In response to the compelling posts by Maytha, QuiQui and Nadine, I offer my view on the question of should we vote.
I personally get queasy from righteous incantations about one’s duty to vote. There is no obligation to vote when the system is rigged to produce limited results. A strained political choice between two viable candidates does not strike me as the outcome of the principles of freedom or liberty.
I think one’s democratic duty in this country is to first be informed and then act from it (even if that means consciously not voting). Voting because everyone tells me to is a waste of a vote if it’s not fully informed. Thus, slogans of “go vote!” are empty. Mine would be much less parsimonious: “get informed then act accordingly.”
From that vantage point, I can respect decisions by people to check out from a political system that has produced some good (relatively high societal pluralism, some mobility, and real restrictions on state power), but much more bad (genocide, imperialism, oppression).
That said, I am also sympathetic to get-out-the-vote campaigns largely because I fear that McCain’s reliance on Neoconservatives and firm footing in the crazy right-wing offers only more American scariness in foreign policy; and because there is difference among the candidates in terms of the prospects of governmental regulating the economy more fairly, and because Obama’s health care plan offers wider coverage (though is far from a fix). As Rockslinga pointed out in a comment on QuiQui’s post, the Supreme Court’s makeup could be at stake, as well.
I do not see in Obama much hope or change so significant that I would vouch for him. Most of the country’s problems and crimes will not go away. I think he has been novel in some of his thinking, but usually backtracks quick enough to leave an observer scratching one’s head. Smoke and mirrors are bi-partisan.
In the absence of a boycott-the-election movement with clearly stated principles, people should vote if they are informed enough (and there are third parties worth supporting, too). We cannot have Neo-cons running US foreign policy again — even if their liberal equivalents are only slightly better.
However, being informed also means understanding that the solution to political marginalization, in the case of Arab-Americans for example, does not lie in voting, but in organizing. The threat is that we get accustomed to thinking of political action as voting only, when in reality, it’s not effective in and of itself for community empowerment. We do not have the numbers to just vote.
So vote if you like, but do not invest too much hope in actual change. And come January, begin advocating for change.
Related posts:
- Obama to Arab-Americans: I Want Your Vote
- Guest Post: Why Arab-Americans Should Vote
- Sugarman: Joe Six-Pack Does Not Vote
- Get Your Vote On…
- Why Arab Americans should not vote
Why not vote for Cynthia McKinney. Voting for her would be a protest vote. Voting for her would help to garner support for third party candidates.
Posted by bodyontheline | October 29, 2008, 9:56 pmOkay, because our national electoral system is not democratic, voting is not really something that happens on principle. A vote is not a promise of loyalty for four years, so regardless of who you vote for you always have the right to talk shit, even about the person you voted for. I agree with QuiQui that the AAI is full of it; and that all this “you have to vote or else” stuff is bs; and that electoral politics is not politics; but that doesn’t mean that the people who win elections do not exercise a significant amount of power once they’re elected. What I mean to say is that voting and organizing to reshape the political system are not one and the same, but they are also not mutually exclusive. The fact is that the president is more than the president himself: he’s going to be hiring a lot of staff, in lots of places, making a ton of appointments, of people who will then be hiring a lot of other staff, and all of these people will be filling one huge fuckload of a bureaucracy with a significant amount of power. And the president will appoint supreme court judges, ambassadors, and so on. We have the choice of these people all being optimistic, open, and forward-looking Obama supporters, or dogmatic, racist, insular McCain supporters. We don’t have to delude ourselves into thinking it’s real change or people power when Obama is elected (though I really hope my fantasies of Obama being a badass come true) to see that the outcome of the election is of actual, tangible consequence.
I thank the stars that I live in California and can vote for Ralph Nader without feeling guilty. If I lived in one of those swing states, I might have actually had to consider the ethics of my vote, given the fucked-upedness of the system.
But all that said, yeah, I agree with QuiQui, I think elections in the US are actually politically disempowering, and I think politics needs to happen on a grassroots level more than just every four years.
Posted by yaman | October 30, 2008, 12:13 amDon’t listen to those self-righteous poseurs who tell you that you have a responsibility to vote. You don’t have to vote if you don’t want to. It’s called freedom. And forget that stuff about how you won’t have the right to speak out for the next two years if you don’t vote today. You can say whatever you want, but mostly you have better things to talk about anyway, so blow off those idiots.
