EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- In 'March Toward Disaster,' World Hits 400 PPM Milestone
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
Popular content
Today's Top News
Election Madness
There's a man in Florida who has been writing to me for years (ten pages, handwritten) though I've never met him. He tells me the kinds of jobs he has held-security guard, repairman, etc. He has worked all kinds of shifts, night and day, to barely keep his family going. His letters to me have always been angry, railing against our capitalist system for its failure to assure "life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness" for working people.
Just today, a letter came. To my relief it was not handwritten because he is now using e-mail: "Well, I'm writing to you today because there is a wretched situation in this country that I cannot abide and must say something about. I am so enraged about this mortgage crisis. That the majority of Americans must live their lives in perpetual debt, and so many are sinking beneath the load, has me so steamed. Damn, that makes me so mad, I can't tell you. . . . I did a security guard job today that involved watching over a house that had been foreclosed on and was up for auction. They held an open house, and I was there to watch over the place during this event. There were three of the guards doing the same thing in three other homes in this same community. I was sitting there during the quiet moments and wondering about who those people were who had been evicted and where they were now."
On the same day I received this letter, there was a front-page story in the Boston Globe, with the headline "Thousands in Mass. Foreclosed on in '07."
The subhead was "7,563 homes were seized, nearly 3 times the '06 rate."
A few nights before, CBS television reported that 750,000 people with disabilities have been waiting for years for their Social Security benefits because the system is underfunded and there are not enough personnel to handle all the requests, even desperate ones.
Stories like these may be reported in the media, but they are gone in a flash. What's not gone, what occupies the press day after day, impossible to ignore, is the election frenzy.
This seizes the country every four years because we have all been brought up to believe that voting is crucial in determining our destiny, that the most important act a citizen can engage in is to go to the polls and choose one of the two mediocrities who have already been chosen for us. It is a multiple choice test so narrow, so specious, that no self-respecting teacher would give it to students.
And sad to say, the Presidential contest has mesmerized liberals and radicals alike. We are all vulnerable.
Is it possible to get together with friends these days and avoid the subject of the Presidential elections?
The very people who should know better, having criticized the hold of the media on the national mind, find themselves transfixed by the press, glued to the television set, as the candidates preen and smile and bring forth a shower of clichés with a solemnity appropriate for epic poetry.
Even in the so-called left periodicals, we must admit there is an exorbitant amount of attention given to minutely examining the major candidates. An occasional bone is thrown to the minor candidates, though everyone knows our marvelous democratic political system won't allow them in.
No, I'm not taking some ultra-left position that elections are totally insignificant, and that we should refuse to vote to preserve our moral purity. Yes, there are candidates who are somewhat better than others, and at certain times of national crisis (the Thirties, for instance, or right now) where even a slight difference between the two parties may be a matter of life and death.
I'm talking about a sense of proportion that gets lost in the election madness. Would I support one candidate against another? Yes, for two minutes-the amount of time it takes to pull the lever down in the voting booth.
But before and after those two minutes, our time, our energy, should be spent in educating, agitating, organizing our fellow citizens in the workplace, in the neighborhood, in the schools. Our objective should be to build, painstakingly, patiently but energetically, a movement that, when it reaches a certain critical mass, would shake whoever is in the White House, in Congress, into changing national policy on matters of war and social justice.
Let's remember that even when there is a "better" candidate (yes, better Roosevelt than Hoover, better anyone than George Bush), that difference will not mean anything unless the power of the people asserts itself in ways that the occupant of the White House will find it dangerous to ignore.
The unprecedented policies of the New Deal-Social Security, unemployment insurance, job creation, minimum wage, subsidized housing-were not simply the result of FDR's progressivism. The Roosevelt Administration, coming into office, faced a nation in turmoil. The last year of the Hoover Administration had experienced the rebellion of the Bonus Army-thousands of veterans of the First World War descending on Washington to demand help from Congress as their families were going hungry. There were disturbances of the unemployed in Detroit, Chicago, Boston, New York, Seattle.
In 1934, early in the Roosevelt Presidency, strikes broke out all over the country, including a general strike in Minneapolis, a general strike in San Francisco, hundreds of thousands on strike in the textile mills of the South. Unemployed councils formed all over the country. Desperate people were taking action on their own, defying the police to put back the furniture of evicted tenants, and creating self-help organizations with hundreds of thousands of members.
