One day down the road, I hope to have a clock that chimes on the hour, though I hope said chiming is of a quiet nature...
The other night, as my imaginary clock chimed nine, Abby and I sank into the depths of our couches to watch the second Presidential debate (didn't I pledge that I would be ruminating about all things physical and natural on this blog? That politics would be a footnote at best?). An hour later I was asleep, only to awake for fleeting glimpses of icy stares and frosty sneers as our two candidates bantered back and forth about who said what or voted when...I for one knew who I was voting for, but the Sandman pried open a door in the depths of my mind that had been locked these past several months; as I dragged myself from couch to bed, I realized how thoroughly disappointed and bored I was with both of these esteemed and accomplished candidates, and I was left wondering if either one would really make much of a difference in this chaotic, dissolving world...
I have been thinking more and more about this election lately, and I am once again being drawn back to the same questions that have haunted me since 2000, when I cast my first presidential ballot for Ralph Nader. Yes, for those of you not already privy to this piece of trivia, I did vote for Nader. And no, it was NOT my fault that Gore lost. I was voting as a resident of the Bay State after all. Even had I been voting in a more contentious state of the union, I for one do not blame Ralph Nader for the past eight years, and I still lament the fact that he couldn't quite bring in that 5% of the vote that would have helped the Green Party gain some larger sense of legitimacy. Perhaps this two party death-grip on politics I detest so much would be a thing of the past had the Green Party been able to carry the momentum of those pre-2000 months through the election…
I have to say I have not followed Nader closely this time 'round. In 2004, I chose to pass him by and vote for John Kerry, a candidate I was by no means attracted to. My vote was one born out of fear and dread that W. would win and that things would only get worse if he maintained his residence on Pennsylvania Avenue.
It is this very dilemma that struck again two autumns ago as I voted for the first time in a large election in my new state of Pennsylvania. After much soul searching, I settled on the fact that I could not support Democrat Bob Casey despite the pleas I received, and in some cases the berating I took from friends and colleagues. Yes, I was horrified by the "other" choice, but I was more than put off by Mr. Casey and was left with the question I find so intriguing and which I find to be absent from the vast majority of political discourse: Does one vote out of fear or for what one truly believes in? Does one vote in a certain manner because one should or purely out of conscience?
I value voting with one’s conscience. When I voted for Nader in 2000, I felt good about my choice. I felt like I accomplished part of my duty as an American citizen by voting for the individual I thought would be the best leader for our county. In 2004 I voted for the candidate with the best chance of unseating the man I despised and who I feared would lead our nation in directions even darker and more chaotic than he already had, but I did not think he was the best man for the job. Many would argue that I fulfilled some duty then as well, but I was not satisfied with my decision and was disheartened that I had no other avenue of choice. Actually, I was disheartened that all other candidates had been discredited as a farce, imposter or worse despite the fact that some of the third party candidates seemed much more interesting and promising in my eyes. Or one of them did, at least.
And in 2006? Well, in 2006, I felt the heat. Not voting for Casey would only help Santorum, people cried. How could I stand by in a tight race and not support the Democrat? No one else has a chance, and every vote matters...I did not vote for Casey, and I was prepared for the hate mail had Casey lost by my one ballot. It was the hardest decision I had made as a voting American, but I felt better about this decision than I ever had due to the effort I put in while learning about my choices. In 2006, I decided I would not vote out of fear again, and so I wrote in the Green Party candidate who had, of course, been run out of the election.
It's 2008 now and a vote lies just over the horizon that may prove to be one of the most critical elections in American history once it rises and shows us which way it's going to run. The clock is winding down, and the tolling is about to sound, signaling the moment when we all put our money down and select the men and women best suited to run our country for the next half decade and perhaps beyond. Maybe it's the impending finale that has me thinking about this question once again. Vote for the candidate that has a chance? Or vote for the candidate I think is best suited to run this country with the ideas most dear to me? Vote for fear of the other party winning, or vote for the one I feel is the right candidate?
