EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Save The Earth – Vote! (Then Organize)
The disappointment that many, perhaps most, progressives feel regarding the policies of the Obama administration are certainly understandable, and there is no need here to reiterate the details of the discussions that have been going on for almost two years now.
Perhaps it was wishful thinking on my part, but when I voted for the President in 2008, I expected more enlightened positions on war, poverty, and the environment, to name a few of the most pressing problems that we face.
Nevertheless, it is distressing to see so many moderates, liberals, and progressives who seem to be willing to allow the Republicans take over Congress again. Have we forgotten so soon what they (and Bush) did when in power?
Do we not understand the frightening and irrational proposals from the "Tea Party" types who dominate the GOP?
Republican victories in the mid-term elections would be a disaster, especially regarding the environment. For instance, as Ronald Brownstein, conservative columnist for the National Journal, recently noted:
"Virtually all of the serious 2010 GOP challengers have moved beyond opposing cap-and-trade to dismissing the scientific evidence that global warming is even occurring. … It is difficult to identify another major political party in any democracy as thoroughly dismissive of climate science as is the GOP here.”
This ignorant position is hardly surprising, given, among other things, the millions of dollars being poured into Republican/Tea Party coffers by such corporate forces as BP Oil and the Koch brothers.
In the face of the environmental threats that confront us, it is imperative that we develop strategies that will have the greatest impact as quickly as possible.
In the medium term, the most promising approach is to put pressure on governments by using a multitude of tactics, including the ballot box, to demand an immediate Second World War-type mobilization to deal with the systemic crises of environmental destruction and growing poverty (unemployment, home foreclosures, and so on).
Such “ecological Keynesianism”— massive government programs to protect the natural world—could create jobs in sustainable industries and promote a plethora of ecological initiatives (local food production, public transportation, energy conservation, and so on) – but only if enough people demand it.
However, even those who understand the seriousness of our situation often do nothing, due to distractions, despair, and busy lives.
The simple act of voting could make all the difference.
Nothing provides such a direct—and easy—route to politicians as voting does.
As Bill McKibben wrote: “We need to be able to explain to them that continuing in their ways will end something that they care about: their careers.”
In many districts, even a small increase in “environmental” voters would make a difference. And if everyone gets, for example, just two friends to vote who otherwise wouldn't, the Republican/Tea Party machine will be dealt a stunning defeat.
On the other hand, a Republican/Tea Party victory will shift the political landscape even further to the fundamentalist right.
We must remember that Tea Partyers, big oil, and the corporate elite in general want progressives to sit out the vote and allow their stooges to have even more power. If that happens, the damage that will be done will make it even harder to build a sustainable and just society.
Obviously, voting is not enough. The key to a successful ecological movement is the concept of “unity in diversity” – organizing movements that focus on common values and working together with mutual respect.
Other forms of action must intensify: organizing, letters to the editor, demonstrations, media reform, and public education – working both inside and outside of the political system.
There may not be enough time to transform the global economy into one that is democratic, just, and sustainable. But as Noam Chomsky observed, while we can’t know if our efforts will prevent tragedy, we can be sure that inaction will guarantee greater disaster.
Cynicism is a luxury that we – and our children - can’t afford.
We already have enough wealth, knowledge, and technology to solve the environmental crises, create a more humane society, end war, and eliminate global poverty – but only if we take democracy seriously, get organized and take control of our lives.
Voting is the simplest way to make a difference.
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...
37 Comments so far
Show AllHere we go again.
"Have we forgotten so soon what they (and Bush) did when in power?"
"They" are still in power.
RE: "They" are still in power.
Absolutely right! Buck, you have a knack for pithy one-liners that also express a profound truth. Thanks!
when we have real choices, we won't need anyone preaching us to vote.
Well said.
Especially this kind of nonsense (not yours, the original article).
Please *sob* Vote Democratic! Again! Yes, I know they hate us all, and they laugh at us behind our backs and support everyone getting robbed and bombed by richfilth...but the Republicans are EVEN WORSE. They won't use a condom while they fuck us all!
If you don't vote for the Democrats puppies will explode! Think of the puppies!? Please?