Without a national crisis-economic destitution and rebellion-it is not likely the Roosevelt Administration would have instituted the bold reforms that it did.
Today, we can be sure that the Democratic Party, unless it faces a popular upsurge, will not move off center. The two leading Presidential candidates have made it clear that if elected, they will not bring an immediate end to the Iraq War, or institute a system of free health care for all.
They offer no radical change from the status quo.
They do not propose what the present desperation of people cries out for: a government guarantee of jobs to everyone who needs one, a minimum income for every household, housing relief to everyone who faces eviction or foreclosure.
They do not suggest the deep cuts in the military budget or the radical changes in the tax system that would free billions, even trillions, for social programs to transform the way we live.
None of this should surprise us. The Democratic Party has broken with its historic conservatism, its pandering to the rich, its predilection for war, only when it has encountered rebellion from below, as in the Thirties and the Sixties. We should not expect that a victory at the ballot box in November will even begin to budge the nation from its twin fundamental illnesses: capitalist greed and militarism.
So we need to free ourselves from the election madness engulfing the entire society, including the left.
Yes, two minutes. Before that, and after that, we should be taking direct action against the obstacles to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
For instance, the mortgage foreclosures that are driving millions from their homes-they should remind us of a similar situation after the Revolutionary War, when small farmers, many of them war veterans (like so many of our homeless today), could not afford to pay their taxes and were threatened with the loss of the land, their homes. They gathered by the thousands around courthouses and refused to allow the auctions to take place.
The evictions today of people who cannot pay their rents should remind us of what people did in the Thirties when they organized and put the belongings of the evicted families back in their apartments, in defiance of the authorities.
Historically, government, whether in the hands of Republicans or Democrats, conservatives or liberals, has failed its responsibilities, until forced to by direct action: sit-ins and Freedom Rides for the rights of black people, strikes and boycotts for the rights of workers, mutinies and desertions of soldiers in order to stop a war. Voting is easy and marginally useful, but it is a poor substitute for democracy, which requires direct action by concerned citizens.
Howard Zinn is the author of "A People's History of the United States," "Voices of a People's History" (with Anthony Arnove), and most recently, "A Power Governments Cannot Suppress."
©2008 The Progressive Magazine
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

155 Comments so far
Show AllVote Nader and end the madness.
www.votenader.org
A vote cannot end the madness.
Thank you, sir, for the article. It's an eye-opener, and should be read by everyone in this country. What you're saying, unless I'm reading it wrong, is that we've got to make our elected leaders, regardless as to who they are, do the right thing, instead of just electing them and expecting them to do the right thing.
Good article Professor Zinn. But I don't agree that "Historically, government, whether in the hands of Republicans or Democrats, conservatives or liberals, has failed its responsibilities". I see that only conservative government, often mistakenly labeled "liberal government" by our ultraconservative ruling class, has failed. The old conservative and the modern conservative are very different for sure. The former meant, frugal, careful, traditional, dependable and other good things. They are now poles apart. We haven't had a "liberal government" since FDR and maybe not even then.
This campaign is the proverbial contest between conservative, fear-mongering, warmongering, war profiteering, superstitious, reactionary redneck followers of Mammon the Beast, its high oligarchy priests and its liberal (progressive) opposites.
The conservative disaster understandably causes liberals to react by becoming radicals. But when liberals react by becoming left wing conservatives in order to counter right wing conservatives, they've historically become as authoritarian and berserking as their right wing counterparts.
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."
John Kenneth Galbraith
Old conservative values are now much more similar to today's liberal values than to modern conservative values. I hope you and Professor Chomsky will make this distinction because your defense of old conservatism simply helps today's fascists.
The only alternative to right or left wing conservative's concentration of wealth and power is direct democracy, as Senator Gravel realizes. I hope Ralph Nader will discuss this issue in his campaign and maybe back Senator Gravel's National Initiative for Democracy before he hopefully drops out of the race at the last moment and backs Obama.
Political evolution, like biological evolution, usually takes place in small steps. Can changes made at a less than radical pace turn this huge vessel from its current course in time to avoid the catastrophe looming ahead? It is impossible to feel secure in any answer to that question.
