capital and the grotesque consequences of the military industrial complex. That said, the question here is whether or not, if you choose to vote in this US Presidential election, you should vote for Obama.
This is a different question to one other that you address in your original post, which is the degree of deception in the Nation editorial. One can quibble with some of the arguments you make that supports the deception charge, but I would generally agree you have a point.
Nevertheless, as I argued in my tweeets, to advocate voting against Obama, and thereby increasing Romney's chances of winning (this is just a logical consequence of the crappy 'two-party' electoral system) one has to accept the premise that there really is no great difference of moral consequence between having Obama as President vs. having Romney. This latter premise I find not only wrong, but somewhat callous, as the very real differences between their two programs have real and potentially devastating implications for the lives of millions of Americans and of people worldwide.
This is true even accepting the harshest criticisms of Obama, such as those coming from Greenwald.
@I8urideaforbrekki: I think you just gave a shining example of the "homework for heretics" VL was talking about.
"the very real differences between their two programs have real and potentially devastating implications for the lives of millions of Americans and of people worldwide"
And what exactly are those very real differences between their two programs? Because there haven't been a whole lot of very real differences between Obama's and Bush's programs, so if they exist between Obama and Romney, then maybe we'll finally get that change we were promised.
Whose program to make cuts to SocSec and Medicare will Democratic members of Congress stand against?
Obama's? Really???
Romney's? There's a chance they may fight against his plans.
Whose wars will Dems in Congress stand against?
And so forth.
Who will be able to work the greatest evil against the American people, the world, and our climate?
jawbone
I don't accept the premise of your "Nevertheless" paragraph. There is, one could argue, a moral difference between stabbing an innocent person in the eye and beheading that person. Does that mean the former is acceptable?
Further, the Obama years are in so many respects as bad as / worse than the Bush years, it's not at all a given that Obama will merely eye-stab where Romney will decapitate.
One thing that is clear is that the half the country that fancies itself opposed to horrid conservative policies will protest them a whole lot less under Obama, an increase in the country's net callousness.
As I see it, it's more callous to abide the kinds of awful policies Obama and Romney will enact. In my view, it's an ill kind of "pragmatism."
Obviously, your mileage varies, at least for the present electoral contest, and probably the next and the next....
P.S., As I tweeted to the other fellow quoted in this post:
"My beef is re: lies, delusions, & bullying, not vote decision. No good outcome in current frame."
Which is worse, four years of whatever damage might be done by a bad president which will have to later be reversed by a better one, or telling the present bad president that we approve of what he is doing by reelecting him?
My point is that, no matter how bad the "greater evil" is, the lesser evil is still evil and we have to tell him to stop. Then we have to tell the next one to stop.
If we can't stop electing evil, at least we can stop reelecting it.
Hit us with a scathing poem about our immaturity and lack of pragmatism, l8urideaforbrekki! Don't highlight the glaring differences between Empty Suit and Uber Coiffed, just put it out there since it's gospel that they are sooo totally different from one another. If we can't see the obviousness of Empty Suit's righteousness it's our fault, like Gore v. Bush was due to everyone not getting behind a candidate the couldn't even carry his home state, thereby making the Florida votes a non-issue. And no, not voting for Obama does not equate with a vote for Romney. It means voting for a candidate that is more in line with your values gets your vote. It's Obama's election to win or lose, and the meager amount of non-partisan votes he misses out on won't be the deciding factor.
What is it with you people that you just can't stand that other people who might hold some of the same values as you just don't want to vote for the candidate you are so in love with? That's immature and extremely silly.
Jeez, some hacks don't even try any more. I have heard more vehement defenses of Empty Suit by children than by this "health researcher".
Todd, I'm not quite seeing how that quote is an example of H4H.
In fact, I'm appreciative that I8urideaforbrekki has cut to the chase and put forth an argument for voting for Obama, even if I don't personally find it compelling.
shermhed, a couple of quibbles:
First, the "Gore couldn't win his own state" dig never made much sense to me. Tennessee has a majority conservative electorate. Should Gore have been more enthusiastic about their agenda?
Also, my view as a neo-Naderite is that assurances that 3rd party votes cannot swing elections are counterproductive to convincing people to ditch the duopoly in earnest.