To be honest, i do believe that we will go into marshal law sooner with repubs in total power. That is the difference i see, as of this moment point.
Cap and trade is bs and everyone knows it. So, what is to loose with that ending? It is a corporate scam - (word to the poli sci professor at college in undisclosed location). And, actually, i think that the BP act of ecocidal terrorism should be agressively investigated. But how will the repubs do it without mentioning Halliburton and BP themselves? They will though.
We need such an underlying transformation of our bottom line thinking about what it means to be human, that all we are going to 'see', no matter who gets 'elected', is our need to make these deeper changes. I think the obama phenomenon, if it did nothing else, should have taught people this.
However, i have decided to vote tomorrow. I will see when i get there, what my options are. I won't be voting for the lesser of two evils. I will vote out of disdain for a particular candidate. I guess it is a 'hate' vote.
Uh oh.......well, what the heck!
I've come to the point that I dismiss any article, pundit, journalist, op-ed, etc. that qualifies it' arguments with a negative.
Eg. this article: "Republican victories in the mid-term elections would be a disaster, especially regarding the environment."
Summary: Vote democrat. If you don't bad things will happen.
Yes. Bad things will happen. Bad things will also happen if democrats get elected, as has been proven -once again- in this democratic majority congress.
Instead, I want an article that proclaims:
"Vote for this candidate. If you DO...THIS will happen."
Show me that candidate and I may vote for him. Else, since there is nobody on my ballot I would trust my vote to, I'm writing in Zizek on all my ballot options.
from the article:
~ Nothing provides such a direct—and easy—route to politicians as voting does. ~
This is the falsehood that belies our entire society...
when combined with the Rightness of the armed Bank owning the land, we are toast...
The Earth does not need saving, it will save itself. It is people that need saving because the Earth will eliminate us while saving herself.
"Whether we and our politicians know it or not, Mother Nature is party to all our deals and decisions, and she has more votes, a longer memory, and a sterner sense of justice than we do."
-- Wendell Barry, author and social critic
And the significance of your distinction, besides establishing yourself as an oh-so high (and probably rich) philssophical snob, is?
Once the election is behind us, I will be interested to see you develop your "left wingers are rich snobs" thesis in more detail.
Perhaps this is projection, since it would seem that it is those advocating working within the system and being loyal to the Democratic party are the ones obsessed with status and "middle class" sensibilities, and who are themselves comfortable and are therefore resistant to anyone rocking the boat. But apparently, you are taking the opposite position - that the wealthier and more comfortable a person is, the more likely they are to be critics and dissidents and want to see the system overthrown.
Or perhaps you are gazing into the future, and see those who are now at the bottom being on the top?
I am making the assumption that you are merely frightened, and are posting based on your fears tonight.
The significance of the statement that the earth does not need saving is to point out the absurdity of the title of the article.
SaboCat, I believe stone's post could be interpreted as saying, that we are completely dependent on nature for our existence but nature is in no way dependent on humans. We will begin to save the planet when we realize the daily gifts of air water, food clothing shelter, etc, that it bestows upon us.
"Perhaps it was wishful thinking on my part..."
Spare us the coy perhapsing. It WAS wishful thinking, as is the author's conviction that the best remedy for it is More of the Same.
There are "classic" pathetic lesser-evil apologies like the awful Zunes article published here today, which at least explicitly and forthrightly offers the compulsory doomed and deluded message: don't cut off your nose to spite your face, hold it and vote Democrat.
And then there's this new kind of pathetic lesser-evil apologist, in which the writer carefully avoids cheerleading for the Democrats, aka the Party of Judas, and refrains from making the usual straightforward pitch to vote for Democrats.
They seem to limit themselves to manipulating readers into drawing the obvious inference that, in their judgement, the Dems are the last, best hope for sociopolitical salvation. (See my 1:17 pm comment at yesterday's Robert Freeman article*)
It's impossible to know for sure, but it's as if the New Shills know that too many of us cats will be instantly spooked if they realize that they're being herded to the toxic Democratic water-- or Kool-Aid. So they couch their appeals in non-denominational terms, as if they're really just exhorting general civic spirit and remaining engaged in the existing depraved and degraded political process.