Personally, I will vote for Obama if he is the nominee (believing there is some small chance that his bottom-up approach and his supporters will push him left), though I plan on sending some money to Nader so that he can promote the issues progressives all care so deeply about. If Hellary is the nominee, I will of course vote for Ralph as I cannot discern any significant differences between her and Madman McCain.
It goes further than that ticonderoga, expect the elected leaders to do the wrong thing if they think they can get away with it. Bush certainly has done so. The people must decide if they are citizens or customers.
Anyone succumbing to holding their noses and voting for the least of evils (Whoever the hell THAT might be) is also succumbing to the programming that you MUST VOTE to make a difference. Please! If you vote for someone who does not represent you, then you are aiding and abetting a broken system. I will either vote for a 3rd party or Independent in November or stay at home
and ignore all the madness that is guaranteed--AGAIN!
skippyagogo41,
Bush is a very pure version of this, as is Giuliani. Others are more difficult to predict. Ever since Bush first became governor, as a resident of Austin and an observer of state politics I noted that Bush always made the most corrupt choice, aiding his cronies or his political prospects with no concern whatsoever for the public good, that he could possibly get away with, no matter what the issue. I suppose that was with Rove's advice because W himself could not possibly have such discipline to be so consistent, especially not through all these years of his presidency.
ezeflyer February 24th, 2008 1:20 pm
"before he hopefully drops out of the race at the last moment and backs Obama."
I hope the American people will wake up and back him all the way to winning the presidency. Otherwise like the article states nothing changes. It's time to revolt and dump the two parties.
Ezeflyer, Nader is pushing for what we believe in, Hillary or Obama isn't.
Nader all the way or we are just spitting into the wind. I want change not hope for change.
kivals February 24th, 2008 1:21 pm
"Personally, I will vote for Obama if he is the nominee (believing there is some small chance that his bottom-up approach and his supporters will push him left)"
Wake up, wake up, you're dreaming. You will not see any change either way with the democrats; we will just continue to drift in the direction we are heading.
Ralph Nader is the answer; he just announced that he will run for president.
Although professor Zinn is very articulate and encouraging in his writing he missed a great point: the corporate stronghold was less strong then than it is now. The 30's were indeed very difficult for the average worker, I called it a tumor that was removed before it spread its malignacy, what we have now is an incurable cancer. If we are to succeed we must join at whatever cost to make Ralph Nader the next president of this country. It won't be easy. Common Dreams should publish the websites available for contributions to his campaign or volunteer our time. It will make my day, before I die, to see this country free fom wars, employment for everyone,
universal healthcare and a free Palestine.
I totally respect Professor Zinn, and this analysis.
But I think what he's saying is pretty obvious, and, again, assumes everyone is drinking kool-aid and that we all have no historical perspective. His audience here is clear - all those "radicals" who the story goes think Obama is some sort of savior.
Electoral strategies have had an important impact in the global south, including but not limited to Venezuela and Bolivia. Of course, Obama is no Evo or Chavez. (Except maybe in symbolism, which Zinn's above analysis skips.) But we can learn from Obama applying a community organizing strategy on a national scale - and that progressive and even Leftinesss (etemology: truthiness plus lefty) values and messages are resonating with large parts of the electorate, and then some.
And apply it to the day to day struggles to ensure life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Skippy, I do expect our elected "leaders" to do the wrong thing if they can get away with it. That's been their modus operandi for years.
What I got out of Zinn's article, though, is that it's up to us to NOT let them get away with it, and that we can't put all our eggs in one basket, hoping that we'll get the candidate that we want, and he or she will save us.
We have to save ourselves, regardless as to who gets elected, seems to be the point of Zinn's article, IMO.
Indeed, most Americans are furious enough at their bought and sold Government that they can see through the cosmetic nonsense of another election. Sleazy coporate lobbyists at the feeding trough are who the major candidates are busy wooing. Your rights have eroded, your job security is gone and you live in a police state, and apparently you're going to vote for more of the same.
It's probably USELESS trying to explain something to you schleppes, but here goes:
When someone like Zinn-Chomsky writes, "...our time, our energy, should be spent in educating, agitating, organizing our fellow citizens in the workplace, in the neighborhood, in the schools," THEY ARE FULL OF SHIT!
Why?
