A Democracy of Fear

[athelind]

I originally started composing this in response to something in rain_luong's LJ, in which he stated his opinion that the people who voted for Nader cost Gore the election. I decided to post it here, instead -- while, arguably, more people read Rain's journal than my own, I didn't want it getting buried in the hundred-plus responses that thread has generated.

Nader did not "cost Gore the election." Nader voters didn't "waste their vote."

It's more accurate to say that the huge proportion of people who didn't vote at all cost Gore the election.

It's much more accurate to say that Gore cost Gore the election, by not providing sufficient motivation for that vast majority. Gore, and the "New Democrats", the people who decided that the only way to compete against the Hard-Core Right-Wingers was to move to the middle.

Maybe if the Democrats had the balls to stand for something again, to be something more than Not Republican, they could actually have motivated some of the people who Just Don't Give A Damn Anymore -- the people who've given up.

Yes, I put my vote in for Gore. Even after the insanity of Dubya's reign, though, I'm not entirely sure that I should have. Gore and the rest of the New Democrats aren't exactly The People's Friends -- they just align themselves with different corporations. I have no doubt that Gore would have proved the lesser of two evils -- but not that he would be a "good". His "moderate" politics favor the RIAA, Carnivore, the WTO, and "most favored nation" status for the World's Largest New Market, despite its dismal human rights record.

The difference between the Republicans and the New Democrats is that the New Democrats prefer more prosperous, contented serfs.

I let myself be governed by fear in 2000, fear of the specter of a Conservative-dominated Supreme Court and the "lasting damage" that could result if a Republican President appointed another member.

I did not vote FOR Gore. I voted AGAINST Bush.

And that's wrong. That's not the way democracy is supposed to work. That's not the way this nation is supposed to work. We're supposed to make these decisions based on who'll do the most good, not the least damage.

I am tired of the Lesser of Two Evils. I'm tired of having to vote against candidates, because neither of the dominant party have anyone I can vote for.

I will not succumb to a "Democracy" ruled by Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.

Comments

[bluerain.livejournal.com]

I'm not disputing any of that, except to point out, once again, that, by the raw numbers, a small percentage of Nader's Florida votes would have put the election out of Jeb and George's conniving grasp. So unless you believe that all of Nader's voters would otherwise have refused to vote (something that would be hard to argue), the fact is that the Nader vote was the difference between President Bush and President Gore. Period. I'm sorry, but that cannot be disputed.

I'm with you that the Democrats are not exactly pure and holy either, particularly the DNC strain of Democrats (Clinton, Lieberman, arguably Gore). But President Gore would not have marched into Iraq. He would not be seeking to amend the constitution to further ban gay marriage. He would not have coddled Enron to the same degree. He would not have slashed taxes to the point of record deficits. And he would not have taken a machete to environmental and safety regulation.

So he's the lesser of the two evils, as you put it. And let's face it, the American system is a winner-take-all system. I'm of the opinion that the European-style parliamentary governments have much improved on the US model, and that the only way we in the US could vote for an actual good and have it do any actual good would be for representation in the government to reflect actual vote totals rather than just majorities (or, lately, pluralities). I'm all for scrapping the current system in favor of a parliament.

But until we get that change, I strongly urge you to support the lesser evil once again in the next election. Unless you want the greater evil to have another four years in which to irretrievably fuck up the country.

[jdarkwulf.livejournal.com]

Well, I've been arguing for a couple of years that our government has surpassed its expiration date, and it's time for another reset.

Under colonial government, we rose up against the tyranny of uncontrolled taxation, under-representation, and an overcontrolling government.

Now, over the ensuing 200+ years, our own government has evolved to one of uncontrolled taxation, under-representation, and overcontrol.

Now, I'm a wimp, and so I'm not remotely suggesting another revolution. But it seems to me that we've kind of broken our own ideals of that time.

[pathia.livejournal.com]

Actually during Clinton's years both Clinton and Gore wanted to take out Saddam, but oddly enough the Republican house more or less blocked it. They stated Saddam was the worst threat to freedom in the world because he was seekiing nuclear technology.

Strangely it's completely opposite now for both parties.

I don't really see why this happened, but it did, trying to maximize their bases I suppose.

[hydra-velsen.livejournal.com]

I voted for Bush. I wont do that next time, unless the dems put up some horribly unqualified candidate.

[dewhitton.livejournal.com]

Mike Moore has, or had, a story on his homepage about Nader being worried by people who claimed he'd cost Gore the election. Moore told him to tell them "Yes! It was ALL MY FAULT. Me, On my own. I did it. You can blame all Gore's failures on ME. I am the only person who caused Bush to win."

