Election Daze
As an ecofeminist, I’m always more concerned with actual outcomes than abstract principles. Thus, I decide whether or not to participate in the political process based on my assessment of what’s likely to happen if I do or don’t vote. If Christian fundamentalists are trying to take over the school board or pass a hurtful ballot initiative, I get myself to the polls. This year, a fundamentalist demagogue has set her sights on the highest office in the land. I happen to live in a state so solidly “blue” that I have the luxury of symbolically voting Green or withholding my vote altogether without hurting anybody. But, if I lived in a swing state, I would not selfishly exercise my right to self-expression in that manner.
As you might guess from the words “symbolic” and “selfishly,” I’m pretty annoyed by the idea — put forward by some people with whom I otherwise agree — that anarchists and other leftists ought to boycott this election. Of course, it’s absolutely true that Barack “let’s bomb Pakistan” Obama and John “bomb, bomb Iran” McCain (not to mention Sarah “shoot ‘em all” Palin) all are tools of the military-industrial complex. But there’s a difference between one war (Afghanistan — Obama) and three wars (Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran — McCain), and that difference matters very much to the people who would be killed in the extra two wars. There’s a difference between having health care and not having health care, and that difference matters very much to the people who would have health care under Obama but would not under McCain. There’s a difference between not doing quite enough to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and not doing anywhere near enough to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, and that difference matters very much to every person on the planet, most of whom do not get a vote in the U.S. election. There’s a difference between extinction and survival, and that difference matters very much to the animals who would be left unprotected by a Palin administration, none of whom get a vote in the U.S. election.
Me, I don’t believe that my right to symbolic self-expression trumps the interests of those animals. I know that my vote counts, whether or not I choose to cast it. If not casting a vote in any way contributed to the creation of the alternative political structure we need, that would be different. If we had a system where failure to capture a majority of the votes of eligible voters disqualified a candidate, that would be different. But one of those two men surely will win and which one it is surely will matter. Let’s not forget that Bush, who so many Greens falsely claimed was precisely equivalent to Gore in 2000, repealed several hundred environmental regulations enacted by Clinton-Gore. We all live on a different planet as a result. Let’s learn from history rather than repeating it. If only for the polar bears, let’s keep Sarah Palin out of the White House.
For more fun facts about stomach-churning choices, see my 2005 article, Election Daze, in which I discuss RFK, Anita Bryant, and the fevered nightmare of the Reagan-Bush years.

November 3rd, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Amen.
November 8th, 2008 at 8:03 am
I tend to slide along the compromise scale from issue from issue. I have no problem with someone who votes for a third/fourth/fitfh party candidate who has no shot of winning. I actually wish more people would choose to vote for what they most believe in.
Here in Texas the only third party candidate listed was Bob Barr of the Libertarian Party. I could have written in a candidate - but like I said, I slide. I was happy to vote for Obama; but had there been a leftist candidate on the ballot who ran, or was part of a party which ran, a dedicated committed campaign and who showed staying power (i.e. not disappear a la Nader) I would have voted for this candidate. The problem isn’t that people vote for the wrong candidates - it’s that not enough people vote. It’s not misguided enthusiasm that’s the problem - it’s apathy. A vote for a hopeless candidate is not boycotting an election. I agree with you about those who choose to not vote at all… and do see reasons to compromise in order to support a more viable candidate… but I don’t believe it’s correct to lump those who choose to not vote in with those who choose to vote for hopeless candidates.
I’ve been wondering about this, and since I can’t think of a more reasonable intro for it i’ll just ask: what abstract principles would an anarchist with a voter registration card be living by?
One more thing: I like reading your views. I disagree sometimes with your outlook but… keep it up, dude!