[Peace-discuss] Not voting

[Laurie at advancenet.net]

I stand corrected; I guess I got a little confused.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John W. [mailto:jbw292002 at gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 3:08 AM
> To: Laurie at advancenet.net; peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Not voting
> 
> 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.