Your Vote is not a Surrender of Intellectual or Ethical Autonomy

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

There have been dozens and dozens of threads over the last month chastising people for complaining about policies Obama ran on, as if their vote that McCain not become president was like signing a fine-print filled contract of ethical disengagement from American life.

What is the sense in that? We have two parties. Only the most brain-dead partisan could ever agree with 100% of a candidate's promises or party's platform.

Coming out of Iowa it was guaranteed that the next President of the United States would be pro-Afghanistan engagement. Period.

Does it follow from that fact that no American should ever comment negatively on Afghanistan?

I am neutral on Afghanistan because I can see points on both sides--I cannot get a settled sense of how it interlocks for good or ill with Pakistan so must defer to Obama's intelligence and decency on this matter--but I am not about to lambaste the anti-war crowd. They should raise a ruckus, if for no other reason that killing people should--even in the best of causes--always be controversial. The last ten years have been a stern lesson in the need to separate "pro-war" and "serious," and DU is a hell of a place to see the word pacifist used as a slur, suggesting complete un-seriousness.

Take any issue you like; mandates, NAFTA, choice, establishment clause, GLBT... these are all issues that various candidates engaged in ways that upset many people here. (Often in ways I disagree with, but I agree with their right to disagree.)

Are they required to shut the fuck up because they chose the lesser of two (or three, or ten) evils?

American citizens are free in their views and politicians must often bend to popular will. It is lunacy to say that politicians are free in their views and it is the people who must bend.

And, of course, the worst possible reason to tell someone to think x, y or z is that a majority of the population thinks it. Surely nobody is to have their personal views determined by popular vote.


It is very bad form to tear up the internet encouraging people to vote for Obama despite their concerns (good so far...) and then, once the votes are counted, turn around and say that voting for Obama somehow rendered their concerns invalid. (bad, bad, bad)

But a lot of political actors on the internet have done precisely that.

Yuck.

[sandnsea]

1. Comment negatively on Afghanistan all you want

Just stop saying you've been betrayed or lied to because that's bullshit.

It would be fantabulous if people would learn to debate facts and policies instead of personalities around here.

[BeFree]

3. Yep

Obama said all along that we need to fight them over there.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

5. I am not a critic of the Afghanistan policy

I cannot find certainty on the topic. I can argue both sides, hence I must chose to argue neither.

But I can certainly respect people who are against it, even if erroneous as policy. The world is not suffering a shortage of people who just plain oppose blowing folks up.

Perhaps they will be more cynical in future, which is the implication of the general argument.

[sandnsea]

9. When I know what the Afghanistan policy is

then I'll decide whether or not I'm a critic. Otherwise I agree with you completely. There are those who oppose all war, that's fine. Others who think 9/11 was an inside job so they oppose the Afghanistan war. And others who don't think terrorism an be fought through warfare. Probably other reasons to oppose the war as well. Great, we should have lots of discussion on the facts because blowing people up, no matter who is doing it, is a serious matter and I'm sure it is to the President too, despite those around here who just want to call him a Bush-lite warmonger.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

14. With that caveat, yes

I should have said "what the policy appears to be at this time"

[tekisui]

2. Well said.

:thumbsup:

[Lord Helmet]

4. It's the herding instinct and you're doing it too with this post.

The brow beating from partisans on this website is surreal.

[avaistheone1]

6. How is it herding when the post is encouraging free thinking?

[Lord Helmet]

7. horseshit -- it's just yet another attempt to manipulate the thinking of others

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

8. As is all communication... including your reply

Welcome to membership is a highly social species with a remarkably developed linguistic capacity.

[Clio the Leo]

10. Do you think that the Pres. could have benefited hearing feedback on this during the campaign....

.... hearing from a big chunk of his constituency that they were NOT in favor of troop escalation? Is it fair to slam him for something when you (in general) didn't slam him when he was trying to get your (in general) vote?

I'm not even sure of the answer to that myself, but it's something think about.

Generally, I think if people here want to complain about it, that's their right .... not only because this is America but because this is DU. But I think it comes across to some of us as a bit late. If it's easy to complain about President Obama's decision while he's tucked safely away in the White House, why was it not easy to do when he was out on the campaign trail and Captain McWar and the Wolf Huntress were staring down at us? It comes off as questionably motivated.

It's not that I think someone doesn't have the right to protest or that I think they dont support the President in general .... it just seems that they're doing it now out of a climate of political safety so to speak. If someone was passionate about it, why not do it a year ago when doing so MIGHT have cost him an election?

Again, not that the litmus test for anyone's posting should be that it pleases me. ;)


**And for those might say, "well, things have changed since then" ... then replace Fall of '08 with Spring of '09. My question is the same.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

11. We give our candidates wide latitude to seek voters in the middle

For Dems to oppose Iraq without appearing to be blanket pacifists we came up with the, "I favor fighting the RIGHT war."

This also served as a dig against Bush for ever catching Bin Laden.

I was good politics and most Dems took it up in one way or another. Obama didn't invent it. It was widely used in 2006.

I think what happened was that people heard Obama's Afghanistan bluster and wrote it off as political posturing. And since Hillary was at least as Afghan hawkish there was no practical alternative anyway for the anti-Afghanistan voter.

And now they feel betrayed because it isn't playing out as just a clever way to appeal to voters in the center.

They are probably as mad at themselves as at Obama.

[Clio the Leo]

12. lol, well I can't have much sympathy .....

..... for those suddenly regretting their political disingenuousness. (If that's the case.)

And it's not like he came up with this notion of "dumb wars" and "not dumb wars" for the 2008 campaign. ..... He made clear he wasn't a pacifist way before 2006.

"Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances." - 10/2/2002

[quaker bill]

13. correct

A vote is just a vote. It is not a profoud moral statement or sacred. You select the candidate you most favor (I happen to favor the Democratic Party candidate most likely to win), and you cast your ballot. That is all there is to it. It is always a choice of the most good, it has never been a choice for the "perfect".

When you win, you get results, not all of them are as good as you might hope, but all of them are better than the only remotely viable alternative. It never stops me from believing in a better way and a better day. That we are somewhat closer is sufficient return on my ballot.