Because people in the real world don't care! They don't want to be lectured at. They have chosen the life they want to lead, a life full of entertainment, consumerism, light pornography, and palliatives (cigarettes, drugs, booze, internet 24/7).
Zinn-Chomsky are MISTAKEN about human nature. They think people care about the "truth" as much as they do. They don't see -- they can't see -- what losers they are.
Zinn is correct. Change comes from the bottom. People however need a track to run on. What leaders like Zinn and Nader should be doing is formulating an action plan that people can join and participate in. Not an all encompassing plan but just one good specific plan. The idea of non-consumption comes to mind. The formulation of a culture of acceptance of the old and second hand. I do not suggest that any one leader do this. It takes a group of well known and respected people to lay out and direct the plan. Keep it simple and rally the citizens. Do you have the guts Nader and Zinn?
Thank you Professor Zinn, yours is a rare voice of grounded reason in this time of election madness indeed.
Excellent article.
"What leaders like Zinn and Nader should be doing is formulating an action plan that people can join and participate in."
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
People have ALREADY made up their mind. They like this commercial culture of ours. They like high-def TVs, fast food, Internet porn. They don't want to listen to old farts like Zinn and Chomsky tell them what they should be thinking and doing.
I'm amazed at how blind and stupid you all are.
debunker:
Let me out of that lineup. I hear you LOUD and clear. The human condition is beyond hopelessness--the "programming" is complete. Jeezus Khrist could run for Prez and he would have as much chance as Dennis Kucinich.
Case in point: Not ONE person responded to your post. They would rather intellectualize for a few minutes than get angry and start the engines of the "Asleep". (Don't feel badly, debunker, I get ignored all the time too. Ruts run deep! Even for the allegedly Liberal.)
Nader is a Republican.
Excellent article to remind us of our civic responsibilites. However anyone who votes for Nader is voting for McCain and if you didn't learn anything 8 years ago (or even back when Carter fell to Reagan because of the third party candidate or when Bill Clinton had help from Perot) then there's no hope for you.
Like Zinn says, take action between elections to bring on positive change. Go ahead and sit-in and protest and fight to elect progressive people to congress and to hold our leader accountable. But please stop throwing away any chance we have by voting for that tired old egomaniac Nader, all you are doing is throwing us to the wolves.
It's thanks to the Nader supporters that we've had a war criminal in office these past 8 years instead of a Nobel Peace Laureate. Think about it.
debunker is closer to the truth than you Naderites who think Ralph has a ghost of a chance. However, debunker and you Naderites-or-nobodies all make me sick. If we refuse to focus on the realistic possibilities of incremental improvements, then we're nowhere. Historically, everything moves in small steps unless you're looking at the French revolution or something. And if you are looking at that as a hoped for new beginning, then you're fucking nuts.
Surrender,
Whether I'm ignored or not, I don't care. I was protesting a logic that apparently neither Zinn nor Chomsky ever finds the time to examine. And that's this notion that IF ONLY PEOPLE ORGANIZE, the ecology of our political life will change. BS!
Have you found the time over the last month to talk to a single "ordinary" person? I have, and I can tell you that they don't attach all that much meaning to politics. They care, but it's not a substitute for religion, God, or morals for them. They talk about politics the same way they talk about sports. NOT ONE average, everyday person ascribes the importance to the political sphere that Zinn and Chomsky presume them to.
We have the system we have because people don't want to escape from the world they've built up: a world of 24/7 entertainment, hedonism, booze, and workplace tediousness. If people really wanted a different society, we'd have it by now. I, for one, am tired of scapegoating corporations and those richer and more successful than I.
By the way, has all that Z-magazine liberal/feminist/leftist "organizing" done anything to stop wars, reduce the Pentagon budget, help the sick and needy, or enlighten anyone? I don't think so.
"Ralph Nader is the answer." And the question was?
GregR,
I intend to show up on Election Day to vote for Obama (I voted for Nader in 00 and 04).
But this fact has nothing to do with the points I've been making.
Besides reactionary ideology, what's the difference between a right wing and a left wing conservative?
Mcaimless February 24th, 2008 3:01 pm
"all you are doing is throwing us to the wolves."
Just were you need to be if you're going to continue to support the leaders in the two party system.
