A DU recipe for irrelevance

[jpgray]

First, say the system is flawed and corrupt. You can refuse to vote for or support any major party candidate on that basis, since all are flawed. Then, when the major party ignores your protest and goes after the voters who will -vote- for their candidates, you can claim the party doesn't represent you, thereby justifying your further lack of participation.

It's the perfect cycle.

[Emit]

1. For all my bitching

I always vote.

[emilyg]

5. So do I. I view it as a privilege.

[lonestarnot]

10. And a duty!

:patriot:

[jpgray]

26. Well, bitching is an essential part of participation

If you're not bitching at the Democrats, you're not paying much attention.

[Emit]

27. I bitch about more than just Democrats

but I get your point. ;)

[proud2BlibKansan]

2. Work hard to elect Democrats

especially the ones you think are progressive. Give up your free time, go home just to sleep, ignore your family, take time off of work and focus every ounce of energy you have on getting these 'progressive' Dems elected. Oh and give them money too. Celebrate when they win. Then when they go back on their campaign promises, when they don't vote to end the war or hold bush and cheney accountable, call them. Go to their offices. Lobby them. When they refuse to take your calls or refuse to see you, even when they call the capitol police and have you arrested, keep on supporting them. Cause after all, they are far better than republicans. They want to end the bush regime too!

And by all means, keep those blinders on. Taking them off would cause too big of a shock.

[jpgray]

6. Yes, anyone who supports Gore, Feingold or Kucinich is just a tool of the system with blinders on

How could I forget? All the Democratic party is just a corrupt cesspool of shills, who will be brought to heel by broad brush accusations, emotional rants and illiterate armchair strategizing.

[timtom]

41. Did I miss a "sarcasm" emoticon?

n/t

[jpgray]

43. I figured it was unnecessary

[timtom]

46. Thanks.

Just checking.

[jpgray]

42. dupe

[cali]

12. Then why bother?

If your disillusionment is so profound, why not just hang it up?

[proud2BlibKansan]

18. Because I have only one country

and believe it or not, I find it worth defending. Silly me, losing my constitutional rights really matters to me. So does watching my friends get arrested (and assaulted) by capitol hill cops. Only a coward would give up and walk away.

Besides, I am not much of a shopper and I detest American Idol. I don't care if Brittany gets custody of her kids and I am not the least bit interested in OJ's latest legal problems. :)

[TahitiNut]

3. The system!! Love it or love it!!

:dunce:

[jpgray]

8. Yes! Refusing to participate in the system is the way to change it!

:dunce:

[TahitiNut]

11. Yes, and refusing to improve the system is the way to respect participation.

[jpgray]

14. My argument can't be so scary that people are already making up fantasy interpretations of it

Oh wait, this is GD.

[TahitiNut]

19. Only in your dreams

... or hallucinations. :eyes: :shrug:

First, read ... http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/02/10/16_voting.html

Now, see if you can actually give some intellectually honest respect to people who make their own choices for their own principled reasons ... without projecting your own strawman hyperbole onto them. It's called 'democracy' - or the closest approximation we have.

Some do their best to promulgate improvements in the 'system' that would result in greater inclusiveness and enfranchisement ... while others sneer at and and berate others and support a "little bit of evil."

[jpgray]

22. If you refuse to participate in the system, you can't expect the system to value your views

They won't chase after you until you participate, they'll just ignore you in favor of the votes they can easily pander for. There's nothing in your circumambulatory article to refute that basic fact. When only those in power can change the system, you have to do everything possible to put the most sympathetic people -in power- if you want change. A protest vote against those who don't support your views enough is worthless if it helps those who want to -destroy- your views get in office. That doesn't advance your values in terms of policy at all, but rather crushes the chances for change even further.

[TahitiNut]

29. I am NOT responsible for the (predicted) votes of others. I'm responsible for my own.

I refuse to play that game. I refuse to succumb to coercion, whether that be threats or name-calling or some specter of Borg-like loyalty.

Personally, I believe it's delusional in the extreme to surrender to fear, antipathy, or coercion in casting my vote. I will NOT vote FOR anyone whose stances I regard as inimical to my values and principles. I regard that as political cowardice and ethical corruption. As long as I can vote and as long as there are ways I can express MY choice in the balloting system, I will do so.

The world (and this forum) seems to be filling up with those who'd mimic the Chimpenfuhrer and proclaim "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists!"

Fuck that morally bankrupt coercion!