[bluerain.livejournal.com]

He'd certainly have the element of surprise. :>

Certainly there were other factors. Gore ran an incompetent campaign, squandering what should have been an easy victory. The Democrats have been neglecting their liberal base for years, inviting exactly the sort of rebellion they got in 2000 (they're lucky it wasn't bigger). Bush's team in Florida was willing to go to any lengths to see that he won. The Supreme Court handed down an overtly political decision.

But from a purely pragmatic standpoint, we the lowly voters can do only one thing: vote. All those other factors are beyond our control. And they're irrelevant if a non-Bush candidate can manage a clear majority. I think, realistically, that should be the goal.

[dewhitton.livejournal.com]

I watched it all as an interested outsider. Here in Australia it is compulsory to go to vote, so when someone is elected it's through a proper majority, not by a majority of whoever voted (or otherwise, in the current case)

[athelind.livejournal.com]

Compulsory to vote? Hmmm. Interesting concept. I think I'm jealous.

[araquan.livejournal.com]

I'm not, myself. Compulsory voting may have its advantages, but I'm not necessarily sure that I want the folks who can't even bother themselves to vote voluntarily every couple of years to have any say in things. Besides... How does the Rush song go... "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." Abstention on the part of the truly disinterested is fine with me.

[athelind.livejournal.com]

Abstention on the part of the truly disinterested is fine with me.

And that captures the flip side -- which is why I only think I'm jealous.

There's very much a part of me that agrees with Heinlein's premise in Starship Troopers (Not to be confused with the abominable movie) -- the idea that you should earn your franchise through public service, after you've demonstrated that you can distinguish between your own personal self-interest and the good of the community (which should not be confused with "the state", thank you Mr. Verhoeven).

On the other claw, there's also a part of me that realizes just how easy it is for the Powers That Be to cultivate disinterest and apathy and the defeatist attitude that Voting Doesn't Make A Difference Anyway. Maybe if voting were compulsory, people might rouse themselves to pay attention to the issues and make at least a half-assed effort to make a half-assed decision.

You could always have a box on the ballot that says "I Abstain".

[dewhitton.livejournal.com]

No, it's compulsory to go to vote. You must go to the polling booth, have your name crossed off and they give you the forms. What happens after that is up to you.

When the votes are tallied they broadcast the number of votes each candidate got, plus they tell you the number of informal votes. You can tell what people think of the candidates by the way the percentages go. A high number of informal votes (ie incorrectly filled ballots) can give you an idea of what people thought of all the candidates.

[baxil.livejournal.com]

My main objection to the "Greens cost Gore the election!" line is that, similarly, Libertarians cost Gore the election by taking exactly that reasoning into account and defecting to Bush instead of voting their conscience. I am a registered Libertarian, although admittedly not a Florida one. Should I have taken your line of thought and "defected" to vote for the major party that best approximated my economic ideals? [Side note: I know, the GOP and Dems aren't nearly as far apart on that as they claim to be; but for some reason people consider Libertarians conservatives, and largely, those libs who go mainstream tend to do so on the GOP side.]

In the general case, and in the case of election 2K, I agree with Athelind. That having been said, the Democrats could run Satan next year on a platform of "Hellfire and damnation!" and I'd still vote Democrat in 2004. I've lived through GOP presidents and GOP governors and I've never been so actively scared of an incumbent administration in my life.

[xylen.livejournal.com]

Anymore presidential elections are like going to the adult toy store and deciding which dildo is going to hurt the least.

[chrissawyer.livejournal.com]

You know, you are absolutely right.
That is the reason I would have voted for Gore. Because he wasn't Bush.

And the Dems really were not our friend under clinton. There's the lovely defense of marriage act, Nafta, and the further carte blanching of corporate america to do whatever the hell they want.

I really don't know how to feel anymore...

[silussa.livejournal.com]

Actually, the lead up to the election of 2000 caused me to switch affiliations from Republican to Libertarian. (yes, I did vote that way)

Both parties are almost the same; they only differ in how they want government bigger. In the end, it is still bigger, still costing more to run, and providing less back in services then could be done at the state or local level.

As for the results of the 2000 election, as a resident of a county which had to do a recount, I would only point out two things.

1. We're not all incompetent; our recount here matched the reported figures, and was done in plenty of time to comply with the deadlines.
   
2. No matter how the courts ruled, a fair proportion of the electorate would be, and continue to be, screaming that the election was stolen. It's history; work on the next one, to make it more honest/clear.
   

[araquan.livejournal.com]

Oh, while we're on the subject of politics... I met the enemy at the fair today. Well, technically yesterday. But I've already spewed my short story about that.