Don’t let any of those clowns make you feel guilty for not voting. The opposite of what they say is true: if you don’t vote, you are serving your country. You are helping America if you don’t vote, because only informed citizens should vote. You don’t want all that hassle of learning about the candidates and the issues. There’s nothing wrong with that. Really. Just stay home, put on some tunes and fire up the bong. Fuck voting.
This has been a public service announcement.
Posted by Mo | October 30, 2008, 2:39 amI couldn’t help but notice this part
“and because there is difference among the candidates in terms of the prospects of governmental regulating the economy more fairly”
regulating it more fairly? Short of the military, I have seen few programs the feds have not done poorly. Our Social Security system is going broke. Federal housing is a total failure. dabbling in urban reinvestment with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac has damn near bankrupt the globe. The energy program and the Department of Education are classic misnomers.
“and because Obama’s health care plan offers wider coverage (though is far from a fix)”
Obama’s health-care plan sounds a lot like managed competition which leaves the provision of health care in private hands, but within an artificial marketplace run under strict government control and regulation. This is the same concept that formed the basis for the 1993 Clinton health care plan,Mitt Romney’s 2006 Massachusetts legislation, and Hillary Clinton’s 2008 campaign proposal.But when all you have to do is tax some more to fund the bloated programs that grow beyond all projections it is a sweet system (for those that run them).
In the end, Politicians are promising us “affordable health-care” and just like they promised us “affordable housing” they will destroy a health care system that is hard to beat considering the “prolong life at any cost” demands we place on it.
Posted by Mo | October 30, 2008, 7:47 amVoting is a civic duty, as is a citizen’s responsibility to be informed about the candidates for whom they vote. I’ll agree up to that point.
This talk about a “rigged” system is unproductive and misleading. We have a two-party system because we have winner-take-all districts where the highest-scoring candidate takes office. The advantages of this are apparent: we don’t suffer from the unstable, multi-party proportional government systems that countries like Israel have, where holding together a governing coalition is next-to-impossible.
More importantly, though, the two party system serves as a moderating force: a candidate for office will never be elected unless he makes at least some effort to appeal to the political center. This doesn’t mean that we won’t have outliers in Congress (Kucinich? Bachmann?) but it does mean that such people will likely never be able to impose the full extent of their agenda on a moderate country.
Don’t use the two-party system as an excuse for claiming that your vote doesn’t count. If everyone who made this claim went out and voted their conscience, things could be a lot different.
Posted by publius | October 30, 2008, 7:59 amPubius
I see numerous problems with the 2 party-system:
1- it leads to an atmosphere of “us versus them”, where each candidate can focus on bashing his opponent rather than actually articulating any positive views himself. It seems to me that if there were more candidates, they would have to put forth their own views rather than attack everyone else’s simply because there would be too many people to attack effectively.
2-the candidates for those two parties receive a ridiculous amount of funding, making it impossible for a someone without ties to a dominant political party or a vast fortune to even make themselves known to the same degree. If more than two parties were taken seriously, funding would be more evenly distributed among candidates than it currently is, and candidacy would not be restricted to the political and financial elite.
3-With two parties so completely dominating the political scene, there will never be any more than two real choices. Any person who does not consider herself a republican or a democrat knows that she will never see a major candidate whom she would really like to vote for, and this is certainly not a situation that leads to pride in one’s country and confidence in one’s leaders. I think that many people use political parties as a way to avoid having to actually think about the candidates; they can just say, “I always vote republican,” and they don’t even have to look at the names on the ballot. Any person who is interested in thinking carefully and critically about the presidential candidates should be frustrated by the fact that there are really only two.
I do agree with you however, that having a multiple party system would be worse. Either a minority could gain influence and power too easily. (I can easily magine hardcore greens/socialists/religionists winning if there was a split over, lets say, 6 parties.) The other option would be to have one of those disasterous ‘coalition’ governments that plague too many ‘democracies’.