Perhaps they calculate that the mush-brained among us won't see through this subterfuge, and will gulp down the Kool-Aid without realizing that they've been snookered into supporting the Party of Judas in spite of themselves.
"Cynicism is a luxury that we – and our children - can’t afford."
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." -- George Bernard Shaw
In fact, it is the complacent lesser-evilist who internalizes and rationalizes the most corrosive and pernicious kind of cynicism; all of the superficially exhiliarating rhetoric of empowerment and the false positive of being part of the solution at the ballot box is based on the quicksand foundation of "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em".
As another commenter ruefully noted, next week can't come too soon!
*http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/10/31-0
Good call - "...manipulating readers into drawing the obvious inference that, in their judgment, the Dems are the last, best hope..." The manipulation is especially galling, isn't it?
College professors are writing these articles...
What is being defended and promoted by them is not political ideas, rather it is their own status, their own self-interest. It is class warfare, being waged by proxies for the rulers. This is a much bigger issue then merely a "lesser of two evils" argument. The "lesser of two evils" argument is a stand in for a broader assault of critics and dissidents, and for the promotion of a comprehensive political and social agenda.
Don't be fooled by the arguments the party apologists are making. They are not what they appear to be. Should you refuse to genuflect to their "middle class" icons, you will be attacked. Here then will be their arguments:
1. You are a loser. You are not very successful, you have no credentials, you speak with no authority. You are not a person whom anyone should take seriously.
2. You are unpleasant. You are rude and obnoxious, refuse to be civil, have no manners, and don't know how to play nicely with the other children. You are not welcome in polite company.
3. You are delusional, possibly deranged. You have delusions of grandeur, indulge in fantasies about some glorious revolution, have problems with authority, and refuse to accept reality. You may be able to come across as intelligent and rational, but people should not be fooled by that. You need therapy.
4. You are dangerous. The ideas you are advocating will result in much harm - bloody, deadly horrible things will happen if people listen to you. You are unreasonably raising the hopes of poor people, and you are inciting a violent response from the authorities. You are making things worse. You need to be carefully watched.
None of that is politically neutral, although party apologists will represent it as though it were - they are merely "common sense" rules of behavior, that no one could dispute, they will claim.
Where are the "ideas" they claim to be talking about? Where are the "principles" and "ideals?" They don't exist. They will deny that class struggle is real, but all of their arguments are saying that you are not to be taken seriously because you are a lower class person - dirty, poor, stupid, ignorant, uncivilized, ill-mannered and mentally ill.
They are defending their own house slave status and the house slaves as a group, and therefore defending the interests of the master, of course. The are desperately afraid of losing their house slave position, and believe they worked hard to achieve it and have earned it. They are working with master to improve conditions for the field slaves, if and when that is practical, but they don't think that very many field slaves could ever make suitable house slaves. They think, or claim to think, that anyone could become a house slave, if they just had what it takes - smarts, moral fiber, discipline - so the system is therefore "fair." They have to defend master's house because they live there and everything they have and do is dependent upon master's house.
I wish Chris Hedges would write a new article every day, but in the meantime I have the likes of you, Ob. Serv, RichM, Dubet, drone, Ted Markow, Mcoyote, Tom Larsen, Trylon, NC Tom, Siouxrose and a number of others.
Thanks.
It would be a mistake to hitch your wagon to my star - I'm liable to disappoint. There are times when I lose my nerve and start sounding sane, which is not good in an insane world. Other than that, I'm not such a bad guy.
(Thanks for the vote, though)
Is this the dribble that's taught in American colleges and universities? If so, it's no wonder we're in such a pickle (a baseball term in which the runner is caught between bases and eventually run down by one of several opposing basemen - I thought the author would understand this being a Giants fan).
We keep indoctrinating our young with this stuff and then wonder why successive generations don't seem to get it.
If the author were serious, he would exhort people to organize and work for real change, then vote if they must. While voting against the greater evil may work to temporarily keep the wolves at bay (as I did with Obama), it does absolutely nothing to move anything forward.
Well, maybe it keeps Prof Prontzos' career in Poli-Sci going, since he can just keep "teaching" from rote memory.
Prof Prontzos, read some Howard Zinn and teach your students something meaningful...and true!
A remember once reading an article a few years ago that accurately described the movements that made Social Security and labor unions possible long before we'd get the right politicians elected to carry it all out. Voting can feel so tempting but I could see where movements can be like a fall back when voting doesn't help much.
Then let me help you out a little, Max. Think of voting as going to Vegas with $10,000. Oh, the glitz and glitter and promises of instant riches! You could instantly be rich beyond your imagination if you bet right just this one last time!
Or, you could invest your $10,000 in something long and slow and laborious but which would pay off dividends somewhere in the future.
What's your choice, Mr. Payne?
P.S. (A secret between you and me: The house always wins.)
My wife and I don't feel like being rich like that. Gambling's just not our cup of tea. But if I had to choose, that long, slow, and laborious process would do. A lot of love could come from that compared to that insecure feeling that comes from gambling.
Max, don't take things so literally.
Ah, got me again. I'm so bitter about the way everything's gone I don't know what to make of the elections myself. Maybe I'm making a hoot out of myself trying to tell the party partisans that the "Tea party" isn't this big boogeyman party that it claims to be. So many bitter things about this election and the Democratic Party that I just don't feel like talking much about. I'll have to spell it out slowly and I think that there'll be plenty of time for it. Thanks for getting me out of some of my madness.
It's quite normal to be mad in a mad society, Max. It's what you do with that madness that counts. :-D
It will be amusing to watch a GOP majority Congress lay into Democrat Obama. He, in turn, will compromise further, but will talk very 'progressive' giving hope once again to liberals. In 2012 he will win again, thanks to his re-energized base, but the Congress will be such that, gee, nothing good for people will get done. Oh well, there's always 2014 when Democrats will pick up a few seats, but of course, they will need 60 + to really succeed. So...............
You've got a likely scenario there.
comment deleted
I'm glad to see that the readers on this site are rejecting the Democratic Party apologists. I am disturbed to see Common Dreams pushing so much of this swill right before the election however. Enough already!
If you don't vote, even for Mickey Mouse, then the two major parties can and will see by checking the election records that you certainly don't exercise power and probably won't next time either. They would then never be so impolite as to tip you off that they couldn't care less about you. In truth, they don't.
They especially don't give two toots about college students as a group because they don't vote. Ageist laws passed against your age group because the pols don't care about you, include the earned income credit for anyone 25 and older but not you, and of course draft registration just in case they need nearly free labor out of the dumb saps.
They care slightly IF you're on record as having voted consistently.
They care a little more if you're part of a larger block of voters demanding satisfaction on a real issue or two. That separates you and your issues from the 10,000,000 mooing cows that negative TV ads work on.
If they only let you have a little power, then take whatever you have available. It's your power. You can still go off on Election Wednesday and exercise other forms of personal power.
Yaaaay Mickey!!
RE: Save The Earth – Vote! (Then Organize)
The order of the above headline is backwards, this following order would produce some results:
1) ORGANIZE - first! (otherwise you have no power)
2) Vote - if there's somebody worth voting for, otherwise don't worry too much about it.
3) Save the earth (and yourselves) for we are many and "they" are few.
Anarchist Emma Goldman famously said: "if voting changed anything it would be illegal." I don't see this as a cynical statement; rather I see it as an empirically grounded statement of fact.
In corporate media voting is way overrated while mass organization is way underrated. Spending all our time on the electoral process is what the duopoly wants us to do, since they control elections and we cannot win at playing their rigged game. The duopoly fears real mass movements because they don't control them, that's why they poo-poo them and try to marginalize the importance of mass movements. For the last 30 years or so, we have been spending 90% of our time and resources on electoral concerns and (maybe) 10% on organizing movements. This needs to be inverted.
Martin Niemoller:
“First they came for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for me, and no one was left to speak for me.”
...because we let the Republiklans take over the government.
Without the transformation of the capitalist economy to a saner more humane economy first "saving the Earth" will be a failing exercise.
P.S. voting will not scare the destroyers of the environment.
10 Reasons To Avoid The Democratic Party:
1) The Democrats are just a faction of the enemy -- not allies in any sense. They are not the "lesser evil;" they are an auxiliary subdivision of the same evil. They have betrayed us beyond all possible reconciliation, and are more truly allies of the Republicans than they are "friends" of ours.
2) It's just a fallacy to believe that the Democrats can somehow be transformed into a political force defending the interests of the broader public. That's not what they are. That they dare posture as the "party of the people" is an insult to our collective intelligence. In reality, they use this tattered & tired popular image to collude with the rightwing, confuse the public, & sell us out at every turn.
3) The history of the Dem Party is one of deep partnership with Republicans, not of genuine opposition. The ballyhooed "rivalry" is just on the surface -- essentially, just a deception. The Dems were full co-partners in building the military-industrial complex and the national security state; in inflicting criminal wars in SE Asia & Latin America, etc etc. And since 2000, they have outdone themselves in shameless unprincipled collusion.
4) This is a party ready for the dustbin of history. The only "help" we should give them is helping them get there. We should focus on laying the groundwork for a party that genuinely represents our interests, not helping to resurrect a disgraced & decaying enemy.
5) The Democratic Party is one of two big business parties. Together, the 2 parties own a complete monopoly of the political system, & they use this monopoly to maintain ruling-class dominance. To believe that the slightly-less-evil of these parties can ever be a tool for freeing the great majority of the population from ruling-class control -- is utterly ludicrous. One can only accept such nonsense if one is brainwashed (as all of us in this country are, from birth), then refuses to open one's eyes.
6) The real danger of voting for a Democrat doesn't come from the physical act of pulling the lever (or pressing the Diebold key , to update that old phrase). It comes from the perpetuation of illusions, which in turn, tends to promote the undeserved & unfortunate general sense that the public is reasonably content with the choices that it's offered.
Conversely, a mass defection from the Dem Party would be a development of the greatest importance; it would represent a popular repudiation of the official political setup.
7) It's like a big machine: into one end, you feed millions of people who might potentially support radical change. You march them through the Democratic Party, and out the other end comes people who are tamed, docile, & politically disoriented. They might want universal health care & major cuts in defense spending, so they get seduced into supporting the Kerrys & Hillarys based on cheap lines about "progressives focused on the common good." And in a twinkling of an eye -- they find themselves sold out by these cynical charlatans.
8) Let me try to rephrase it one more time, to try to get the absurdity across: Maintaining a belief in Democrats means you expect that a big business party whose function is ensuring continued ruling-class dominance, is going to fight to keep you safe from the depredations of this ruling class. And it means you are ignoring all the history that demonstrates beyond any doubt that Democrats will not do this.
9) Taking over" the party is a naive illusion. Both parties are dominated and driven by the interests of huge corporations and plutocrats. Neither gives the slightest hoot about the well-being of the general public -- which, as both of them well know, is utterly defenseless, politically. Both parties regard the public as a lamb to be fleeced on behalf of their (the parties') patrons. This condition is non-negotiable & not subject to alteration by ordinary well-meaning people.
10) Both parties represent little more than the will of giant oil, banking, media and defense corporations. The only way they differ is in marketing strategies, target populations, rhetorical style, & external fluff.
Nonsense!
We don't have enough wealth to end global poverty.
Our wealth is slipping away.
Even if we ended unnecessary wars, and unnecessary programs: NASA, for example; we don't have the wealth to maintain the anything like our current standard of living.
Since at least 50% of the US population is totally out of touch with reality; democracy is *Nonsense* as well.
The only solution would be have a meaningful qualification test for voters -- each election.
I think fascism is a much more realistic concept.
Of course, there are those that say we already have fascism.
To paraphrase the opening sentence;
There is no need to criticize a murderous regime because you may somehow feel "disappointment" because I'm here to tell you that lying, robbing, and murdering are progressive behaviors.
The rest of the article could be paraphrased as;
Eat out of the toilet before you get thrown outside!
you know, the GOP are really much better at fear-mongering.