Voting Against ... A "Positive" Party Technique?

Ya know, there's the theoretical world and the real world. (I hear everyone saying "Well, D'UH!") In the theoretical world the American system is about supporting the candidate that will represent the nation best. In the real world, it has degenerated to supporting the lame-ass candidate that is most able to defeat the lame-ass candidate that worries people the most.

When the nation and the system have deteriorated, the real world choice is to vote against ... if someone feels compelled to participate in the system itself from a sense of auld lang syne, or (perhaps) a lack of moral courage to release the Left or Right Teat of the electoral-fantasy bosom and face the world as an individual of conscience.

As a youth in the seventies I watched the "Kung Fu" TV series. One episode had a bunch of pacifist farmers or sheep-herders being abused by chauvinistic cattle ranchers. The leader of the sheep people told the hero-monk that, when attacked with a stick, his options were to allow the beating, or pick up a stick and fight back, becoming like the violent ones. The hero answered with a third option: take the stick away.

Righties and Lefties keep going to the Stick (the Election Lotto) to attack the other side or defend their own. For people who still believe in the American voting system (in its current incarnation), voting against someone really may be the only alternative. Granted, granted.

Just consider stepping away from the trees and looking at the whole forest, and see if being inside the forest fire is really productive or not.

Why Political Blogging?

At a companion site where I encounter the most intellectual stimulation on the web (www.boileryard.blogspot.com) the question arose about the purpose of socio-political blogging. One contributor advised starting (yet another) "New and Improved" political party. Being of the anarchistic mindset I have cultivated over the decades, I commented that trying to perfect on a broken system was doomed to failure, or worse, disaster. The contributor had no more positive response from anyone seconding his informal motion, and asked, then, "Why are we here?"

My political "sensibilities" have been informed over the years by the thoughts and opinions of others. I have been forced to answer tough questions, and in searching out my answers I have weighed matters and made important changes in my outlook. While there has been a lot of friction, this has only resulted in refining, polishing my own thought processes.

Eventually, people of reasonably similar purpose and view have time to discover one another, fine-tune their perspectives (and arguments), and realize that there is a genuine "mandate" (not a media or party invented one) for change. Ultimately some sort of consensus about methods of producing change evolve, and a revolution becomes inevitable.

This process might take decades. In the past is has required as much as centuries. My hope is that, with the benefit of the Internet, such "grassroots" developments can bring about a more timely change. Unfortunately, the "democratic" nature of the web can result in the most "vocal" having more impact on the change than the more "thoughtful."

I don't see that intelligent, and well-meaning discourse is ever wasted.

Besides allowing people another outlet to voice their passionate beliefs (and unload some of the stresses related to these passions), forums such as the Boileryard contribute to a non-media distribution of information (and, sadly, mis-information) and ideas. The talking heads in the tube are not the only arbiters of concepts and data. People who are more similar to one another than the Beltway or Broadcast sub-species share more relevant expression, and actual, workable solutions may be found.

There is a lot of "down side" to any revolution, web-facilitated or not, but I find more hope in it than concern. IF a significant turn is to be made for the better, more rational sort of citizenship, I believe it will be through the ad hoc efforts of people in the REAL world, without a political career agendas.

Political Expression on the Job

One lady is fired for a Kerry bumper sticker on he car. One is suspended and transferred for a portrait of Bush in her English classroom.

No time to go into the she-said/they said details. Suffice it to say I wasn't there so all I have to go on is what the media says anyone said about it. In her own interview (obviously self-serving) the teacher did no wrong. In the school's side (not-so-obviously self-serving, maybe, but still self-serving) she was channeling Pat Robertson.

When I was in school (and Dinosaurs Ruled the Earth :? ) politics was completely fair game in school. Nixon. Vietnam. The Black Panthers. LBJ. Kent State. The Draft. In gym and in math it didn't necessarily show up on posters, but students might ask about it and get an answer, and in English class we would be asked to write about how we felt about the draft (all us guys were sweating it then) or draft dodgers, etc.

Depending on which version of facts anyone decides to believe (among those of us who were not there and can only depend on the web and other media), the bumper-sticker lady and the presidential portrait lady got similarly shafted for similarly flaunting their views. Personally, expression on my personal vehicle is more of a personal expression issue to me, but I also grew up in a time when political discourse in school was not a church v. state issue as it is today.

Anyone who gets fired, suspended or harassed for expressing their political views anywhere is being deprived of free speech, and THAT is un-American as hell. Well, it USED to be un-American.

Nowadays, it's just how the Other Side (on BOTH sides) fight back when they have little of substance with which to reply.

I am not defending the Bushie, or attacking the Kerryie ... just trying to point out that the mud is slinging both ways. Being able to see that it is NOT unilateral bias out there is the first step to recognizing how badly the system needs an overhaul ... and the nation needs a good political "high colonic."

Vote Abby Stention `04

What is the benefit of going out to vote for "just anyone" ... the lesser of a field of status quo wannabe's ... that compels you to vote when there IS no one to vote for, and no system in place to improve your choices?

