Voting is on the mind of the general public these days, obviously. Some people are wrestling with who to vote for, while others wonder if voting really matters at all. Both are legitimate perspectives. It’s your democratic right to vote or not vote, despite what frightened liberals have been saying. Voting is not the entirety of democracy. It does, however, dominate our perception of democracy every election cycle. In Connecticut, voters are privileged by our “blue state” status. Therefore, progressive and independent voters should make the most of it.
The most frustrating thing about election season is the gaping hole of political diversity in our country. Our political process is dominated by two parties, Democrats and Republicans, which are largely indistinguishable for progressive voters critical of both occupations (remember Afghanistan?), the lack of universal healthcare, the stranglehold of corporate influence, American military empire, the ignoring or outright hostility toward our most vulnerable populations (children, the poor, the elderly), white privilege, class privilege, gender privilege and sexuality privilege, and so on.
No mainstream candidate stands to address any of these issues to the satisfaction of progressives, nor do they even claim to. Yet, many progressives and even radicals are eager to vote for Barack Obama. Is Obama better than McCain? Sure. He could conceivably usher in a “new deal” of sorts to address the economic crisis. He would likely appoint pro-choice justices to the Supreme Court. Certainly Obama will be a friendler face to the rest of the world than the militaristic McCain. But remember: Bill Clinton’s charismatic “I didn’t inhale,” “I feel your pain” facade didn’t stop him from maintaining deadly sanctions in Iraq, and subsequently bombing them with no provocation or justification, not to mention the shredding of welfare, and his deregulation of the media.
Ultimately, Obama represents a party that is part of the problem, not the solution. Corporate lobbyists and long-bought off members of his own party will have greater access to him as president than any of us. Any real change he seeks to make will be mitigated by these two factors, at least. He will win Connecticut because it’s a so-called blue state. Whether he wins by one vote or 30,000 votes, the result is the same. He gets our seven electoral votes. This frees up Connecticut voters (in particular those who don’t want feel like “spoilers”) to do something better – to vote for minor party candidates who actually represent their political beliefs, thereby positively affecting our political diversity. Or, to not vote at all and work for more direct democracy, beyond the largely corrupt and illegitimate electoral process we have now.
There are more than two choices to make on November 4.
Bobb Barr ‘08!
…
But seriously, this is a good point.
FYI if you’re planning on voting and you’re not sure who the other options are for president and state and federal legislators, you can find out at http://www.votesmart.org.
dave, didn’t you read the last sentence?
1964 was Freedom Summer. On August 4th, the bodies of James E. Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Mickey Schwerner were found. The three civil rights workers had been registering Black voters in Mississippi. They were murdered while investigating the burning of a Black church. August 4, 1964 was Barack Obama’s third birthday.
Kevin and Kerri suggest, on separate blog sites, that voting for Barack may be a waste in this bluest of blue states, and that we should give third party presidential candidates a chance. Maybe it’s a generational thing, but as far as I am concerned, voting for Barack Obama in Connecticut in 2008 is definitely not a wasted vote. It’s historic.
Obama’s candidacy is important for many reasons: to rid ourselves of the Bush legacy, to keep the McCain/Palin hands off our civil liberties, our environment, our nuclear weapons. Also to end the Iraq war, and some space to make it easier for workers to join unions and fight for universal health care.
But mostly, Obama’s run for the White House is a powerful thing for the union workers I have the privilege to organize. Health care workers, especially nursing home CNAs, are overwhelmingly African American and Caribbean women. Along with their white and Hispanic co-workers in 1199/SEIU, hundreds of us have traveled from our state to Rhode Island, Pennsylvania and New Hampshire (four times!) to volunteer for Barack Obama. These workers have a profound understanding of the impact of Senator Obama as a symbol of something important that is changing in our country, a turning of the corner on our ugly history of racism, violence, and exclusion.
Will Obama be our saviour? Of course not. He’s not a socialist, as much as McCain tries to paint him one. He’s not a pacifist, and I expect we may be organizing against a bigger war in Afghanistan next year. He’s not a third-party radical, not Ralph Nader, not Cynthia McKinney. He’s just the guy who’s gonna win.
We have a saying in my union: don’t let the perfect get in the way of the good. In 1964, only 5,000 African Americans could vote in Mississippi. Now, over 600,000 are registered. Does their vote mean nothing? Did the deaths of James, Andrew and Mickey (and Viola, Medgar, Denise, Cynthia, Carole, Addie Mae) mean nothing?
