[Peace-discuss] Not voting

[John W.]

At 11:58 PM 1/28/2008, Laurie at advancenet.net wrote:

>Well Stuart, I disagree with you and agree with Ricky;

Just for the record, Laurie, it was Nick and not Ricky who urged us not to 
vote.  Nick even changed the subject line of Ricky's post.


>I guess that just
>goes to prove that there a number of different perspectives and a number of
>different justifications to select from to justify our actions and
>inactions.  Optimism, like pessimism, is an article of faith.  If you are
>not optimistic, it makes little sense to engage in exercises in futility - be
>it referendum mattering or elections of federal, state, or local officials.
>One could as easily argue that futile actions by powerless citizens also
>give legitimacy to a system and its established rituals and procedures which
>justifies the actions of the powers that be and allows them to continue as
>much as not voting or participating in the process.
>
>Yes ridicule (such as writing-in Pogo or Mickey Mouse) does or can work to
>some extent in undermining the legitimacy of the establishment; but it also
>undermines the seriousness with which others (like the majority of the
>population) would take your gesture of ridicule.  But not obeying the
>official established and sanctioned rituals like voting and being a vocal
>refusenik while a symbolic act and not an effective one is very different
>from apathy.  Apathy is when you refuse to go along but do it quietly and
>for practical personal reasons and not public political ones.

So you'll be at various polling places, then, on primary day, publicly 
carrying a sign and urging people NOT to vote as a matter of principle?


>Even apathy is or can be a rational reasonable response to an irrational or
>impossible situation; in fact, it might be more rational and reasonable than
>robotic participation in voting while knowing that it will make no real
>difference.  But then we get back to if one presumes an optimistic or a
>pessimistic working premise.

Or one could posit a mixed premise, where a citizen/voter is optimistic 
about, say, a local election or referendum but pessimistic about the 
national election.