I would rather not have political parties at all than have a multiple party system. Also, given that rational ideas are generally not shared among all government officials, I think that it is destructive to have a system where those same ideas just keep getting recycled behind different faces. I think that right now the two-party system is standing in the way of those ideas making their way to the forefront.
either way, individual rights and rule of law matter much more than democracy. Unfortunately these ideas don’t seem to be something shared by our candidates.
Posted by Mo | October 30, 2008, 8:37 amsorry publius not pubius
Posted by Mo | October 30, 2008, 8:38 amMost sensible. What is the point of voting if you really don’t think any will deliver anything like the society you want?
Personally I think there should be a “I don’t want a government at all” option on all ballot papers and if enough vote for it we can go back to anarchy. Dodge City 1880, there was a decent society.
Posted by xoggoth | October 30, 2008, 10:23 amIs this what arab-activism has come to?? Don’t vote? It’d be laughable if it weren’t so f’in sad.
Posted by Anonymous | October 30, 2008, 10:25 amI’m still undecided….between Nader and McKinney. Any advice people?
Posted by Ali | October 30, 2008, 6:10 pmHa ha… Ali, that’s been my line for the past couple of months.
It was tough. I voted for Nader in 1996 because Clinton was winning and I didn’t want to waste my vote.
It was a tossup for me, but I ended up voting for McKinney in early voting last week.
(And my ass is in a swing state, bitches.)
Posted by QuiQui | October 30, 2008, 8:16 pmWilliam dear, this is Safiyyah. Please send me a private email, inshaAllah, I have a question to ask you.
americanmuslimgirl@gmail.com
http://www.youtube.com/americanmuslimgirl
Thanks for the laughs!
Posted by American Muslim Girl | October 31, 2008, 6:36 amWill, I think it is unfair to simply look at a get out the vote effort/message and assume that is all is happening.
We advocate for a well informed and engaged voter. But with only days left in a 2 year campaign, we would hope that out community has taken the opportunity to educate itself. All campaigns turn to GOTV to get out their constituents to the polls.
Part of our job is to educate the community on how to be politically involved, but that work happened months ago. AAI paid for Wellstone training session in several states, and invited the community to learn how to educate, advocate, and organize from experts. But few people came to the 2 day training… It isn’t AAI’s fault that we were all to busy. (http://www.wellstone.org/)
We also have Issue Briefs, so that our community cans see what the candidates have said on our issues. Along with score card, these voter education assets take weeks to put prepare.
http://www.aaiusa.org/get-involved/3672
And Yes I will admit that this leaves 3rd party candidates out.
While I agree with you, we need to organize, and work together to empower our community. I don’t think it does anyone any service to advocate for not voting. Even if we don’t have the numbers nationally, we are in high enough number in key district to effect change.
As Tip O’Neill said “All Politics is local.” Look at this election. The entire national race may come down to one county, Fairfax County.
“Fairfax County is key to this election.” McCain is quoted as saying in the Wash Post.
By my estimates 60,000 AA’s live in fairfax, and if we use Fairfax county voter turnout as a bases (34% of total population), 21,000 AA voted in 2006.
Webb won the state by less then 10,000.
That being said, whether you vote or not, thank you for the opportunity to voice my opinion.
Posted by nadine | November 1, 2008, 7:38 pmPerhaps it is more accurate that the AAI call itself a bi-partisan organization rather than a non-partisan one. Providing score cards that leave out 3rd parties is outrageous. Of course, it’s treated as only an aside.
The exclusion of third parties is a move that constructs our political imaginations and attempts to rob us all of any possibility of building a new world.
I don’t even want to get into the subjective measures utilized on the scoring and on the inclusion/exclusion of certain issues on these cards. An organization like the AAI that markets itself as self-less is hocking a dangerous and dishonest line.
There is no such thing as objectivity and for those of us who need but only glance at who is on the AAI board, it is a laughable assertion.
Posted by QuiQui | November 3, 2008, 12:46 pmWait, I thought AAI were just Democrats? The very idea that they are bipartisan or nonpartisan is absurd. In 25 years there has never been a Democrat nominee that Dr. Zogby has not tried to market to the community as their greatest champion since Saladin.
Posted by Anonymous | November 3, 2008, 5:26 pmAnonymous, I have no idea who you are and you have no idea what you’re talking about so I guess that makes it okay.
Google George Salem.
Posted by QuiQui | November 3, 2008, 8:21 pm