By the way, here’s a slogan I never understood: “if voting changed anything they’d make it illegal.” You have to have no understanding of history and current events to parrot that line. They have been making it illegal, stealing our votes every chance they get.
I’m not a Democratic Party operative. I helped start a third party that actually won elections here in Hartford. I was a member of the Labor Party when it was active nationally. I don’t go ballistic over Nader’s 2000 role in Florida. I believe that we have to build a real peoples’ movement in this country, one that starts with unions and community groups and branches out into the political arena (not the other way around). But if you don’t vote for Barack Obama this year, I guarantee you will look back in forty years and regret it.
P.S. They convicted the ringleader of Chaney, Goodman and Schwerner’s murders in 2005. Like the man said, the arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice.
When I hear the slogan “if voting changed anything, they’d make it illegal” I think of Utah Phillips and other boots-on-the-ground anarchists. It isn’t meant to be taken literally.
It’s just poetic shorthand (like a good blues lyric,e.g. “I aint got no home in this world anymore”) for what those in power will do to keep power. Historically, that meant preventing minorities, the landless, or women from voting. It meant stacking the deck against challengers, making third party candidates jump through hoops to get on the ballot, keeping challengers from access to the media. Or spreading lies about candidates for change.
That saying, “don’t let the perfect get in the way of the good”, does apply to this election. A vote for Nader would have been perfect. But an Obama vote is good, though.
Jim, it wasn’t poetic shorthand. Let’s not re-write history here. Emma said that quote as she fought tooth-and-nail against bourgeois “feminists” who directed all of their energy towards gaining the vote instead of acting on their own behalf. She NEVER EVER thought gaining the vote was progressive and she meant that quote quite literally.
Ruling practices are ruling practices. Period. Presidents of the US are our rulers. If one is opposed to a society organized into rulers and the ruled, then one naturally opposes those that have institutionalized power over us. If one is fine with being lorded over or otherwise reigning over others themselves (i.e. politicians like Steve), then of course the quote doesn’t make any sense.
But let’s not dilute Red Emma’s message or try to soften it to make it more palatable to folks who are fine with state power or think it’s “utopian” to argue for a world where people actually organize in free and egalitarian forms.
Deric,
I didn’t know Emma Goldman is credited with that line. I’ll take your word that she meant it literally. Whether it’s historically accurate is another matter. There are times when voting has changed things. Direct action is more effective and usually has made it possible for voting to matter on matters of social justice. Even hardcore anarchists should realize that sometimes its in their self interest and in the interest of promoting social justice to vote. It was a long process of direct actions such as the civil rights movement as well as voting that resulted in our first bi-racial President.
All due respect, Jim, I think this idea that voting for which masters lord over us has some kind of positive impact is more cultural myth than empirical reality. It never mattered who was in office historically for changes to take place. What mattered was that mass movements put pressure on our rulers to do so.
If you’re referring to ballot initiatives, etc. in which we actually have a voice and are not just choosing a new face to make decisions for us and our communities, I’d be inclined to agree.
I totally agree with Steve Thornton up there. Electing Obama – just the act itself – has already brought tremendous change to this country. I will be extremely proud of my vote in 40 years.
Luckily, American citizens are so priviledged, that we don’t have to choose between voting and direct action. We can do both. We can organize and vote, all on the same day. It’s amazing to live here. And I love that Obama won 60% of the vote in our state.
Meanwhile, Ralph Nader suggested, on Fox News on Election Night, that President-Elect Obama could be “Uncle Sam, or an Uncle Tom.” He is racist, egomaniacal, and irrelevant. I voted for him in 2000; but he was not the candidate of the people this time.
Obama’s campaign recieved donations from over 3 million people – roughly 1% of the population of this country, and 2% of voters. Astounding. The average contribution was less than $100. Sure, many rich people contributed significantly more, as will happen. But Obama leads the largest grassroots movement this country has ever seen. Let’s not diminish that.
Finally, I must jump in to make a point about ballot initiatives. Direct democracy sounds appealing, and popular votes sound great. Unfortunately, ballot questions in this country do not operate that way at all. It’s ironic to me, actually, that extremely leftist bloggers in a progressive, “blue” state actually believe that the “will of the people” would reflect their ideals. If anything, they would be worse for the issues we care about, such as universal healthcare, the right to organize, etc. What is more important, the ends or the means?
