Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
100 Million Suspects
In the end, the decision couldn't be clearer. This is more than just a choice between parties, or ideologies, or policy positions. It's a choice between philosophies and worldviews. It's a choice grounded in moral psychology. We will choose between different portions of our own brains, between our baser instincts and what used to be called "the angels of our better nature."
In the end, this election is a referendum on trusting the electorate. It's a referendum on democracy itself.
One candidate represents collaboration, optimism... and yes, "change." The other represents fear and greed, and his campaign reflects the lower-order impulses that have guided his party and given it success. They've triggered fear in us so effectively for so long that they can't believe it's not working this time. They're still frantically sending memo after memo to our lizard brains: Khalidi, Ayers, redistribution... be afraid! And the more this old strategem fails, the harder they try.
Now they're trying to make us afraid of ourselves. That's what the ACORN con is all about. That's why McCain called it "one of the greatest frauds in voter history" and suggested that its "destroying the fabric of democracy." Sure, it's a calculated diversion, an attempt to delegitimize any Democratic victory and encourage resistance. But it also reflects a fundamental belief, one held deep in the heart of the powerful elite McCain represents:
Be afraid of the voters... voters are unpredictable... voters might do anything. We can't let that happen.
You probably remember Rumsfeld's line: "Democracy is messy." But you may not remember when he said it. It was in response to widespread looting of banks, offices, and museums. That says a lot. To this crowd, "democracy" is a violent mob. Representative government is an unpleasant necessity, not a value or an ideal. The rest of us think "war is too important to be left to the generals." They think self-government is too important to be left to the voters.
To some extent this is nothing more than greed and lust for power, the misuse of conservatism as a cover for naked self-interest. But it also reflects a difference in political philosophy that goes back to Locke and Hobbes. Their equation of democracy with mob rule, so clearly mirrored in Rumsfeld's comment, helps explain why they feel morally entitled to lie, cheat, and steal votes. To them, voters aren't reflections of a democratic ideal. They're suspects, threats, enemies. They're the Iraqi mob looting the Museum of Antiquities.
That's why they've condemned Obama's donors, too -- all 30 million of them. Somebody might have used a phony credit card! Never mind the lobbyists that crowd McCain/Palin's campaign staff, or McCain's apparent violation of his own "reform" laws during the primary. Lobbyists and big-money contributors are "us." But grassroots donors are the unruly mob the candidate will have to please if he's elected. That makes them 30 million "cronies," to go along with that list of 100 million suspects.
Voters are guilty until proven innocent. That's why they hate voter-registration organizations like ACORN. To them, minorities are nothing more than an especially untrustworthy subset of an unsavory crowd. The lines at the polls might as well be a perp walk.
The only thing that makes a citizen more of a threat than voting is "voting while black." That's why they can sleep at night after creating long waiting lines at "separate but equal" polling places in states like Ohio, despite the fact that what they're doing is no different from what was done under Jim Crow segregation. That's why they can live with themselves after creating photo ID requirements in Florida that disproportionately exclude minority voters (who are less likely to drive and therefore to have a driver's license.)
It's also why we fight. Don't let up. Vote. Help others vote. Bring camcorders, cell phones, and cameras to your polling place for some election "sousveillance" (surveillance from below.) Document the intrusions. You can sign up here to help track problems, or you can participate in the Election Protection Wiki described here. And work hard over the next few days to get out the vote.
Democracy isn't a subversive activity. It's our way of life, our highest ideal. They will try to overrule the will of the people on Nov. 4. Don't let them.
Democracy. It's the "real America."
- Posted in
92 Comments so far
Show All.
Nader said."Obama doesn't represent real change, This guy is the biggest con artist in our generation by far."
Actually UNTIL Obama becomes a better Senator how can we expect him to become a better President? Actions are words...
VOTE NADER/GONZALEZ 2008… You’ll be glad you did and so will I…
.
Again, this falls into the old and mindless mindset "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".
This writer doesn't name one single reason to actually vote for Obama. Not one policy. And what the heck. Spread the wealth? It is just a matter of going back to Clinton's tax policies. Obama himself *says* this!
Reconstituted Bill Clinton, and everyone is thrilled. Well, Bill was a popular president. Interesting that he had been called 'America's first black president'. Maybe it was a bit prophetic?