John Wason



> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net [mailto:peace-discuss-
> > bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Stuart Levy
> > Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 11:12 PM
> > To: n.dahlheim at mchsi.com
> > Cc: Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Not voting
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 11:26:34PM +0000, n.dahlheim at mchsi.com wrote:
> >
> > > Once again, I really urge people not to vote.  The quality of 
> political discourse and the fakery posing as a
> > > genuine political campaign offends my sensibility and my 
> intelligence.  I definitely do not plan on voting in
> > > such a ridiculous American Idol campaign that displays none of the 
> pretense of even appearing like a
> > > genuine political contest.  We can say that we want the lesser of the 
> evils presented us, but we will get
> > > nowhere with that as the elite can control whomever wins anyway like 
> a marionette.  Have a loud no vote
> > > and speak against the process, not out of apathy but out of 
> frustration and enlightened disgust!
> > >      Nick
>
>
> > I really think that's foolish.
> >
> > If you're trying to make a public statement of disgust with the system,
> > vote for someone who won't win but should (like Kucinich).
> > Or vote in other races but not the national ones.
> > Or write in Pogo for President.
> >
> > For heaven's sake, if you live in Champaign or Urbana, *do* vote
> > on the referenda.  Urge Champaign to fund its township General Assistance
> > to at least the miserly level set by state guidelines.  Say you want the
> > Military Commissions Act repealed and Habeas Corpus restored.
> > Say you want us out of Iraq and Iran.  Will saying those things make
> > them happen?
> > No.  But not saying them, being silent, gives consent.
> >
> > Just staying away is indistinguishable from apathy.
> > Apathy is what shows the System that it's winning.  Fight it.
> >
> > Now -- if you are also speaking against the point of view that says,
> > "by going to the polls and voting, I have properly exercised my
> > democratic voice, and owe no further obligation to our society
> > until the next election" -- if you are saying that too, I'd heartily
> > agree with you.  Voting is not remotely sufficient.  But it is
> > important.
> >
> >    Stuart
>
>
>
> > > ----------------------  Original Message:  ---------------------
> > > From:    Ricky Baldwin <baldwinricky at yahoo.com>
> > > To:      peace discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
> > > Subject: [Peace-discuss] the primaries before Iowa
> > > Date:    Mon, 28 Jan 2008 23:11:31 +0000
> > >
> > > > Somewhat along the lines of the article Mort just shared, the
> > latest issue of Z
> > > > has an article
> > > > with some telling data on the "elite's hidden primary."  It's not
> > even all that
> > > > hidden, the
> > > > sources being readily available (and it's not a new story, but
> > updates are
> > > > important for telling
> > > > the story).
> > > >
> > > > For example, over 80 percent of all presidential campaign donations
> > as of fall
> > > > '07 went to six
> > > > candidates: Clinton, Obama, Romney, Giuliani, McCain and Edwards
> > (in that
> > > > order).  Almost 70
> > > > percent were over $1000 (meaning: not from you or me or probably
> > anybody we
> > > > know).  The author
> > > > goes into great detail, and it's fascinating, breaking out groups
> > of big donors.
> > > > "Big Capital"
> > > > (finance, real estate, insurance) favors Clinton, then Giuliani,
> > Romney and
> > > > Obama.  The big law
> > > > firms favor Clinton, Edwards then Obama.  Etc.
> > > >
> > > > But it's not just donations.  Carl had earlier raised the grim
> > point that the
> > > > evil Zbigniew
> > > > Brzezinski is working for Obama (apparently, as in one of the
> > articles Mort
> > > > shared, because he is
> > > > supposed to have the best grasp of the "historical moment", a sort
> > of
> > > > Machiavellian term as I
> > > > understand it, meaning he'll do the most to advance nasty US ruling
> > class
> > > > interests 'at this
> > > > juncture' as Bush Sr used to say.
> > > >
> > > > But all six of these top money getters also have high-powered
> > advisers from the
> > > > notorious Council
> > > > on Foreign Relations: McCain's list including Henry Kissinger,
> > Lawrence
> > > > Eagleburger, Alexander
> > > > Haig, George Schultz and Colin Powell.  Clinton of course has Bill
> > and Madeleine
> > > > Albright, who've
> > > > been sharing the stage with her, but also Richard Holbrooke (ugh!)
> > and Bush Jr's
> > > > "surge" plan
> > > > co-author John M Keane.  Not that the one with the most CFR members
> > necessarily
> > > > wins, but the four
> > > > with the most CFR help seem to be the front runners, and those
> > without ... well,
> > > > they're starting
> > > > to drop out even before we in Ill. can pretend to vote for them.
> > > >
> > > > I think it's especially important for us here in Ill., and for us
> > who know so
> > > > many in the
> > > > "professional" class that strongly supports Obama, to keep on
> > Obama's tail.  But
> > > > the jist of the
> > > > article is more important, altho it's no shock to most of us, or (I
> > think) to
> > > > most people: the
> > > > ruling class has narrowed the field so severely based on its
> > interests and its
> > > > estimations that
> > > > whoever wins will suit them just fine.  (CFR is just one big way, a
> > sort of
> > > > "peer review" for the
> > > > ruling class, and a fair amount of donations will naturally accrue
> > to whoever
> > > > donors believe is
> > > > the likely choice - notice I don't say whose choice.)
> > > >
> > > > And the corollary, for us activist types or just anyone harbors a
> > democratic
> > > > hope, is the most
> > > > important of all, tho the author has to cram it in quickly at the
> > end,
> > > > presumably for reasons of
> > > > space: none of the "serious" (i.e. elite, and therefore non-
> > snowball) candidates
> > > > will do what the
> > > > majority of people really need done unless we make them do it.  The
> > author calls
> > > > it "people's
> > > > movements" and "direct struggle", which seems to just about cover
> > it.
> > > >
> > > > Keep it up, folks, groups like AWARE are the closest thing we have
> > to a real
> > > > vote.