Reply #8: The problem lies in the basic question that people ask [View All]

[IrateCitizen]

I used to fall into this trap as well.

Most people who put forth one issue (whether it is IWR or something else) as their litmus test, ask, "What candidate most closely represents my views?"

If electoral politics were an arena with some degree of honesty and integrity, then such a question would be valid. But electoral politics is a cesspool. It always has been, and it is a rare soul indeed who is able to enter that cesspool and climb out WITHOUT smelling like shit. And those who do are often perceived as too "unyielding" due to their propensity for exposing unpleasant truths rather than being content with spraying perfume over the stench.

Therefore, the question I ask myself NOW is, "Which choice provides, in the end analysis, the lesser amount of RESISTANCE to advancing the goal of a better society?"

Electoral politics is not the place to look for purity. The only place in which we can really seek out purity is within our personal sphere -- and even that is questionable. When you seek purity within electoral politics, then you're not really making it about the "greater good" -- you're really making it about what YOU want, personally.

The onus is not on politicians to fight for what YOU want. The onus is on YOU to fight for what YOU want. This means that if the system is not doing what you want, you really only have two choices -- to passively cooperate with it (and therefore passively endorse it), or to refuse to give it your cooperation. Of course, noncooperation has consequences, some of which can be rather unsavory.

For example, if you are against the invasion and occupation of Iraq, you can write letters to your representatives in Congress and write letters to the editor in order to try and persuade others. You can even go to a demonstration and march against it. But if the policy continues, then you are faced with the above choice. If you choose to refuse to give your continued cooperation, then the choice is relatively simple (if not easy) -- refuse to continue to pay your taxes that finance the occupation. Even better yet, encourage other like-minded people to do the same.

Of course, the backlash against such a noncooperation will be rather unpleasant. The system will inevitably do what it can to coerce you into passive cooperation -- including legal action and possible jail time. But if you truly feel that the cessation of that policy is non-negotiable, that has to be a price you are willing to pay. You must be willing to sacrifice your comfort and luxury for the achievement of that goal, if you hold it in such high regard.

But you can't go on projecting your outrage on a politician who is simply doing what politicians do. The only thing that does is to remove your own responsiblity and project it on to others -- not a very noble nor "pure" undertaking, IMHO.