Maya Angalou has repeatedly pointed out that she labeled Clinton the "first black president" for the way he was demonized by the right-wing haters (the way they had treated blacks for decades).
Clinton did very little FOR blacks, or anyone else.
Bill Clintok needed a legacy so he chose NAFTA which paved the way for the predators' plot to corner the Mexican tortilla market and illegally dump mountains of unwanted US petro-fired corn on Mexico. This market was traditionally supplied by tens of thousands of small farmers for thousands of years. The predators in Washington convinced El Diablo in Mexico City that all the Mexican maize farmers had to be pushed out.
On top of this crime against humanity, everyone knows US petro-corn production is highly destructive and unsustainable and shipping makes it worst. Clintok's karmic blowback was a massive flood of economic refugees, those Mexican farmers who lost their market, lost their livelihoods to an illegal US mega-racket. O'Bama supports the mega-racket.
Are you going to vote for that? We are morally obligated to vote third party. Besides, monopoly capitalism is mortally wounded now. It blew itself up. If everyone votes third party this will ensure it a proper burial. Quick, we have a social democracy to build.
As for O'Bama donors, web search turns up 3.1 million, not 30 million. This means less populist, more elite.
If I understand Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America we no longer have
a 'Democracy' in America.
Goldwater, Raegan and Bush's Greed is Good and Fie on Government is not democratic.
Democracy requires a sufficient number of democrats to make it work but far too many
American citizens have been lured by the Pied Piper of the Dark Side and far too many
American citizens have been divided by the Great Uniter to allow a democracy to survive.
." The other represents fear and greed, and his campaign reflects the lower-order impulses that have guided his party and given it success."
Proof that conservatives are a mix of cowardly, reactionary, violent, superstitious, antisocial, criminal, power and warmongering greedheads.
I am very sad & angry at the excuses I hear for voting for the two major parties. The core beliefs are enough the same to say NO to both parties. Please, stop calling what we have "democracy"! We don't have a level playing field, a multiparty system, nor do we have an ability for those without money to get very far within our political system. Please vote against the two party system, for Nader, for McKinney, for anyone other than a "D" or "R".
I agree. More than ever, Americans should take a look at the pseudo-choice they are offered between the two corporate-approved candidates and practice The Audacity of Nope.
We cannot rely on choices or pseudo-choices we are "offered". Who exactly will "offer" us choices? It is way too passive an approach. So after saying nope, what then? The only way we will have the choices we need is to create them ourselves. They ain't there and they will never be there if we wait for them to be offered up on a platter.
Joe
Enter stage left: the same 50 people telling us all how bad Obama is.
I'm with Michael Moore on this (not just because I dressed as him for Halloween, it was a hit :-). Since most politicians are lying out of their asses while campaigning, who's to say Obama will continue neocon policies? He's intelligent enough to know they'll never work, and make our country far worse off. As I said once before, remember that he has to appeal to enough of the ignorant jackasses that gave Bush a majority of the popular vote in 2004 to win. Most of the country has no idea what the Progressive movement represents (if they did they'd all be Progressives!), so if Obama were to campaign that way they'd think he was nuts, and the MSM would rip him 24/7. However, if once he gets into office and starts a Progressive agenda, after some time more and more people would realize how much better it is for them. I don't think Obama's stated policies are good, but I do think *he* is good. And I am very much looking forward to Nader's campaign of organizing Progressives in Congressional districts nationwide to drag the Democrats, kicking and screaming if need be, to our agenda, like the religious fundies did to the Republicans (minus the hate).
-----------------------------------
I think, therefore I am dangerous.
ZachP November 1st, 2008 4:27 pm
"I don't think Obama's stated policies are good, but I do think *he* is good."
Obama could be the best person in the world but if his policies are bad........that is what will affect millions of others.
Lobo Gris
He can always adopt better policies once elected.
-----------------------------------
I think, therefore I am dangerous.
ZachP November 1st, 2008 10:43 pm
"He can always adopt better policies once elected."
That is based on wishful thinking rather than his voting record and his stated stands on the issues which show exactly the opposite of what you are wishing for. What are you going to do when you try to get him to adopt better policies after he is elected and he tells you.... I told you where I stood, you saw my voting record, and you voted for me and my policies? Not in those words of course, he will be much more circumspect and diplomatic about it.