If you feel you simply MUST vote in November. I cannot, for the life of me, see why. Many people judge me as being unpatriotic for refusing to vote, but they then offer me no legitimate incentives TO vote.

Voting when the candidates are insufficient and the system, itself, is bankrupt, is like a man riding a bus through Las Vegas. Upon realizing where he is, he jumps off of the bus and goes to a casino to leave his road money at the tables. When asked why he did that, the now-impoverished man, climbing ashamedly back aboard the bus to continue his journey, replies, "Isn't that what we are 'supposed to do' at this time and in this place?"

Vote for change. Abstention is a time-honored part of a voting process. And when enough people refuse to drink the bipartisan voting "tea," genuine revolution, (please, Almighty, a bloodless one) can occur.

None from Column A or from Column B

The day of Chinese restaurants restricting customers to programmed menu choices is waning as buffets continue to overwhelm the market. Many younger people will have no idea of what the title refers to.

The issue, raised on a favorite blog I visit (www.boileryard.blogspot.com), was that many writers there had no horse to bet on in the upcoming presidential contest. One recommended forming yet another political party, but 'this time' we would get it right because we are all so much smarter than all those other ridiculous people and their parties. Sent a chill down my spine, even as I sighed.

Sorry to burst the bubble, but the fundamental concept of forming a 'truly righteous' party is flawed to begin with.

The party system is one of the biggest flaws of contemporary politics. Us versus Them. Whigs against Torries.

The purpose of parties is to label a group of like-thinking people into a power block against an opposing power block. This is why parties fracture. "Libertarians for Life." "Log Cabin Republicans." Eventually the definitions of issues requires sub-categories and cults.

How about this? No parties. One man stands up and says what he believes in, and if enough people believe similarly enough, they support him.

It is convenient to be offered a coin toss solution ... a Red candidate or a Blue candidate. But convenience has a price ... at the 7-Eleven (tm) and in Washington, D.C. The price is genuine democratic choice, and mature decision-making.

This is part of why I advocate the disbanding of the very office of President. Let the public send localized representative to a congress of leaders, let them hash out laws and let the supreme Court keep an eye on the Constitutionality of their work, and stop the Popularity Contest/Beauty Pageant of the fixed presidential races.

Party politics is an atavistic hold-over from the 16th century, if not before.

Supposing there are no parties. Voters are still required to be registered (although not by party as is too often the case in some states), to be citizens, etc. I cannot fathom how the usual restrictions on voting (age, citizenship, residency, etc.) are insufficient in a no-party system.

The only purpose of political parties is to convert one-person-one-vote to party conflict. Rather than individuals making up their minds on who shall lead, they divert their attention to supporting a loose confederation of like-minded types who nominate candidates (and spend a lot of time and money maintaining the party coffers. Parties produce nothing.

If Tom steps up to run for office and states his case, Clark can vote for or against him, contribute (or not) to his campaign, etc., regardless of classification. Mary wants to run for a different office, and has many views similar to Tom's. Rather than form a party so Tom and Clark and Mary can all use shorthand to identify themselves as "Red," Tom simply says, "Mary is my kind of candidate. If you like me, you should also vote for her."

Membership in a party is not the requisite for contributing to the national suffrage ... being a citizen of the nation is sufficient.

I am sorry most American voters have no alpha-male mammal upon which to hang their hopes, and to look toward for decision-making. Me, I don't need a "boss" in town, in the state or in Washington, D.C. who will stand up to the atavistic, paternalistic heads of foreign states. If enough people's representatives get the message that the U.S. wants to send troops to the Sudan, then Congress should be capable of drafting the resolution to send troops to the Sudan, and Cc the leaders of Sudan and other related countries. No president necessary for that.

The capacity for the electorate to make sound decisions is not the criterion for their voting. For better or for worse, it is citizenship which grants Americans the right to make any damn fool decision they choose, and if enough of them make bad decisions and the country fails ... why that's natural selection, isn't it?

But I suspect that, not only will a people who are allowed genuine freedom of choice, action and association learn to operate in that freedom fairly wisely, I believe that the diversionary policies (such as Presidents and Parties) work contrary to true democratic function.

I do not trust the media-stupified majority of American voters to make particularly sound decisions because they have insufficient information to go on. But it isn't MY call as to who is or is not smart enough, well enough educated or connected enough to guess right. The child on the bicycle will NEVER, EVER learn to ride the thing until the alleged adults release their supporting grip on the contraption and allow the shockingly resilient youngsters to bust their knees open a few times. Learning without pain or effort is not possible. Let the voters screw up a few free, uncluttered elections and feel the sting of regret, the bruises of folly.

Robert Heinlein once wrote, "You live and learn ... or you don't live long." What is true of individuals is ultimately true of associations and nations. The artificial life-support of well-meaning baby-sitters only prolongs the death of the patient. If, when the external assistance is removed, the patient survives, I believe the patient will be stronger than before.

Of course, most self-titled humanists have a much dimmer view of mankind than I do, which is a dismal irony to me.

Buh-buh-buh-but what about NYC?