I find it to be the same warmed over arguments I have heard since this whole electoral farce has started. I didn't hear or see anything new, just the same old stuff. It isn't compelling because there is no substance to it.
No, but in purely political terms a candidate for any type of federal office has to win their own state, regardless of the electorate. It's just plain old politics as the possible and the most possible thing for someone, especially someone with such a long time familial background in a state, to carry their home stomping grounds. If you can't do that alone, it means your organization is weak.
And make no bones about it, our votes won't swing anything this election. I don't see any harm in confronting the reality of the situation. It can be used to show that yes, I am aware that your argument that I don't have the party infrastructure is viable to a point, but it doesn't mean that I as a person with agency can't do it anyway. Again, it's my vote and is not guaranteed to any candidate, anywhere, at any given time. I exercise this one bit of agency I am allowed.
shermhed, you seem to think I'm making arguments I'm not.
If someone tells me Greenwald's "criticisms" of Obama are "harshest," I am quick to assume that someone doesn't leave his mancave very often and probably determines the landscape of (imagined) reality from what he reads on Donkey partisan websites.
Greenwald tiptoes around Obama and never, ever criticizes systemic problems. The nearest he gets to criticism of systemic flaws is found in his recent essay where he talks about the results of "sanctions" in Iran. Does Greenwald even get after the Q of why we have a right to have any position or agenda whatever, concerning Iran or any other nation? No, of course not. That would be to investigate the real problems at issue, which is something Greenwald just cannot do.
And that's because he doesn't want things to change. He simply wants the appearance of civilized politics, so that he can resume drinking his pinot grigio while playing naked Twister with his boyfriend on some multi-thousand-dollar Persian rug in front of the progressive materialist fireplace in his luxurious condominium.
Ah, the third-party. There have been times I've voted Nader, Green and World Workers in protest, and that without fear of causing a Republicannibal to win. Why?
Because we have 2 party winner takes all elections, not a multi-party proportional vote, which effectively renders "protest" parties a symbolic "feel good" gesture at best.
Sure, we need third and fourth parties, but that isn't going to happen on the two capitalist parties' watch, or by symbolic voting for a fringe party of conscience.
Whether via new party or activist push back, the first thing is to get rid of winner takes all, money as the key electoral factor, new party squashing, and etc. etc. How?
If I knew for certain, I'd run for President myself -- as a "New Democrat." At least let's frame the problem right.
Until the GOP has gone the way of vampire cults, I'm still voting Dem, this time, every time.
I am commenting here again for a few reasons, not least among which is that the general tenor is reasonable and devoid of the wretchedness that so often overwhelms dialogue in any internet forum.
My first response is to shermed's last comment: part of what probably riles up people of your opinion is the feeling that people like me are stating that you don't have the 'right' to vote for who you want. That is not my stance, so red herrings about making people 'conform' or using 'intimidation' are just that, red herrings. You can vote for whomever you want, including the option of abstaining completely. This is just a debate about what grounds there are, or are not, for voting for Obama in this election.
Having said that, clearly one of my major premises seems not to be in dispute: that what is really at issue is whether you believe there are morally significant differences between a Romney program (at least what he has promised so far) and another Obama term. First, let's agree on what we might mean by morally significant differences. While I dislike VLWC's analogy between stabbing someone in the eye and beheading them (because I don't accept the premise that all things Obama are just a lesser evil), it does at least establish a clarity that may be useful to follow through on. While neither outcome for the intended victim is a welcome one, from that victim's point of view, there surely is a morally significant difference between being stabbed in the eye and being beheaded. To follow the analogy through, if you had your choice, you would vote to have neither calamity befall our poor victim; however, what if you were given the classic Devil's option of having to choose between the greater and lesser evil? Would you choose to have the person beheaded simply to avoid the possibility that the eye stabber might feel vindicated by your affirmative vote for his action?
Nevertheless, just because the analogy breaks down, doesn't mean the argument that there really are no important differences between Obama and Romney falls with it.
I note here that it IS entirely reasonable to end up concluding that there are no significant differences between Obama and Romney, but to get there you have to ignore a lot of real policy differences, or dismiss them as not significant. These differences are of two sorts: ones that contrast what Obama did vs. what McCain would have done; ones that contrast what Obama promises to do vs. what Romney promises to do.