Lobo Gris
It may be based on wishful thinking, but my original question to someone else was what will you do if Obama is elected? Try to make him advance our agenda, or just ignore him and wait 4 years to try again?
-----------------------------------
I think, therefore I am dangerous.
ZachP November 1st, 2008 11:45 pm
"It may be based on wishful thinking, but my original question to someone else was what will you do if Obama is elected? Try to make him advance our agenda, or just ignore him and wait 4 years to try again?"
The fact is that Obama will probably be elected next tues. If you're asking if I will engage in letter writing campaigns or marches that have already proven ineffective the answer is no. I will try to spend my time more productively in trying to convince others that becoming a third party member and voting for third party/independent candidates is in fact the more effective way to go.
See my post to xyptol November 1st, 2008 5:51 pm
Lobo Gris
Right. The people have the ability to install their own champion in the oval orifice. An outsider such as Nader or McKinney will do simply great even when the Congress refuses to cooperate. For example the Justice Dept. will throw hundreds of war criminals in jail. The State Dept. will re-open a diplomatic network worldwide. The War Dept. will gather up its marbles and go home. Can you imagine the reaction of the world? It will be a four year party in the streets across the entire planet. Everyone will be singing ding dong the duopoly is dead. Vote for the big change, people, third party.
I've never been a huge Obama supporter. I originally liked Richardson, then Kucinich. I don't think the stuff you mentioned is good, and I have written to the Obama campaign to voice my disapproval, especially regarding the fallacy that capturing bin Laden (or any other terrorist) will do any good at this point, especially using the military anywhere in the middle east.
On the other hand, we are currently in a headlong rush into a fascist dictatorship, and I don't believe Obama will continue that trend, in fact I believe he will reverse it. I also believe he will enable meetings and a softening of positions regarding our "enemies" which could reverse a lot of negative trends in the world.
I realize you've hardened your position against Obama, but I have not. Like Zach, I don't agree with or approve of many of Obama's stated positions, but I believe he can open the door toward vast improvements and away from fascism.
hamster November 1st, 2008 4:57 pm
"On the other hand, we are currently in a headlong rush into a fascist dictatorship, and I don't believe Obama will continue that trend, in fact I believe he will reverse it."
If that is the case then why would he have voted for the FISA act which he did after proclaiming that he wouldn't and why did he vote for the Patriot act?
Lobo Gris
Would you prefer the GOP to rip him as 'soft on terrorists' or a terrorist sympathizer instead? Didn't they successfully paint Kerry that way?
-----------------------------------
I think, therefore I am dangerous.
ZachP November 1st, 2008 8:22 pm
"Would you prefer the GOP to rip him as 'soft on terrorists' or a terrorist sympathizer instead? Didn't they successfully paint Kerry that way?"
That only works if the voting public buys into the Rovian tactics which they have shown repeatedly that they are not doing this election cycle. I would add also that Kerry never fought back, something that Obama has shown a willingness to do. The public has been looking for change, change they are not getting from either of the duopoly candidates.
Obama IS a terrorist! Same with Bush, McCain, and almost all of our elected officials. AND the people who vote for them. If other countries did to the U.S. what we do to other countries, we would call them correctly: terrorists! Why the double standard?
Prior to this is the same old fallacious argument 50 times. Too bad that your oversimplification, "how bad Obama is," reveals that you still haven't listened to the debunking.
Yes, I've listened, many times. I still believe Obama is very likely to use his bully pulpit to point the country in a much better direction. There are a lot of supposedly "liberal" senators and representatives who have voted for some of the worst legislation that has come down the pike in the last few years, or have sat idly by and let it happen. Unfortunately, the president has a very large (too large) presence in American politics now. It remains to be seen how Obama would use his influence. Don't tell me what he "will" do. You don't know. If he turns out to be a bust you can say "I told you so" and I'll respond accordingly.
There is such a thing as a reasonable hypothesis. I find a voting record and announced policy much more persuasive than wishful thinking.
Note, by the way, that none of my responses here involve "hating Obama." Odd, that.
Don't tell me what he "will" do.
Exactly... What is his RECORD?? What has he DONE??