I choose to vote - and have done so in every general election since I became enfranchised. I also choose to advocate for systemic improvements that accommodate greater inclusiveness and a more truthful reflection of the electorate's preferences - NOT our antipathies.

If the behavior of the electorate, faced with such coercions and the 'gaming' of the system by the prevalent POWERS (in service to power and not the people) then causes a split in the majority and selection of a destructive minority, effectively driving the nation into the ditch, so be it. Better earlier than later.

[jpgray]

30. You see your delicate sensibilities as more important than a woman's right to choose?

More important than human/labor rights, the SCOTUS, corporate regulation, the environment, etc., etc.? All these things will be impacted by which asshole is president in '09. Knowing both options are bad doesn't mean you can justifiably throw up your hands in the air and refuse to vote for either. Why?

Because it's not all about -you-, it's about what those small differences will become once magnified by the office. It means millions of lives affected by small differences, such as what justices go on the bench, which bills avoid veto, whether the new Kyoto gets signed, etc. Even Chomsky agrees with me on the importance those small differences take on once they affect policy, why can't you? Or are those differences not worth holding your nose for?

[TahitiNut]

31. Again, you proclaim "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists!"

Unfuckingreal. :eyes: Wannabe Nazi's imposing a rhetorical "Sophie's Choice" on others. Sorry. I won't play.

[jpgray]

32. Why do you keep putting words in my mouth? My questions can't be that terrifying.

It's very simple--are your sensibilities worth more to you than all those issues? Because all of them are affected by those slight differences between the two parties. You can refuse to vote for either major party and claim a moral superiority, but it's a hollow superiority because the person in office will affect millions of lives. You're comfortable writing off those lives based on some imagined standard of purity? How do you justify that? A protest vote doesn't change the system, it doesn't influence policy, and it is ignored by the media. What practical good are you doing other than soothing your own conscience?

[TahitiNut]

34. You're sounding ineducable.

You repeat and wallow in false dichotomies ... seemingly insensate and mouthing ad hominems. I get it. You don't respect (or even comprehend) the morals and ethics of others. Fine. Enjoy the ride.

:shrug:

[jpgray]

36. I'm asking you to consider the practical effect of those "morals," and you don't have an answer

Maybe you should consider why that is?

[TahitiNut]

37. Nonsense.

You've adopted an "ends justify the means" posture and insist that a consequentialist POV is the sole valid POV while demeaning principles and values of those who'd subscribe to a deontological POV.

I've presented a position of subscribing to the duty to a Categorical Imperative ... doing that which I'd have everyone do ... and you insist that the imperative is to "do that which others will do out of fear of the worse instead of a desire for the best." I reject such an ethic. Period.

I've repeatedly highlighted the logical failures inherent in such myopia and you wrongly insist that it's not responsive. You are apparently so immersed and committed to such false paradigms that any glimpse into alternatives is impossible for you.

So ... I'll just refer to the quotation in my sig and wish you well. :hi:

[jpgray]

38. Ah, what beautiful projection

Your end is self-satisfaction, and your means is abdicating your responsibility to keep the worst people out of office.

My end is keeping the worst people out of office, and my means is holding my nose as I cast a vote for whoever can best defeat those people.

Your method helps put the worst people in office, the people who want to destroy all progressive values. The upside? You feel superior. Hooray for that. My method helps ambitious cowards while keeping the fascists out of power. The downside? I don't vote my values. But I vote to keep the greatest enemies of those values out of office. Something no protest vote is capable of doing.

[TahitiNut]

39. When you don't vote your values, you'll NEVER see those values prevail.

It's that simple. The fundamental weakness inherent in the consequentialist view is the myopia - an inability to see the larger picture and the inevitable abandonment of principles and values. A consequentialist assumes prescience ... to the limits of their prognostication. Consequentialists most often reject the existence of a God, and adopt that omniscience of god-hood for themselves.

Cheney is a sociopathic pragmatist. Junior is a narcissistic pragmatist. 'Principles' and 'values' are not their guideposts; they're convenient rationalizations to be discarded and ignored when inconvenient.

They, along with the pragmatist-in-chief Karl Rove, demonstrate the evil in an "ends justify the means" POV.

Thus, it's never a surprise to me when I hear variations on their theme of "you're either with us or you're with the terrorists" theme that the individual engaging in such fallacious rhetoric is also a consequentialist/pragmatist.

Consequentialists almost ALWAYS sneer and demean proponents of values and principles ... in a manner virtually identical to Smirk's parody of Karla Faye Tucker's plea for mercy.