2008 is different than 2004, and it's different than 2006. I like Barack Obama. I really do. He inspires me, and it's more than his pretty words and captivating rhetoric. My friend Jake comments on the importance of saying why we support the candidate we do. I think his point is valid and important, but I’ll save my reasoning for Obama for future discourse. Let’s just say that I genuinely like this Democrat, which despite my political leanings is actually a novel moment for me. If I vote for him, it will not be entirely due to my feelings toward the other ticket, and I have confidence that Obama will be a President I admire.
Yet, something is beginning to nag. Is this truly the best candidate for the job? Is this man the one who inspires me most when the captivating orations are stripped away? Does he really best represent me on the issues facing us today? I'm not sure. There's an elephant that is beginning to emerge from the depths of my mind. It's not one of those red, tusked goliaths we see at constant war with the blue barnyard beasts of burden. It's the green one. Nader might not be running for the green party any longer, but I still think of him as green. I haven't allowed myself to read about Nader this time around. Maybe it's because I'm scared it will change my opinion of Obama. Maybe I'm too frightened of four more years of Republican rule, and I know that if I open that door I will once again be confronted with the question of how I should vote. Whether resisting this two party system and voting for the true yearnings of my heart and mind is the message I want to send on November 4 or whether I should stay on the ship. The ticking of the clock is growing ever more piercing as the days slip by and I’m not living in Massachusetts any longer…
And so I am left wondering if I should revisit my vote. In 2006, a friend said, “Brent, I admire you for your conviction and thoughtfulness, but this isn’t the time for some idealistic, symbolic statement. Vote for Casey.” That was the idea of it anyway. That’s what people said about Nader in 2000, and it cost him and the Green Party votes that could have changed the face of American politics, and in my opinion the third party movement surrounding the Green Party in 2000 has only been slowing down since. Many people want some degree of change. I’ve heard countless people on all sides say how disenchanted they are with the two parties we have representing us today. But when will it actually be acceptable for us to begin to call for change by casting votes for those who do not wear red or blue? When will it be accepted that we should be able to see the big hitters of the Democratic and Republican parties face off against the unfettered and fresh points of views of third party candidates? When will we actually call out for the objectivity and choice our country holds so dear? When will changes be made that allow for a more open election that could produce a candidate who isn’t some shade of purple? I’d like to think that these changes could begin this fall and a vote for Nader might mean something this time around. The cynic in me, however, believes that a vote for Nader will bring about no shift in the tectonic plates of American Democracy and that in 2012 we’ll still be voting for two parties. Debates will still be between two members selected by the Democrats and Republicans. And I am scared that in a state like Pennsylvania, a vote for Nader could hurt Obama’s chances of winning. So once again, I ask myself who I am voting for…
1 comment:
I think I'd be excited for people to vote for Ralph Nader IF they considered voting only part of their responsibility.
If you vote for a main stream candidate, because you're screaming in unison with approximately 50% of all voters, your voice makes real (though statistically tiny) noise, and you get the luxury of being politically lazy if you so choose. If you want scream with Nader, however, I don't think political laziness is a virtuous option, for if polls show weeks before the election that Nader will not achieve the 5% or whatever the magic number of the moment is, then your voice runs the risk of never being heard.
I guess the appropriate next sentence would be something hilarious about trees falling in silent forests, and that would tie us nicely back to Brent's original blog goals, but I got nothing good. Sorry.
Anyway, the point is that if you want to vote for Nader, I think the pragmatic thing to do is to MAKE SURE your voice gets heard. And what that means to me is that my ideal Nader supporter, first and foremost, hustles like crazy to achieve a critical Nader mass. He evangelizes. He educates. He sits down with everyone he knows and explains why it's big picture important that Nader get X% of the vote. And if he and the rest of his evangelist friends convince enough people that Nader's the man, and it looks likely that they'll get a pragmatically meaningful number of votes, then he casts his vote and hustles one more day, dragging old ladies to the polls.
If, however, he can't drum enough support, instead of voting silently, I think it'd be noble of him to hold his nose, vote for the less objectionable candidate, reconvene with his cohorts, and come up with a plan to achieve the critical mass next year.
Martyrs only spur change if they die in public.
Or something like that.
Post a Comment