The first type of difference includes well known measures on women's rights, gay rights, and health care coverage. I think it is inarguable that a McCain Admin. would not have made any of these positive moves (even if one sees these moves as inadequate). On foreign policy it is more murky, but arguably, under McCain we would already be much further towards war with Iran, and we would have pushed Maliki much harder to let US troops stay in Iraq. Afghanistan would likely have looked the same. Now, you may argue with some of these assertions, or just say that they just aren't that important. But, note that by dismissing these differences if you accept they exist, you thereby dismiss the concerns of the people whose lives have significantly improved because of them (e.g. gays in the military, women seeking redress for pay discrimination, people with pre-existing conditions).
On the second set of differences, there are clear differences in promised programs: Romney will repeal both Obamacare and Dodd-Frank; he wants to spend $2T more on defense; he will slash discretionary spending in half; he will voucherize medicare. All these things are, I humbly submit, morally significant differences that will negatively affect millions of people if Romney wins. Does this matter? That is up to you. Maybe not. Maybe the countervailing arguments hold more water for you. So be it. I only ask you at least consider the impact on real people of these differences and not just pretend they don't exist.
There's no way, in this election, to be on a winning side and vote third party.
For people who want winning, that's a showstopper.
For the rest of us, who figure you have to start somewhere in the turn away from granny starving, it's crazy that they can't see that.
It's two different universes. I'm beginning to think there's no overlap. (With apologies to Twain) two great left-ish movements, separated by a common label.
We're trending toward "agree to disagree," which is more than fine by me.
But "I only ask you at least consider the impact on real people of these differences and not just pretend they don't exist," along with your earlier accusation of callousness, is demeaning to the intellectual and moral vigor of those who are, eyes-wide-open, choosing a different path as voters or non-voters.
[Preemptive follow-up: I make no apologies for mocking the intellectual and moral vigor of people who ply the tribal lies, delusions, and bullying that I catalog in my cartoons.]
@ I8urideaforbrekki
I would like to contest a few points in your recent comment.
First of all, I have no interest in speculating about what McCain would have done, because it is impossible to know. This isn't something that can be argued, it can only be speculated about. So when you use words like "inarguable" and "arguable" I take issue because these things are by definition not arguable/inarguable. It's all speculation.
Secondly, in your last paragraph you state: "Romney will repeal both Obamacare and Dodd-Frank; he wants to spend $2T more on defense; he will slash discretionary spending in half; he will voucherize medicare." Not a single one of these items is a policy that Romney has Executive authority to impliment. Seeing as the Democrats have a good chance of holding the Seanate and a certainty of keeping at least 41 seats, not a single one of those policies can be signed by Romney without the Democrats going along with him.
For those reasons, I find your arguments unconvincing. I appreciate your civil dialogue, and welcome any response to these points I've raised. Cheers.
I recommend everyone grab a great free read in novel form at nineinchbride dot com.
l8toolongtotypeout,
Hyde amendment and the Plan B otc debacle; both hinder women's reproductive rights and both have the approval of the Obama administration. Also, it was Obama who opened the door to the religious exemption clause that has caused even more problems. Not to mention his constant refrain, when dealing with any issues involving women, of "My wife said..." or "As my wife has told me..." Sorry, that sounds too much like "The old ball and chain said I should do X, so I am doing X". If you are a feminist, regardless of gender, you don't need to fall back on that useless trope.
Health insurance reform based on two models, one put forward by Mitt Romney, which served as the the model for Massachusetts, and the other by the Heritage Foundation. With a Romney administration I would be highly, extremely surprised if Willard went out of his way to sheperd through repealing health insurance legislation that has his DNA throughout it. It is a tax payer subsidized redistribution of money from a socialized system to a privately run, privately held, and ultimately for profit health industry friendly law.
Your argument boils down to it's better to be eyeless than dead, and you should thank those who blinded you rather than kill you. Thanks, but I will opt out of that false dichotomy.
You do not know, to any degree of certainty, what McCain would or would not have done in the White House, no more than you can know, to any degree of certainty, exactly what Willard Romney will do either. You are not a prognosticator and this constant "Oh NOES, what will become of us when the bad old Republican takes the reins of power?!?!" has become almost laughable. I say almost because it is completely antithetical to democracy to say that one party must never again be in power, which is what your line of argumentation logically leads to as a conclusion.