You're welcome to their club. I won't have anything to do with it.

[jpgray]

40. Bush and Cheney are in tune with -your- philsophy: "Never compromise, and damn the practical effect"

Their ignorance of practical effect made their invasion a disaster, and their refusal to compromise on their "values" saw their political capital evaporate in the face of public anger. They pushed their "values" and followed them with total ignorance of their impact. That's exactly what you advocate. Your responsibility doesn't extend to who gets into office and what happens to all the people affected by that, it only extends to to how you feel about pulling a fucking lever. What a selfish, sociopathic philosophy.

[TahitiNut]

57. That's delusional.

But it's typical for consequentialists to be blind to the distinctions ... and have the greatest antipathy to other consequentialists (i.e. Cheney/Bush).

Remember, for a consequentialist it's OK to lie ... if you don't get caught. It's OK to torture ... as long as you don't GET tortured. Consequentialists subscribe to the uneven playing field ... as long as it's to THEIR advantage.

And consequentialists are, by far, the most likely to shift the blame onto smaller, weaker groups. For a consequentialist, coercion, bribery, threats, and all manner of "might makes right" power-plays are OK ... since the "end justifies the means."

When the foo shits, wear it. :shrug:

[jpgray]

62. Absolute moralism without regard for its effects is sociopathic. You share that trait with Bush

edit: This is way too snarky and really unfair. But comparing me to Bush or Cheney I guess is an easy way to push my buttons.


To you, it doesn't matter that the effect of a split progressive vote means the GOP is empowered and millions will be worse off. -You- are all that matters to you. You don't care at -all- about the effects of your vote, because you believe yourself to be "right," and everyone else to be "wrong."

Bush and Cheney are the same way. They believe their views are "right," and pursue dangerous strategies to promote those views without caring a whit about the disastrous likely effects. Your "consequentialist" definition of them is illusory, elastic to the point of meaninglessness, and wrong, because they don't care a bit about the ends or the means, they only care about themselves. Like, say, you.

They don't think about the impact of the Iraq war beyond its adherence to their values, just as you don't think about your vote beyond its adherence to -your- values. They don't think about the impacts of torture beyond how it might benefit -them-, just as you don't think about the impacts of a protest vote beyond how it might validate -you-.

The devastating impact of a GOP presidency isn't important to you, just as the millions dead to no purpose in Iraq isn't important to Bush or Cheney. Why isn't it?

Because you are at peace within your smug absolute sense of morality, and no suffering, no death toll, no practical -impact- of your actions can possibly matter to you. That's a sociopathic mentality, and I'm saddened to see it on a progressive board.

[dajoki]

69. I can't help but throw my two cents in...

I respect everybody's "principles" but when people start assuming what one poster's thoughts are it bugs me. "Wannabe Nazi's imposing a rhetorical "Sophie's Choice" on others". How did you get that from what the other poster has been saying? To me that's way out in left field.

It seems to me all the poster is saying is don't flush the election down the toilet because there is something wrong with candidate A's position on a certain issue vs. candidate B. And I totally agree. NO CANDIDATE IS PERFECT. Unfortunately that IS the system. Remember Nader?

We are all free to make our own choices at the ballot box, and I would never accuse somebody of selling out for voting their principles. As for me, I will work within the system and continue to vote for the Dem candidate in the general election, even though I may not agree with his/her stance on every issue. But by all means you should vote YOUR principles, and I respect that, however I will vote the way I see fit and I expect the same respect in return.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

4. I thought the rule is:

If you don't vote, you can't complain.

[fizzgig]

21. that's how i see it

welcome to du

:hi:

[lonestarnot]

7. Apathy sucks ass.

[Traps]

9. On the money

JP in South Africa we have the ANC which is miles ahead in terms of popularity.

The voters are basically becoming apathetic - In December they elect their new president which may well be Africa's next tyrant - Jacob Zuma.

The media and human rights groups are attacking the current president for corruption and flouting the constitution :

In essence his actions are driven by a need to force through a competent candidate in the leadership challenge :

http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/traps/2007/09/29/mbeki-constitutional-crisis-or-leadership-crisis/

People's failure to recognise the real danger, due to their anger, may well deliver Africa's worst tyrant yet.

[jpgray]

17. Holding asshole pols to a high standard is key, but the worst asshole always needs to lose

And in my opinion however high your standards, it's worth pitching in to help with that. An imperfect or even bad opposition is no reason for letting the absolute worst politicians get in office.