Those are the questions to ask.
VOTE NADER/GONZALEZ 2008…
http://www.votenader.org/index.html
.
The Republicans have shown that they're ONLY interested in power and profit for their buddies, and the public, the workers, the environment, and the rest of the world be damned. I don't see that with Obama, whatever his other faults. And for crying out loud, he's a politician working in a broken and corrupt system. Politics is messy, it doesn't adhere to our ideals.
You've got it partly right here.
"The Republicans have shown that they're ONLY interested in power and profit ..."
To that I say "bingo." After that we diverge. I see no virtue in active collaboration with them, whereas you are willing to rationalize it.
Politics will never adhere to our ideals when we willingly jettison those ideals.
"the Democratic Party not only failed to oppose it, but actually raced to get it passed, even less hesitant about enabling The Great Heist than the Republicans"
This is a good illustration of what voters are up against. Voters are told they are getting something better in the Demok party but now voters see from the Demoks leading the bailout that some kind of hidden torch has been passed. The torch has been passed to the Demoks by the elites who run the show from behind the scenes. The only way for the people to take power from the elites is to deprive BOTH elite parties of support, so we vote third party.
I would actually seperate the solution from the Parties entirely and from "voting" to some extent as well.
We need a new Constitution to reflect our new constitution.
This should be the focus now -fixing the broken STRUCTURES of our Society -Governmental, Economic, Transport, Work, Food, etc.
"Democracy isn't a subversive activity."
no... at least not as our founders envisioned... but our Corpocracy is completely subversive... and all within "The Party, Inc." play a active role in promoting and maintaining it. Every time they vote to enable the system that disenfranchises them, they do immeasurable harm themselves, and to the democracy that once defined this country... and *that* is truly subversive.
And they harm themselves when they vote for these policies! And they "feel good" about it! It's insane!
Yeah, their insane.
But they still have the potential to "snap back into reality".
Our work now is to get this to happen with as little trauma as possible.
Think of us -those that we could call "awake or "aware"- not as a seperate and scattered political faction, but as the whole spectrum of localized adaptatory mutations that are now beginning to spread.
Somehow, through all the Noise and Control prevelant in the TELECulture, many, many people are never-the-less still Awake and Aware enough to think clearly.
This is an amazing thing!
Don't let us lose this amazing adaptation now, when it matters most.
Let's see THROUGH all the B.S. and attempts at manipulation.
The Pillars in the Halls of Power are SHAKING!
Make no mistake about this.
Obama is full of B.S., but what that B.S. says is evidence of the dangerous position that anti-democratic forces are now in.
The Age of Credit as fuel for Capitalism is ending.
Unsless the clever boys in the Ownership Class can come up with some other way to keep the suckers slaving away things are going to get quite interesting.
Don't Panic,
-matti.
To the people who voted for Nader and McKinney, I respect your vote. I was tempted many times to vote third party, but the stakes are just much too high. I'm not ashamed to vote for Obama. At least America will have a President with a brain. I know that's not popular among the Sarah Palin know nothing crowd, but I do respect intelligence. The Sarah Palin/GW Bush lovers mock intelligence. They have a Khmer Rouge mentality. You all can can hate on me for voting for Obama. Ironic, because I respect progressives decision to vote for Obama, Nader or McKinney. I don't mock your vote. Please don't mock mine. BTW don't waste your time hating on me, because I will not read your posts.
winning ticket - I could have written your post myself because I was also very tempted to vote for Nader, but I'm not ashamed to have voted for Obama for the same reasons as yours. Having someone with a brain in the White House would be fantastic.
When the smoke has cleared after 11/04, I think we should all get to work, regardless of the outcome, to help the 3rd party of our choice continue in the fight to take their rightful places in our country's political lineup.
wilmoor November 1st, 2008 4:33 pm
"When the smoke has cleared after 11/04, I think we should all get to work, regardless of the outcome, to help the 3rd party of our choice continue in the fight to take their rightful places in our country's political lineup."
And what will you do when the Republicans run more "compassionate conservatives" and neocons for election in 2012? Won't the cost for you be too high to support any third party candidates then too?