One day a Republican will sit in the White House Oval Office, and their abuses of power will be even more egregious because people like you saw fit to enable a president who has more in common with conservatives than the "progressives" who jump to his defense. All of the horrible things a Republican will do in the future is only going to succeed because a Democrat laid the groundwork for them. You can legitimize it by saying "Well, better only having one eye than being dead" now but that defense won't be of any use when the corporate puppet has a R next to their name rather than a D.
Your whole argument, again, has been said better and with more brevity by others than you, and I still find it wanting. There are some differences between the candidates, but it's the glaring consistencies between them and the obvious similarities that make others balk at the prospect of voting for either one. Like Chris Hedges said, it comes down to which nurse do you want to do the amputating, Nurse Romney or Nurse Obama, because most assuredly the doctor they both work for has some very harsh medicine coming our way.
One final note; please, do not cop out or play coy with this talk of red herrings. Saying if you do not do A then B, B being much worse than A, will happen. If that is not an attempt at trying to coerce or persuade someone into doing something totally out of fear of performing a bad act...then I am a monkey's uncle. Your cause is better served if you put more time into trying to explain how shaming/coercing/persuasive scolding is actually good for someone rather than trying to dress that pig up in a night gown and calling it a Hollywood starlet.
I come across as harsh and brusk, but it is not my intention to actively hate on, abuse, or belittle someone but I cannot conscience this constant parroting of talking points that have been refuted on this and other more leftish leaning sites. So to VLWC and l8urideaforbrekki, thank you for the opportunity to discuss things that are of import and should be done by everyone who wants there to be vibrant political debates. And I do mean that in all sincerity.
IMO, Glen Ford of Black Agenda Report described it best when he said that Obama is the more effective evil.
The 'bots look into the future, and ignoring Obama's past, see better things ahead. I look at Obama's past, and see things getting worse as he continues his rightward path, aided and abetted by his own party, while the Republicans egg him on.
Romney, on the other hand, will have the Democrats, unions, and so-called progressive organizations, slowing him down, if only for partisan reasons. I also see Romney, free of the constraints of appealing to the Republican base, moving toward the center, much like he was as governor.
It's interesting to talk about, but since I refuse to vote for anyone who works against my interests, I will be voting for neither. It's third party for me, from the top of the ticket to the bottom of the ticket.
I don't owe anyone my support regardless of the fantasies of the Democrats. Give me a reason to support you and I will. Your right-wing, fascist, corporatist, warmonger candidate, and the party that enables him, do not appeal to me in the slightest despite your catastrophizing about a future without him.
I appreciate the thoughtful dialogue and debate. I think I can say that VLWC's point that we are mainly at a 'agree to disagree' point is probably accurate.
However, I will offer a few responses to some of the posters.
@quixote: I understand your point, but I fail to see how we are forced into the dilemma you frame for us. Why can't we BOTH reject the current system and work to change it from without AND get the best possible result with the current system to avoid the worse outcomes?
@VLWC: First, I don't think you have to apologize for anything. Your criticisms are legitimate and cogent. One problem though is that despite protestations to the contrary, it does seem that a few commentators on here and elsewhere sharing your position tend to focus only on the similarities between the parties and not on the differences. We can see this in the fact that more than one person posting on this thread has implied that there is no difference at all. To me that position is either naive or deluded. As I argued, a more nuanced position is that, despite the obvious differences, they are outweighed by other considerations.
@Dan: it all depends upon what you mean by 'know'...if you mean 'know with certainty' than of course you are correct. But that is hardly the relevant standard. We have to always make political choices in the face of vast uncertainty. We must make our best guesses based on the evidence at hand. My assumptions about McCain are simply based on what his stated positions were at the time and still are to this day. As for Romney's ability to implement his agenda, two things. First, your entire argument relies on the hope that the Dems would not lose the Senate, either in 2012 or 2014. This is a very doubtful foundation to say 'no worries'. If Romney wins the electoral college, it is a genuine probability that the Repubs would also take the Senate and they would retain the House.