[Donnachaidh]

13. and of course, if those who disagree with the *candidate of the month*

voice their concerns -- marginalize them by posting this sort of thread.

Mission accomplished? :eyes:

[jpgray]

15. You'll have to direct me to the part of my argument that says criticism should be outlawed

Of course, it isn't there, but why don't you show me? Or did I magically imply it? Perhaps it's just that what I said doesn't fit with your caricature of it?

[lonestarnot]

16. There's a candidate of the month?

:rofl:

[ljm2002]

20. I've voted in every election...

...since I was eligible to vote, over 35 years ago, with one exception that was due to moving and being given incorrect information by the DMV so I was not registered in time. I communicate with my representatives, sharing my views on various issues. Yet my views have been made irrelevant by the party leaders, who routinely ignore the progressive wing.

It always amazes me that people are surprised when there is robust, heated debate during primary season. It's the nature of the beast. Of course we will be vocal, and make statements about who we can and cannot vote for.

But when push comes to shove, most of us vote anyway, and vote Democratic. It would take a lot this time to make me not vote for the Democratic candidate -- basically, they'd have to be caught red-handed in some sort of outright perfidy. But during the primaries, I most certainly will push for progressives over the corporate-friendly DLCers who have redefined their base to be the fringe. Call me old fashioned -- I preferred the party when it represented workers, and the poor, over the plutocrats.

[bigtree]

23. didja see Will Pitt's thread?

looks like there's a huge amount of folks here who agree with you

[Fierce]

24. That's the whole third-party mentality.

Whine about never succeeding in a two-party system; run mainly national-level candidates who have no chance of winning in a two-party system; rinse, repeat. If they are so certain they can't win in a two-party system, they should bring the revolution already and save us all a lot of time.

[sufrommich]

25. Amen,

So simple,yet so true.The "base" are the people who vote in Democrats,what's so hard to understand about that?.

[Kelly Rupert]

28. Spot on, my brother n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

33. The votes of the left are available. If the candidates don't want them, so be it.

The "major" candidates are going after the "moderate" votes, ignoring the left, and betting that they'll have no place to go.

It's a perfect way to continue the status quo of a corrupt system.

[jpgray]

35. But then the practical effect of the Leftist vote is to enable the GOP

When leftists refuse to vote for either party, that doesn't have a neutral effect--it helps the GOP. When there are only two viable parties, one that supports some progressive values (however weakly) and another that longs to destroy all progressive values, splitting the progressive vote even for the best reasons helps the latter get in office. And it is only those in office who can affect the system. Knowing that, I just can't see justifying a protest vote that has zero practical effect other than to indirectly help the GOP.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

47. Then it's kind of self-defeating not to pursue the votes of the left.

Isn't it?

The candidates seem to have no problem whatsoever, pursuing the "moderates" or right wing votes. They're making a choice. So can we.

[jpgray]

48. If the stakes weren't so high, I would agree with you. But we can't have another GOP president

And we certainly can't have another Republican majority Congress. The differences between the GOP and the Democrats are enough that I am willing to vote for a very imperfect Dem to stop a wholly evil Republican. Again, if the stakes were lower, I might agree with you, but when one party votes to return the right of habeas corpus to detainees and another votes to destroy that right, it's no longer about rejecting bad and less-bad for me. It's about defeating a truly evil, truly dangerous party as much as I possibly can.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

51. We disagree.

Not about the Republicans being evil, etc. But about how we go about repairing a corrupt system of 2 party rule controlled by a rich, powerful, elite.

I'm perfectly prepared to hold my nose and vote for the lesser of two evils depending on the issues at hand.

In this case, the issues, funding a catastrophic war and moving toward an even more catastrophic war, playing politics with peoples lives, override my nose holding abilities.

I may very well be voting for a Democrat in '08, unfortunately I will probably have to write the name in.

[jpgray]

52. I'm sorry. A GOP president would have an extremely negative impact on millions of people

And I just can't justify refusing to hold my nose for two minutes in order to help stop that.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

53. I'm not trying to convince you to.

We just see things differently, and will vote accordingly.

[philosophie_en_rose]

44. Bingo!

:applause:

[KharmaTrain]

45. This Place Is Sure Gonna Be Lonely A Year From Now

...if Hillary wins the nomination. Screw it if she wins millions of votes in the primaries...those people are "stupid" or "paid off" or "sell outs"...or they really aren't "Democrats".