Ballot initiatives are funded by special interest money, they present complex issues in soundbite form and invite underinformed voters to make binding decisions completely out of context. They are perhaps the most direct way to subject minorities to majority rule. If given the chance, do you think American voters would support income taxes? 3 strikes rules? Marriage equality? “Socialized” medicine?
Gannon,
Calling Obama an Uncle Tom may be rude, but it’s not racist. It’s a comment on whether he represents progressive policies or corporate interests.
Jim, you’re kidding, right?
When in the history of the term “Uncle Tom” – at least up until the moment that Nader uttered the phrase – has it EVER been anything other than a comment on race and racism?
Nader used a racial reference, the meaning of which I am certain he is well aware. It is not a term he would have used in questioning whether a white politician was progressive or pro-corporation.
Peter,
It is a race specific comment, but not racist. I take racist to mean someone who thinks that people of another race are inferior. There must be similar terms for Indians or Irish who identified or collaborated with the British or other members of an oppressed group who sided with their oppressors.
If Pat Buchanan had questioned whether Obama was an “Uncle Tom,” there’s no question that would and should be interpreted as a racist comment. Uncle Tom has a specific connotation in American culture that is always demeaning to the person it is used against. It refers to someone selling out his race in the worst chapter of American history, that of slavery. Calling someone an “oreo,” under Jim’s understanding, could just mean they are a person who self-expresses in a way inconsistent with their outward appearance. But we know that word has a specific racial connotation and is meant to be hurtful. That’s pretty much the definition of racism.
“Uncle Tom” is not a reference to being progressive or pro-corporation. It is a reference to race. In my opinion, the world is not so cut and dry that people, events or policies could be so easily broken down into one or the other of those categories anyway.
There are plenty of good things that Ralph Nader has done. But let’s not be blind to the things he does that are harmful.
Gannon,
I think we have different definitions of what a racist is. Yes, Pat Buchanan, in my opinion, is a racist. I don’t think Ralph Nader is a racist. He said a rude, hurtful thing, an incredibly stupid thing.
Racist is a term that gets thrown around with great abandon, along with sexist, fascist, nazi, anti-semite. Sometimes it fits. Many times it’s inaccurate. There are other pejoratives out there, apple, coconut, Jafacain, that refer to people trying to act like something they are not, or who turn their back on their heritage. It’s another way of saying wannabe white, wannabe Jamaican, wannabe whatever. Maybe Nadar should have said Obama has a choice between doing the right thing and joining the capitalist oppressors. As for Buchanan, he’d think that Obama being an Uncle Tom is a good thing.
So here’s the way that this conversation always goes….and I mean it freakin’ ALWAYS goes this way.
Someone calls a person, a politician, a journalist, or whomever on a public statement that they made. The existence of the statement is indisputable. And so someone says “Hey, that’s a racist statement.” And immediately the game starts:
“No, that’s not racist . . . it was taken out of context.”
“No, that’s not racist . . . black people say it too.”
“No, that’s not racist . . . and anyway I (a white person) would rather that he say what he really thinks than hide it.”
“No, that’s not racist . . . it’s just a figure of speech.”
“No, that’s not racist . . . and anyway black people (or latinos, or whomever the relevant group is) say even worse things about themselves . . . or about white people.”
And when we have sorted out and responded to every single one of those distractions, misstatements and falsehoods, then it comes:
“No, he is not A RACIST.”
No one in this entire discussion called Ralph Nader a racist. A couple of us said that his use of the phrase “Uncle Tom” was racist. That is, he made a racist statement.
And guess freakin’ what . . . I’ve made racist statements before and people have called me on it and I’ve learned from it and apologized for it and I’ve lived to tell the tale.
But for some reason that utterly escapes me, the majority of so-called liberal and progressive people in this country can’t accept that they may have said something that’s wrong, just plain wrong, irredeemably and stupidly wrong. They can’t accept or take responsibility for the possibility that they may have said something that they should have known was racist, and even if they didn’t know well guess what they’ve just learned something, the statement is racist.