Lobo Gris
More importantly, what will you do when you realize that Obama is actually a Conservative, who would fit right in to the Republican party?? Do you care at all about the people he will kill? Is U.S. terrorism o.k. with you?? You'll get all that and more if Obama is elected on Tuesday (if the election isn't stolen yet again).
VOTE NADER/GONZALEZ 2008 ... and send a message to WHOM, exactly? And to what end? Talk about futile gestures, in an election year in which we white liberals can put our vote where our convictions are and pull the lever for a black man. Yes, he may disappoint, but his victory will end forever the belief that the Presidency is for Whites Only!
RichM, if Obama is elected, will you simply ignore his administration, and wait until 2012 to make your voice heard again? Or will you do everything you can to pull him and the rest of the Democrats to our side? I plan on being more active AFTER the election than I am right now.
-----------------------------------
I think, therefore I am dangerous.
Adele:
.
Nader says...
"Wake up Americans! Cut the crap and take over."
VOTE NADER/GONZALEZ 2008…
http://www.votenader.org/index.html
.
Attention Nannie! and anyone advocating voting for Nader.
I live in Canada. Last month we had a federal election. Our Parliamentary system has 308 ridings and the conserative weasels got a minority government, by using a somewhat watered down version of Bushes electioneering tactics. In my riding the Liberal candidate had won the previous election by 12,000 votes so I figured I could vote for the New Democratic Party. Guess what? The Conservative candidate won the riding by getting 17 votes more than the Liberal! Now, I wanted my candidate to win, but what I wanted even more was that the Conservative candidate not get a seat in Parliament. The Libs and Cons got 21000+ votes and my NDP got 8,000. I voted for the party I wanted and ended up with the party I really did not want. Do thou likewise?
.
‘I would rather vote for what I want ... and not get it,
than vote for what I don’t want ... and get it.’
Eugene Debs
.
YOu don't understand that some of us can't vote for a pro-war corporatist pro-nuclear pro-"clean coal" anti-gay marriage pro-endless war pro-terrorist (U.S. terrorism), and the list goes on and on. I know my vote for Ralph Nader won't get me the President I want - it's a given that evil will win, murders will happen - I don't have to be complicit. I also vote for Nader in order to join with others in sending a message to Obama & Democrats that we want progressive policies and to stop going rightward.
I would never ask a Nader supporter not to vote for him, and I would have if I hadn't been in a swing state. But like I just asked RichM, what will you do if Obama is elected? Try to drag him to the Progressive left, or ignore the government until 2012?
-----------------------------------
I think, therefore I am dangerous.
ZachP November 1st, 2008 8:27 pm
"and I would have if I hadn't been in a swing state."
And what will you do if you live in a swing state in the next election cycle? And the one after that?
Lobo Gris
That's why I'll be working to either end the electoral college or make it proportional to the popular vote, so it has the same effect. No more swing states!!!
-----------------------------------
I think, therefore I am dangerous.
ZachP November 1st, 2008 11:15 pm
"That's why I'll be working to either end the electoral college or make it proportional to the popular vote, so it has the same effect."
That will take a Constitutional amendment which I won't even begin to describe the difficulty in getting, especially since the two major parties like things just the way they are.
Lobo Gris
Sure, it also took a Constitutional amendment to give women the right to vote, and God knows that even today there are men that don't think women should have equal rights, never mind 80 years ago. Is that a reason not to try?
-----------------------------------
I think, therefore I am dangerous.
ZachP November 1st, 2008 11:46 pm
"Sure, it also took a Constitutional amendment to give women the right to vote, and God knows that even today there are men that don't think women should have equal rights, never mind 80 years ago. Is that a reason not to try?"
I didn't say that you shouldn't try, I give you the realistic view that it will be next to impossible to achieve, especially in the current climate. During the time period you describe there were massive uprisings and marches by women to achieve the vote. I don't see anything similar happening over a divided issue such as eliminating the electoral college, especially again since most if not all of our elected representatives support it.
That still doesn't answer the question though of what you will do with your vote if you live in a swing state in the next election cycle or the one after that? What if as I asked another poster, the Republicans run more "compassionate conservatives" and or neocons in the next few election cycles and they are close? You don't have to answer me but it is a question that you should ask yourself.
Lobo Gris
It will depend on who is running. I'm not into party loyalty stuff.
-----------------------------------
I think, therefore I am dangerous.