I'm often guilty of over-simplifying things if I feel like the "bottom line" can be made more clear, but sometimes over-simplification mis-defines things and causes poor decisions.

Elsewhere a writer declared that my posture concerned the use of violence (especially military might) only for defense meant that I thought we should wait until Saddam nuked NYC to act.

Iraq's desire for WMD's did not constitute an imminent threat to the U.S. They had no delivery system to threaten NYC. Trying to make the leap that Hussein was in the process of laying waste an American city is an act of rhetorical gymnastics. If he COULD have, he probably wouldn't have anyway. Hussein was a local bully, and as such knew better than to pick on anyone his own "size" or bigger.

People have had an hysterical reaction to 9/11 that rationalizes any threat anywhere as a threat here. Iran is more of a threat ... in their region ... than Iraq was, but, again, they don't have a delivery system to jeopardize the U.S. If that changes, and they make noises about attacking America ... that is a different situation to the one in Iraq in 2003.

I approve of Mr. Bush's verbal concept of preemption ... but only if the danger being thwarted is realistic. It's possible that Korea might find a giant radioactive dinosaur hibernating in the deep waters nearby and waken it to go rampaging through NYC, but the odds are ridiculously slim.

Terrorism is a genuine threat, and not just to NYC. In order to curry favor with locals and to keep attention away from his antics, Saddam lent a hand to terrorists migrating through his turf, but his regime was not involved in active threats against the U.S. (There ARE links between Saddam and 9/11, surprisingly, but they are not causative.)

Iraq was not a direct threat to American lives and sovereignty. He was a threat to his neighbors, and had loose associations with 9/11 people. His tenuous relation did not justify the full-scale military invasion of his nation.

Anyone believing otherwise has spent too long at the sugar teat of mainstream American media propaganda.

No WMD's in Iraq ... So?

There was ZERO justification for going into Iraq. Even if Saddam had nukes, there was no ethical justification for a military invasion and conquest of a sovereign power. Only if Saddam had launched nukes on our soil would we be justified in taking military violence to Iraq.

Sorry.

The justification for going into Iraq is American imperial meddlism. America feels the need (and the "right") to dictate international morality, and to police the planet. America is not only unqualified for this function, there is no moral justification for this.

Is the world a better place without Hussein in power? No. Iraq may be a better place, but the only positive global impact of the conquest is placing a focal point for terroristic actions AWAY from American (and western) territories.

Would I support sending special forces in for surgical strikes against strategic targets? Yep. I am not opposed to "surgical" opposition to serious dangerous intent. I was a big fan of the old TV series "Mission: Impossible" where clever operatives found ways to remove threats from power. I was hoping someone with a sliver of imagination and historical perspective would resurrect the concept of Letters of Marque, licensing private security organizations, bounty hunters ... hell, even big game hunters ... to go abroad and wage unconventional war on tumorous persons and organizations bent on bringing death to our people.

But a government-sanctioned military invasion and occupation ... wrong in intangible areas of ethics, and wrong in the very tangible areas of practical effect (cost in lives, costs in global reputation, costs in dollars, etc.)

Nationalism Is NOT Equal to Patriotism

The word "patriot" has a fascinating origin. It is derived from the Greek root word "pater," or "father." On it's way to becoming the word we misunderstand and mis-apply today, it was something like "patrikos" which is loosely translated as "of ones father," or "a loyal child, faithful to the values of their father."

When people conduct themselves in ways that genuinely reflect and honor the behaviors and convictions of their national founders, they are genuine patriots. Most Americans are NOT patriots according to strict definition.

Modern Americans do not advocate or practice self-control and self-rule as their Fathers did. They do not feel that they can successfully go after their ideas and dreams, and do not feel accountable for their failures. They also do not advocate a live-and-let-live idea of leaving others alone ... and being left alone. Americans crave the false security and "peace" of having "experts" meddle in almost every aspect of their lives. The Patriot Act and the Department of Homeland Security are, in essence 180 degrees opposed to genuine patriotism and security.

American nationalism is the false bravado of a people who, deep inside, know that they do not measure up to sterling ancestors, and who put on a veneer of integrity in SHAME for falling short. Because it is unfounded, such nationalism is, indeed, dangerous, not least of all to the Americans themselves. The parallel between contemporary nationalism and Roman imperialism is too important to be trite.

In the end, a people who more closely follow the instincts and attitudes of the American Founders will overcome the puffed-up Macy's Parade blimps of modern American pseudo-patriots.

ANY people will overcome. It would be just swell if there was enough resurgence of genuine patriotism among Americans for this to happen, but I suspect it will not be Americans who RE-revolutionize America.

And it is a bitter, grim fact that few, if any, revolutions are bloodless. I do not in ANY way advocate violence (except in defense against violence). I am only saying that the "blood of patriots" is a commodity any true patriot must keep in mind.

I used to sign correspondence, "Looking for a Tea Party." That was a clever, non-violent form of protest. But it led to a deadly war. Is America ... is the world ... ready for NON-violent revolution of the magnitude needed? I believe it's possible ... but highly unlikely.