There is no choice in either of the major two parties. They both represent no change for the better. Obama only offers hope and hope doesn't get it done.
Good article. It's important to keep perspective. While I slightly prefer Obama (due entirely to the other choices) it would be foolish th think his election will result in major change. We must focus on real issues.
I hope we all at least recognize that the future is quite unpredictable and we can only guess whether Nader's approach or other similar approaches will move the ball in a positive direction over the long term. The political scene is of unbounded complexity. As some have noted, Bush did more for socialism (quite unintentionally of course) than anyone else on the planet has in the last few years.
ezeflyer February 24th, 2008 3:07 pm
Besides reactionary ideology, what's the difference between a right wing and a left wing conservative?
The left wing conservatives (democrats today) don't destroy the country as fast as the right wing conservatives. Outside of that there is no difference.
The difference between a right and left wing conservative is that of a Stalinist dictator or a Hitlerean one. Very little.
Let's face it, individuals are powerless against a corporate or statist government. Zinn is correct that we have to come together. But the only way people will come together and take back our greater power is by becoming the government.
See Senator Gravel's National Initiative for Democracy for more information on how the people can become the lawmakers.
Jaded Prole February 24th, 2008 3:09 pm
"We must focus on real issues."
As long as people are focused on the selection of two evils that's not going to happen. On the issues Nader is the only one addressing them the way the people want and still the people are flocking toward hope. Why? Because the MSM is selling it that way, hope has never gotten anything done. Obama offers hope Nader brings our problems to light.
#
rickster469 said:
"ezeflyer February 24th, 2008 3:07 pm
Besides reactionary ideology, what's the difference between a right wing and a left wing conservative?
The left wing conservatives (democrats today) don't destroy the country as fast as the right wing conservatives. Outside of that there is no difference."
Actually, conservative Democrats like the many who consistently vote with Bush, are right wing conservatives. And conservatives can't govern:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0607.wolfe.html
Kivals, did you delete your earlier reply to me? It was very good, and I agree with it.
It's a shame that people of a leftist bent don't challenge the Zinn-Chomsky notion of organizing. There are so many who just say "amen" to them, as though they and they alone were in possession of the truth.
Thank you Mr. Zinn, a little sanity is refreshing in the wake of the Obamarama.
I really worry that all these kids that are so agog abt Obama, they believe in him as a savior, will be crushed when it turns out Obama is merely a politician.
And I find it outrageous that there are all these folks old enough, like me, to know better, and they are some of the worse, giddiest, offenders.
Shame on my peers and elders for not at least suggesting people take a look at history and get a handle on the way things work and what has come before the Obamarama.
ezeflyer February 24th, 2008 3:23 pm
"Actually, conservative Democrats like the many who consistently vote with Bush, are right wing conservatives. And conservatives can't govern:"
I can't argue against that. Were does that leave Obama and Hillary? There record proves their conservatives. They have given the republicans every thing they've needed.
rickster469,
It's time to get real. Sure, throw your vote away and see what that accomplishes. Do you really think this nation can survive god knows how many more years of Republicans in the White House? Do you really want us in Iraq for 100 more years? Easy for McCain to say, he won't be around to watch it.
There are realistic ways to effect change but like Zinn says, it's only going to happen from the bottom up. Of the two valid (and realistic) choices we have, Obama is the best. Kuschinich was a real progressive but it was obvious that he was not going to make it. Nader does us all a great disservice by running again.
I'm going with the candidate who can beat McCain, pure and simple. How about working on getting Greens into congress for a start and then in time the idea may catch on for a presidental run. Right now there are some major fires to put out that are just too important in my book to ignore while standing on principal.
I'm amazed at how blind and stupid you all are.
Are you really? After pointing out how most people love their stable enslavement and protective enprisonment?
I'm amazed at how blind and stupid you all are.
"Are you really? After pointing out how most people love their stable enslavement and protective enprisonment?"
"You all" meaning Zinn and the sheep who post comments here: i.e., those of you who believe you're in the know.
debunker,
I did delete the earlier post right after I entered it as I found the first paragraph flawed when I read it.
While the majority may not give a damn, the time will come when they begin to feel the pain, and that's when they'll start caring. Of course by then they won't be able to do anything about it. But history shows that when the downtrodden become the plowed under,rebellion takes root and change begins to occur.