@Shermed: you put forward a series of arguments amidst some colorful rhetoric. 1) Obama did a bunch of bad stuff on health care too; 2) Romney wouldn't really repeal Obamacare; 3) Choosing the lesser evil means 'thanking' the lesser evil-doer (love that term, thanks GWB!); 4) Another version of the 'certainty' argument (i.e. I am not a 'prognosticator'); 5) i am not saying anything new, and anyway we know there are differences, they just don't matter; 6) An argument that forceful argument is equivalent to 'coercion' and 'intimidation'.
I concede 1), but don't see how that invalidates the other arguments I make; As for 2), see above response to Dan...if a bill to repeal reaches Romney's desk, he would surely sign it. At least, the repubs would de-fund the entire program through reconciliation. Point 3) is a fallacy: the conclusion does not follow. For 4) see the argument against Dan; for 5) the first part is irrelevant, the second simply restates the basis for disagreement which I acknowledge is legitimate. As for 6), I don't think you really hold this opinion if you reflect upon it. Conflating the distinction between coercion and persuasion is not a place any person who believes in democracy wants to go. Despite my disagreements, I also appreciate your sincerity and think that there are just some legitimate differences of opinion here.
@Harley Burton: The position you take (that Obama is actually worse than Romney) is just so far from what I believe to be true that there is little point in arguing. Needles to say, you don't 'owe' anyone your vote: you just owe yourself the duty of carefully considering the options and consequences of your. It seems you have and have reached conpletely opposite conclusions to the one I have. Oh well, when we are merely trying to persuade, at some point we must, as VLWC says, 'agree to disagree'
There's no certainty on what anyone will do when elected. I like a scheme I read about giving things a weighting on a scale of 1 to 10. 1 is zero chance, 10 is certainty. Probability of Romney being worse than Obama: oh I don't know I'll give it a 7.
That scale is obviously not a super meaningful model, but it is better than PRETENDING we have a certainty we just don't have, which is a trap I think people fall into, they think they can be at 10, and I'm just not convinced.
The battle against the country going to heck in a handbasket isn't winnable in the short term maybe anyway. I don't believe a few 3rd party voters will cause the parties to change really. Things will get worse before they get better. It maybe isn't winnable by these means, presidential elections, ever, when we have billion dollar candidates. Not until money is out of politics etc. Vote whomever. As a non-swing stater, I'm voting Green. I can't say what I'd do if I lived in a swing state, as like a McCain presidency, me being in a swing state is counter factual.
More important than voting for Pres is retaining the ability to see what horrors are going on, to perceive reality, to face and seek out the truth in the news, to be outraged at what is horrible. Don't fall into the cognitive dissonance trap of trying to justify the unjustifiable IOW because you did something to promote it (voting). It's a trap that catches plenty of the unwary because it works on an unconscious level. Itself an argument for 3rd party voters: at least we'll have some independent thinkers left!!! Hey that's really worth something.
I like this a lot: "More important than voting for Pres is retaining the ability to see what horrors are going on, to perceive reality, to face and seek out the truth in the news, to be outraged at what is horrible."
This is why, for a long time, I had a tag at Livejournal called "Oh, Go 'Credential' Yourself, Jerkface!"
Nothing like having some total stranger on the internet grilling you over whether or not you're hip and groovy and have Suffered Enough to own your own damn vote.
quixote:
"...There's no way, in this election, to be on a winning side and vote third party.
For people who want winning, that's a showstopper.
For the rest of us, who figure you have to start somewhere in the turn away from granny starving, it's crazy that they can't see that.
It's two different universes. I'm beginning to think there's no overlap. (With apologies to Twain) two great left-ish movements, separated by a common label..."
I think you're correct. It's why I wish Greens and other 3rd Parties would find a feasible way to look for membership amongst non-voters, rather than Democrats. Yeah, I was a Dem myself: part of a handful of exceptions that prove a big rule. So many make being in the winner's circle their top priority, and maybe after the fact they'll give serious thought to what they actually "won." But even that's a long shot. Also, I don't know why I should care about their vast knowledge and intelligence and sensitivity (so much better than that of the average GOPher, doncha' know...) when they constantly hitch their fortunes to people who don't admire or respect those things unless there's a dollar to be made from them. Or stolen.