I've been on this board since the early days and I still have yet to meet a DUer...and if I did, I probably wouldn't know it unless it came up in conversation. However, I do meet Democrats regularly...many of these people don't even know this place exists or laugh at it as being the far left equivelent of Freeperland.

In my way too many years of voting, there has rarely been a candidate who stands for everything I do...and I've been more dissapointed by those who promised things I believed in...inversely, I wasn't too hot on Carter or Clinton when they won the nomination but I would prefer any of them on their worst days than any Repugnican on their best.

[ronnykmarshall]

55. Say it, say it, say it again .......

[burythehatchet]

49. If the game is rigged, my conscience tells me that to play along is to

endorse the game. I can't do that.

[jpgray]

50. And if the outcome of that game imapcts millions of lives? Your conscience is mum on that?

As I said above, if the stakes weren't so high, I'd be more sympathetic to this argument.

[burythehatchet]

54. You are entitled to your beliefs,

mine are rooted more in Eastern philosophy and the principle of non-violent resistance. In these circumstances, playing along is simply not an option for me. I'll work hard for causes and for honest candidates, but when I realized that even the nomination process is completely packaged and marketed for our consumption, then the system obviously is not serving anyone except those that profit from it. Playing along is not an option for me.

ANother characteristic that distinguishes Western ideals is the belief you cling to that you have the ability to judge what is good and what is bad. In my reality, all I can do is perceive information and act according to my best information knowing full well that my actions will always lead to equal positive and negative outcomes, for me to have the ability to judge what is good and bad is simply too presumptuous.

[jpgray]

58. Fair enough, but most of politics is choosing the better of two bad options

Biden/Lugar and the IWR being one example. Two lousy bills, one that provides a fig leaf of accountability and isn't as open ended, the other being a blank check. Both suck, but can you in good conscience abstain from voting for either when one of them is sure to pass? I wouldn't want to be in that position either.

[burythehatchet]

60. I have no problem with choosing when the decisino is based on my free will

I have become completely disenchanted by the forcing of Hillary down my gullet. I thought that the primaries were when we got to choose our agenda. I wonder if her handlers know how many of me there are out there. btw, I've been active in Dem politics since '82.

[EstimatedProphet]

67. Give me a break!

Not voting isn't non-violent resistance! It's NOT PARTICIPATING! Wake up! THe Repubs WANT YOU TO STAY HOME!

If you really want to change things with non-violent resistance, you go to the White house or Congress and stand in front of the door with 1,000 other people and don't let them through until they listen to you. You stand there until they are forced to have you taken to jail, and then you come back when you get out, and you keep doing that until you force their hand! It isn't simply choosing to not vote!

[jpgray]

68. Yep.

[burythehatchet]

70. here you are, have a break on me.

Let me know how PARTICIPATING in a CHARADE works out for ya. I think we already know the answer, then you can blame me!

[renie408]

72. When you say it is a charade...

are you talking about rigged voting machines or MSM manipulation of public opinion to slant it toward the candidate of their choice?

If it is the former, we need to keep beating the drum on election fraud. If it is the latter, you are not obligated to believe what the media tells you. You can decide to vote for someone else.

[burythehatchet]

74. all of the above...plus the complete ineptitude of our "opposition" party. DLC=cancer on America

[renie408]

71. Man, I love that picture of the WH with Sauron's Eye on top of it!!

And you're right about everything you said in your post, too.

[Skidmore]

56. Perhaps irreverance is the word you are looking for.

This party needs to change as well, and becoming more like the right wing is not the answer. We don't need to adopt their war or their corporate welfare system. I hope the Democratic Party starts shifting back to being a populist party, or it will truly become irrelevant.

[Raejeanowl]

59. I ALWAYS Vote

And I remain amazed at the rationalizations of those who don't. Flawed, corrupt, even criminally hijacked and defrauded, I can satisfy myself that I did my piece.

While I'm at it, I'll keep loving my country until it's my country again, too.

[NC_Nurse]

61. I always vote.

Sometimes I wonder why, other times I remember. :-)

[L. Coyote]

63. Are you assuming DU HAS relevance to non-DUers?

[cali]

64. heh. exactly. n/t

[sufrommich]

65. It has none.

Although,to some posters,you would think we are sitting in the smoky back room of yore.

[renie408]

73. Good point. n/t

[EstimatedProphet]

66. Hear hear

Here's the thing I find frustrating: there are people on DU that paint the US as being already ruined, and say that we're already fully under a police state. Then they talk about trying to fix the system by having a protest.

:banghead: