Home » Users » Huron John » Blog » To Vote or not to Vote

Democracy for America personal blog for Huron John

To Vote or not to Vote

Written by: Huron John on Jul 9, 2008 2:14 PM EDT

I was born in Canada, immigrated to the United States in 1967, and became a naturalized citizen of the United States in 1980 (retaining dual Canadian citizenship, as was my right). I may have missed one or two local elections owing to being out of town since I turned 21, but I have never even thought about not voting in State, Provincial, or Federal elections, which brings me to my present quandary.

I will not discuss the differences between Barack Obama and John McCain. They are great and fundamental, and probably dictate that Obama should become our next president. My main problem is in areas where they agree:

  • 1-Uncritical, one-sided  support of Israel
    • 2-Implacable hostility toward Iran, which threatens no one
    • 3-A paternalistic, neo-colonial view of Iraq
    • 4-No plan for universal, single-payer health care
    • 5-No credible plan for deficit reduction
    • 6-Commitment to continued huge levels of military spending
    • 7-Support for warrantless spying on American citizens
    • 8-No credible plan for dealing with imminent energy shortages

    This “off the top” list may not cover all the areas of agreement between the two men, but it is sufficient to provide me with a quandary that cannot be resolved by the rationalization that “the perfect is the enemy of the good”, or even that I must choose the “lesser of evils”, which I resolved not to do again after my painful decision to vote for John Kerry.

    My vote for a candidate implies that I am in substantial agreement with his/her positions on the major issues. Minor differences in timing, numbers, or intermediate goals are tolerable, but I am in fundamental disagreement with the Obama positions on the items enumerated above.

    So do I vote for Obama, spoil that portion of my ballot, or vote for another candidate whose views are much closer to mine, who stands no chance of winning, but may tip the election to McCain?

    Unlike some people with whom I have had a dialogue on these issues, I believe that not voting (which signifies “none of the above”) or voting for another candidate are both honorable acts, perhaps more so than voting for someone with whom you have basic disagreements.

    That said, if the pre-election polls show a close race (in Michigan, almost certainly so, especially if Romney is the running mate), I’ll once again swallow my misgivings, stifle my gag reflex, and vote for Obama.

    Tags:

    Discuss
     

    Reply

    676t107993

    - You've already answered your own question.

    By Tom Bearse on Jul 9, 2008 2:40 PM EDT

    Assuming the accuracy of the "problem areas" you describe for purposes of this exercise (they're not from my own subjective point of view), how did this particular dilemma of yours differ with respect to then candidate Gov. Dean at the time Bush was the Republican nominee in 2004?

    511t233735

    -

    By Huron John on Jul 9, 2008 8:16 PM EDT

    Not the Fucking Dean thing again!

    357t234709

    -

    By * rdorgan on Jul 10, 2008 3:06 PM EDT

    Are you sure you're not one of the Grumpy Old Men ?

    511t233735

    -

    By Huron John on Jul 10, 2008 3:28 PM EDT

    Oh, I'm positive I am

    676t107993

    - John wrote:

    By Tom Bearse on Jul 10, 2008 4:32 PM EDT

    "Not the Fucking Dean thing again!"

    Ha ha.  I must give you credit.  I cannot get you to concede a point no matter how relentlessly I make it.  You are a master of deflection.

    676t107993

    - One additional problem area.

    By Tom Bearse on Jul 9, 2008 2:52 PM EDT

    You wrote: "My vote for a candidate implies that I am in substantial agreement with his/her positions on the major issues."

    Why?  The positions are campaign platforms.  There is no substantive link between these potential actions and what shall eventually come to pass, when the time comes, in concert with the conduct of the Congress. 

    Why would a vote for a candidate suggest that you are in substantial agreement with him or her on issues any more than it would suggest that you trust the judgment of that candidate to reflect your views better than another person when the time for a decision arrives, or anything more than that the election of one candidate, whom you would prefer over another, is made more likely by supplying your vote? 

    511t233735

    - Hunh?

    By Huron John on Jul 9, 2008 8:17 PM EDT
    59t13927

    - In other words, Tom, who here has any guarantee of what anyone will do in the future, or not do?

    By Denise in San Mateo County on Jul 10, 2008 3:56 PM EDT

    Who among us thinks this is even possible?

    Marie Marie La Voodoo perhaps

    N734823365_4437_tinythumb

    - Huron John, Grassroots political activism doesn't stop once a candidate is elected.

    By Susan Rowe on Jul 9, 2008 4:45 PM EDT

    You may want to read David Sirota's latest book.

    Candidates are born out of political movements.

    511t233735

    -

    By Huron John on Jul 9, 2008 8:17 PM EDT

    or vice-versa

    59t13927

    - People who are not politically active don't get this

    By Denise in San Mateo County on Jul 10, 2008 3:54 PM EDT
    357t234709

    - the choice is clear

    By * rdorgan on Jul 10, 2008 3:10 PM EDT

    I will not discuss the differences between Barack Obama and John McCain..

    Well, I will:

    http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15924.html

    It’s a delicate dance, and John McCain is ‘liable to break a hip’

    Posted June 19th, 2008 at 10:05 am
    ...

    Long-time readers know that I’ve been emphasizing John McCain’s dozens of major policy flip-flops for months now, hoping that this would a) catch on as a campaign issue; and b) undermine McCain’s unearned reputation for principled stands on the issues.

    I’m beginning to think that maybe, just maybe, the criticism is taking root.

    ...

    The past couple of weeks have been especially difficult when it comes to McCain flip-flops.

    * McCain supported the drilling moratorium; now he’s against it.

    * McCain strongly opposes a windfall-tax on oil company profits. Three weeks earlier, he was perfectly comfortable with the idea.

    * McCain thought Bush’s warrantless-wiretap program circumvented the law; now he believes the opposite.

    * McCain defended “privatizing” Social Security. Now he says he’s against privatization (though he actually still supports it.)

    Wait, I’m not done with the last two weeks yet….

    * McCain wanted to change the Republican Party platform to protect abortion rights in cases of rape and incest. Now he doesn’t.

    * McCain thought the estate tax was perfectly fair. Now he believes the opposite.

    * He opposed indefinite detention of terrorist suspects. When the Supreme Court reached the same conclusion, he called it “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.”

    * McCain said he would “not impose a litmus test on any nominee.” He used to promise the opposite.

    And these come after these other reversals from April and May:

    * McCain believes the telecoms should be forced to explain their role in the administration’s warrantless surveillance program as a condition for retroactive immunity. He used to believe the opposite.

    * McCain supported storing spent nuclear fuel at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Now he believes the opposite.

    * McCain supported moving “towards normalization of relations” with Cuba. Now he believes the opposite.

    * McCain believed the U.S. should engage in diplomacy with Hamas. Now he believes the opposite.

    * McCain believed the U.S. should engage in diplomacy with Syria. Now he believes the opposite.

    * He argued the NRA should not have a role in the Republican Party’s policy making. Now he believes the opposite.

    * McCain supported his own lobbying-reform legislation from 1997. Now he doesn’t.

    * He wanted political support from radical televangelists like John Hagee and Rod Parsley. Now he doesn’t.

    * McCain supported the Lieberman/Warner legislation to combat global warming. Now he doesn’t.

    And these are the flip-flops I’ve noticed earlier:

    * McCain pledged in February 2008 that he would not, under any circumstances, raise taxes. Specifically, McCain was asked if he is a “‘read my lips’ candidate, no new taxes, no matter what?” referring to George H.W. Bush’s 1988 pledge. “No new taxes,” McCain responded. Two weeks later, McCain said, “I’m not making a ‘read my lips’ statement, in that I will not raise taxes.”

    * McCain is both for and against a “rogue state rollback” as a focus of his foreign policy vision.

    * McCain says he considered and did not consider joining John Kerry’s Democratic ticket in 2004.

    * In 1998, he championed raising cigarette taxes to fund programs to cut underage smoking, insisting that it would prevent illnesses and provide resources for public health programs. Now, McCain opposes a $0.61-per-pack tax increase, won’t commit to supporting a regulation bill he’s co-sponsoring, and has hired Philip Morris’ former lobbyist as his senior campaign adviser.

    * McCain has changed his economic worldview on multiple occasions.

    * McCain has changed his mind about a long-term U.S. military presence in Iraq on multiple occasions.

    * McCain is both for and against attacking Barack Obama over his former pastor at his former church.

    * McCain believes Americans are both better and worse off than they were before Bush took office.

    * McCain is both for and against earmarks for Arizona.

    * McCain believes his endorsement from radical televangelist John Hagee was both a good and bad idea.

    * McCain’s first mortgage plan was premised on the notion that homeowners facing foreclosure shouldn’t be “rewarded” for acting “irresponsibly.” His second mortgage plan took largely the opposite position.

    * McCain vowed, if elected, to balance the federal budget by the end of his first term. Soon after, he decided he would no longer even try to reach that goal.

    * In February 2008, McCain reversed course on prohibiting waterboarding.

    * McCain used to champion the Law of the Sea convention, even volunteering to testify on the treaty’s behalf before a Senate committee. Now he opposes it.

    * McCain was a co-sponsor of the DREAM Act, which would grant legal status to illegal immigrants’ kids who graduate from high school. Now he’s against it.

    * On immigration policy in general, McCain announced in February 2008 that he would vote against his own legislation.

    * In 2006, McCain sponsored legislation to require grassroots lobbying coalitions to reveal their financial donors. In 2007, after receiving “feedback” on the proposal, McCain told far-right activist groups that he opposes his own measure.

    * McCain said before the war in Iraq, “We will win this conflict. We will win it easily.” Four years later, McCain said he knew all along that the war in Iraq war was “probably going to be long and hard and tough.”

    * McCain said he was the “greatest critic” of Rumsfeld’s failed Iraq policy. In December 2003, McCain praised the same strategy as “a mission accomplished.” In March 2004, he said, “I’m confident we’re on the right course.” In December 2005, he said, “Overall, I think a year from now, we will have made a fair amount of progress if we stay the course.”

    * McCain went from saying he would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade to saying the exact opposite.

    * McCain went from saying gay marriage should be allowed, to saying gay marriage shouldn’t be allowed.

    * McCain criticized TV preacher Jerry Falwell as “an agent of intolerance” in 2002, but then decided to cozy up to the man who said Americans “deserved” the 9/11 attacks.

    * McCain used to oppose Bush’s tax cuts for the very wealthy, but he reversed course in February.

    * On a related note, he said 2005 that he opposed the tax cuts because they were “too tilted to the wealthy.” By 2007, he denied ever having said this, and insisted he opposed the cuts because of increased government spending.

    * In 2000, McCain accused Texas businessmen Sam and Charles Wyly of being corrupt, spending “dirty money” to help finance Bush’s presidential campaign. McCain not only filed a complaint against the Wylys for allegedly violating campaign finance law, he also lashed out at them publicly. In April, McCain reached out to the Wylys for support.

    * McCain supported a major campaign-finance reform measure that bore his name. In June 2007, he abandoned his own legislation.

    * McCain opposed a holiday to honor Martin Luther King, Jr., before he supported it.

    * McCain was against presidential candidates campaigning at Bob Jones University before he was for it.

    * McCain was anti-ethanol. Now he’s pro-ethanol.

    * McCain was both for and against state promotion of the Confederate flag.

    * McCain decided in 2000 that he didn’t want anything to do with former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, believing he “would taint the image of the ‘Straight Talk Express.’” Kissinger is now the Honorary Co-Chair for his presidential campaign in New York.

    Confronted with the inconsistencies in McCain’s record in March, the senator’s aides told the New York Times that the senator “has evolved rather than switched positions in his 25-year career.” That’s a perfectly sensible spin — when a politician holds one position, and then, for apparently political reasons, decides to embrace the polar opposite position, it’s only natural for his or her aides to say the politician’s position has “evolved.”

    But in McCain’s case, the spin is wholly unfulfilling. First, McCain sells himself as a pol who never sways with the wind, and whose willingness to be consistent in the face of pressure is proof of his character. Second, Republicans have spent the last four years or so making policy reversals the single most serious political crime in presidential politics. The dreaded “flip-flop” is, according to the GOP, the latest cardinal sin for someone seeking national office.

    ...
    511t233735

    -

    By Huron John on Jul 10, 2008 3:32 PM EDT

    A good list, but McCain's media buddies hang in there with "moderate", " a maverick", and ignore his flip flops and positively embarassing statements

    511t233735

    -

    By Huron John on Jul 10, 2008 3:36 PM EDT

    Having lived in AZ for 25 years, I know that McCain is a hypocritical, mean-spirited, dull- witted, corrupt Republican of the worst sort. That's why I intend to swallow my very real concerns about Obama, and choose the "lesser of evils" again.

    Pdxteach_tinythumb

    -

    By seashell on Jul 10, 2008 3:32 PM EDT

    I doubt OR will be close, so I will be able to vote my conscience.

    Good post, Huron. I would not like living in a close state, becuz then I, too, would have to gag and vote.

    If BO's supporters can't influence him now, why in the world would they think they'll have influence after he's elected? Besides, I think McC will be replaced, unless the repugs feel that they can control BO well enuf...it's looking like they can.

    And just how do we get rid of blue dogs if BO supports them openly?

    Sample_tinythumb

    -

    By FormerT on Jul 10, 2008 4:42 PM EDT

    By seashell on Jul 10, 2008 3:32 PM

    If BO's supporters can't influence him now, why in the world would they think they'll have influence after he's elected?

    -------------

    And why in the World they think at all they should?

    As Barak himself declared just (I guess) yesterday to his unsatisfied supporters regarding his FISA vote   "...don't expect me to agree with you all 100%..., we may agree 90%...".

    I may only assume if before election he concede to agree with his constituency on 90% then why can't he decrease that percentage to say 10% after he is elected.     After all he must not (the same as Bush, btw) govern out of opinion pools?     Or must he?     That's the question.   And if he must then why we, the People, may need him?

    We already know what we need about one Party, we'll find out about other one soon.

     

    676t107993

    - Watching the River Flow.

    By Tom Bearse on Jul 10, 2008 4:43 PM EDT

    I've tired of arguing with people I fundamentally agree with.  Unless you decide to run yourself, you're bound to have policy differences with a candidate.  Kucinich was a great candidate for a loser.  If he could win, I'd have preferred to back him.  Edwards was a terrible phony, but could make himself seem quite palatable by reversing course and regretting his past judgment, or castigating candidates for voting in the Senate the way he would never vote once he left.  He was my second choice in the DFA preference poll.

    Obama's a candidate with progressive views, but I know he's not the most progressive politician around.  I had to settle on him as a compromise.  It's always the same.  I mean, Dean was just a moderate with liberal ideals.  I only bring it up so John will ignore the substance of the fact and get annoyed.

    Unfortunately, my posts are beginning to become annoying to me as well.  I defend Obama out of habit more than anything anymore, because the blogs and cable news shows have spent the last 18 months pointing out his flaws and drawbacks from a whole assortment of different perspectives; some similar to those reflected here, some almost the opposite.  I see that it's bound to continue, and since I value my sanity, I'll try to just sit on my bank of sand.

    511t233735

    -

    By Huron John on Jul 10, 2008 5:52 PM EDT

    Dean was just a moderate with liberal ideals.  I only bring it up so John will ignore the substance of the fact and get annoyed.

     

    Ahhhhhhhh,

     

    Tom, I enjoyed that post. and as *rd points out, quite perceptively, I am " a grumpy old man".

     

    Spent some time at the Flag Plaza today with Angel,  my wonderful Chesapeake Bay retriever, watching the St Clair River flow by.

    Dfmmarchforwomen-large_tinythumb

    - what's a vote for?

    By Ofer Inbar on Jul 11, 2008 1:00 AM EDT

    Although I think you're wrong about the majority of that list (those are issues where the two of them do disagree significantly), my main disagreement with you is this statement: "My vote for a candidate implies that I am in substantial agreement with his/her positions on the major issues."

    No, it does not.

    Elections aren't wishy-washy public opinion polls whose main purpose is to determine how people feel on "major issues".  Viewing elections this way is a common symptom of how democratically-illiterate this country is, in my opinion.

    Elections ARE a way of choosing who governs us, and the primary *legally binding* feedback mechanism in our system of democratic government.  The purpose of your vote is to affect who governs us, and to pursue your political goals as part of an organized strategy with an electoral component (no organized strategy to achieve political goals in our system can be effective without an electoral component at its core).  Elections ARE NOT a way of registering your general opinion about the issues.

    *Strategy* is key.  Now, you don't have to come up with a good strategy on your own.  Successful political change in a democracy requires an organized movement with an effective strategy, but many people who participate in such a movement and support its strategy with their votes are simply latching on to something they haven't built, and that's okay if you don't want to spend the extra time: you can look around for what groups are organizing, see what their goals are, learn a little about their strategies, decide which ones you should support and vote their way.

    I haven't seen any sensible strategy for the neo-progressive/netroots movement that DFA is a part of, that doesn't include trying to elect Obama president, whatever his imperfections.  Do you have such a strategy?

    Add your comment

    (to reply directly to a comment, click the reply icon for that comment)

    Post closed to commenting
    star My DFA
    star Members
    star Groups
    star Events
    star Candidates

    DFA Wireless

    Blog for America

    Recent Blog Posts

    The Watercooler