The misinformation about Nader being responsible for the Bush win in 2000 dies hard.
http://www.cagreens.org/alameda/city/0803myth/myth.html
Florida Voters
Even if none of the factors mentioned above had happened, the votes of Florida voters themselves show that Ralph Nader was not responsible for George W. Bush’s presidency.
“Democrats for Bush, Democrats for nobody”
“Twelve percent of Florida Democrats (over 200,000) voted for Republican George Bush”
-San Francisco Chronicle, Nov. 9, 2000
Even if none of the factors mentioned above had happened, the votes of Florida voters themselves show that Ralph Nader was not responsible for George W. Bush’s presidency. If one percent of these Democrats had stuck with their own candidate, Al Gore would easily have won Florida and become president. In addition, half of all registered Democrats did not even bother going to the polls and voting.
Glenn, thanks for that link.
There was a recent series of essays on firedoglake that uses exit poll figures and likewise plausibly debunks the myth of Nader the "Spoiler."
Unfortunately, I really don't think Democrats care about a logical analysis of that election.
The argument of Nader's detractors is essentially that he duped his supporters into psychically breaking the Donkey's heart. Seriously. Nader's real crime in their eyes was encouraging people to both think and speak badly of Gore and his Party. This led to Gore's detractors "stealing" votes from him and, of course, robbing the poor fellow of his fighting spirit or something.
Which is my long-winded way of saying: Most rank-and-file Democrats don't care about facts. Their story's moral is that if you yell, "Stop!" to your abuser in public, you're worse than your abuser. And they're sticking to that story, unfortunately.
It parallels the thinking of armchair warriors who believe to their souls that America lost the Vietnam War because of domestic protestors. Unfortunately in both cases, you can trot out facts until the sky falls in, but it won't matter to the true believers. The initial accusation was never fact-based in the first place.
Nicely stated, ms_xeno.
Thanks, Harley.
I've already counted about four of the "Blame Nader" goons elsewhere this morning, and I haven't even had breakfast. They're tanned, rested, and ready for a fresh round of blaming should Their Hero Du Jour lose. Apparently they think Nader is still in the race, too. Most of them flat-out ignore Stein and the fact that twelve years have elapsed. These things are like a thin fog they stalk right through in their zeal to beat on their hated enemy one more time.
I have a new game when I see them: I ask If we can really throw your precious election like you say, why isn't your Party acknowledging us and addressing our concerns? They learned in 2000 that ignoring us and sending goons out to bully us doesn't work. Swing voters traditionally have their issues addressed if a candidate sincerely wants their vote. So when is your candidate going to put something on the table for us?
I have yet to receive any answer. If I ever do, I'll report back.
I propose H4D, that is, Homework for Democrats.
Why haven't Democrat activists been able to differentiate their party’s policies sufficiently from Republican policies so that non-activists have a clear choice in elections? If they want my vote, Democrats are going to have to prosecute Wall Street criminals and stop prosecuting activists calling for Wall Street accountability. Democratic activists have to show that their party has been responsive to their calls for ending their party’s wars against civilian populations the world over, foreclosures, campaign contributor bailouts and other financial corruption, etc.
I will not be shamed for, or threatened with, being responsible for what Republicans do when elected any more than I will for what Democrats do when elected.
I will not accept being accused by non-activist Democratic Party voters of not being active enough to have earned their approval for my decision to abandon the Democratic Party.
H4H reminds me of a line from Gillard's magnificent speech on sexism and misogyny:
"Big on lectures of responsibility; very light on accepting responsibility [themselves]."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfo3SGIiSE0
H4H reminds me of a line from Gillard's magnificent speech on sexism and misogyny:
"Big on lectures of responsibility; very light on accepting responsibility [themselves]."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfo3SGIiSE0
Some readers on this thread might enjoy this post from SMBIVA, which (in my view) improves on the stabbing vs. beheading test case. It's all good, but I think this is the money quote:
"If Ted Bundy were the Demolican candidate, and John Wayne Gacy the Republicrat... Well, a Gacy administration would certainly be better for women. But at that point, most people would throw up their hands and say 'who gives a shit?'"
Sort of puts "But Lily Ledbetter!" in context....
http://stopmebeforeivoteagain.org/2012/09/the_microscopic_eye.html
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home