Mcaimless February 24th, 2008 3:33 pm
"Sure, throw your vote away and see what that accomplishes."
Actually I'm doing just what this article talks about. I'm revolting. If the Democrats want my vote then they better start supporting issues that is going to help this country. A vote for either party now days is noting more than a vote for the status-quo.
Who knows maybe you people will wake up after four more years of republican rule with democratic backing. It's really rather obvious that Obama isn't going to do anything different after he gets elected. If Nader get enough support maybe the democrats will get the message and change.
"But history shows that when the downtrodden become the plowed under,rebellion takes root and change begins to occur."
Does history show that?
So, as more Americans "get plowed under," they'll get rid of their TV sets, their DVDs, their PCs and laptops? They'll stop gambling, watching porn, buying liquor, going to the mall? They'll become intelligent and see themselves as they really are?
No, I don't think so.
I'm just saying you shouldn't be amazed. Psychologists have been talking about it for decades, and philosophers for centuries. It's tragic, but it makes perfect sense.
Does anybody remember John Anderson's run for president in 1980? Do any of you think he helped Reagan get the white house? That was when I quit voting for the lesser of two evils and started voting for the person who best represented the needs of the people. I voted for Anderson, I voted for Ross, I voted for Nader. Anyone of these people would have made a better president than the ones we got. Still the American people haven't learned that if they vote for the lesser of two evils they lose. We will continue to keep losing with that mind set.
Greg R -
Nader very carefully addresses the concerns you raise. It's on his web site, and he restated it this morning. He doesn't expect to win the election. He expects to press his issues, our issues, in a positive direction precisely so that incremental change will take place. If everybody folds (as debunker and surrender clearly have) or crawls back into the two party fold, where is this incremental change going to come from? This is a great year for Nader. If moderate Dems can't beat McCain the situation is hopeless anyway, so progressives are free to be progressive - to advocate for that which is not yet "real." If you don't stand up and say what you want you will never get it.
a 72 year old lady February 24th, 2008 1:55 pm
"Although professor Zinn is very articulate and encouraging in his writing he missed a great point: the corporate stronghold was less strong then than it is now."
This is and has been my point all during this election cycle.
People are so scared and so compliant that they can't see the forest for the trees. The problem is who is behind the parties. The backers are the owners and they own it all - the whole game is rigged.
The key to Mr. Zinn's article is: "But before and after those two minutes, our time, our energy, should be spent in educating, agitating, organizing our fellow citizens in the workplace, in the neighborhood, in the schools. Our objective should be to build, painstakingly, patiently but energetically, a movement that, when it reaches a certain critical mass, would shake whoever is in the White House, in Congress, into changing national policy on matters of war and social justice."
That's it in a nutshell, isn't it? If our ideal is to live in a democratic system, we must get involved. It can't work without our involvement because then it isn't a democracy. This is exactly what we've seen. Call it a democracy or a representative republic, we have neither. A plutocracy, theocracy, oligarchy - these are much more accurate. It is OUR fault that this has happened, and brow-beating each other because we vote for one or the other is like so much masturbation.
Vote for whomever you please, but before and after, get your ass out there and work for progressive values: Justice, peace, democratic principles, fairness, etc. That's part of my list and what I work for.
Hopefully Obama will realize now that if he starts moving to the center, Nader will start picking up
those votes. I don't think Zinn would have any second thoughts about voting for Nader.
For those of you who have never done so, it should be required reading to find a copy of Zinn's
book "A Peoples History of The United States".
Rickster says:
"Were does that leave Obama and Hillary? There record proves their conservatives. They have given the republicans every thing they've needed."
I agree. But a lot of us are tired of 40 plus years of conservative and now fascist rule. I'm not a masochist. I'm tired and I can't take it anymore. Like debunker says, people just don't seem to care. I'll be voting for Obama, the lesser evil dictator. For a kindler, gentler dictatorship.
Meanwhile, I'll be working to get the Green Party and as many liberals into office as I can. And I'll keep proposing solutions here like Senator Gravel's National Initiative for (direct) Democracy, Incorporating We the People and ranting against overpopulation, extreme wealth and power concentration, theocrats, oligarchs, polluters, banks, corporations and other issues my main man Ralph Nader studiously describes.