So Jim why can’t you come down off your freakin’ high horse and stop making up a lot of crap about Nader’s statement (you’ve written at least three different, contradictory “interpretations” so far) and just acknowledge that Yes, Ralph Nader is not God and it is at least possible that when he used a phrase that everyone in the English-speaking world understands is a racially charged phrase he did so because he either ignorantly thought it was okay for him to do that or because – like a lot of us white folks – he thought it was okay for him to say it because, hey, he’s not a racist so he can say whatever he likes.
Because no one said Nader IS a racist, all we said was that his statement is a racist statement and he needs to take responsibility for it, just like you need to take responsibility for your insistence that it is somehow impossible for a “good” white man to utter racist words.
Peter,
That’s right, we do have this same argument, and neither of us is budging, are we?
Check Gannon’s original comment, she wrote Nader was racist. Are we going to dither over the article “a”, as in “a racist? That’s what I took her to mean.
My problem is with people who examine every word for evidence of evilness. I’d have no problem with someone criticizing Nader or anyone else using the term Uncle Tom for being insensitive, for using a term that is hurtful. I don’t deny it is a racially charged phrase. But I don’t think using this term makes a person a racist. It is shorthand for describing a real situation. I bet George Carlin would agree with me. I’ll go so far as claim that George was as concerned as me that some people want to clean up others’ speech so that we’ll all sound as innocuous and insipid as Barney the Purple Dinosaur.
Way back when, the Irish used to be called white niggers and African Americans were called smoked Irishmen. If I call a fellow mick a white nigger down at the Hibernian club, does that make me a racist?
What it seems to come down to is you think Nader should apologize for a racist comment and I think he should apologize for poor choice of words. As for my opinion of Nader, I think he’s a cranky old man sometimes.
The notion that non-racist speech would be insipid and innocuous suggests that racism is defensible because somehow (no one ever explains how, exactly) it makes human interaction more interesting. That’s as much bull as the bigoted pedants who use to preach about how horrible it was that “homosexuals” had taken over the word “gay” or how outrageous it was that they were being required to use “chairperson” instead of “chairman.”
Yes, to answer your last question, when Irish-Americans start to pretend that in 2008 they are entitled to use the n-word to describe themselves because they can’t acknowledge the difference between having suffered a generation of discrimination a century ago and suffering four hundred years of vicious and brutal oppression, as African-Americans have and do, then it’s racist.
But why should it matter to you, since words obviously are so unimportant? Perhaps it’s because only others’ words are unimportant to you.
No, I do think words matter and I think they should be used precisely. And what pisses me off is how words such as racist, fascist, etc. get thrown around.
What we have here is a disagreement over definitions, as well as your presumption that I’m equating the suffering of one group with another’s oppression. You presume to be the arbiter of all things racist. And you presume to be the judge of who is entitled to say certain words. And, if I’m not mistaken, you sort of called me a racist. Somehow, coming from you, it doesn’t have the sting that a brother saying it would.
What started this was Uncle Tom. I’d love to know if Obama thinks it’s a racist epithet.
Can we get a brotha to weigh in on this? Is it not cool to call someone an Uncle Tom? I think me and the other cranky white dude are about finished.
“You presume to be the arbiter of all things racist”
LOL, this from the man who has been preaching to us about what is and is not racist, who first insisted that the term “Uncle Tom” had nothing to do with race and now is pitifully relying on his hipness – “Can we get a brotha to weigh in on this” – to bail himself out.
just want to point out that Nader is of Lebanese descent (the son of Lebanese immigrants), so we should be careful about simply labeling him a “white” man. I bring this up to remind everyone that all of these racial/ethnic constructions are always more complex than we think.
Okay, Peter, we’re both preaching, but don’t be revising my sermons. I never said Uncle Tom had nothing to do with race.
Let’s add arbiter of all things hip to your resume too.
Kevin,
Good point. So, what to you think? Is it racist to call someone an Uncle Tom?
i’ve only been skimming through this comment thread, so forgive me if i missed something. My opinion is that the label “Uncle Tom” is not racist, but certainly has racial overtones. In other words, people generally don’t use it for non-black people. The odd thing is when it’s used by someone who is not black. I know black people who use it all the time – pointing out other black people who they perceive as essentially selling out their own people (you hear the term “tommin’” a lot). It’s way more common (and therefore innocuous) than a lot of white people think. In some ways, it’s almost like the “n-word” to a lot of whites – forbidden diction. The difference between the n-word and Uncle Tom, however, is that I don’t see UT as taboo for non-black people to say.