Nader & strategic voting

Gordon Fitch gcf at panix.com
Thu Nov 2 09:44:44 PST 2000


Miles Jackson:
> On the local public radio news, a few locals here in Oregon
> have come up with the ultimate strategic vote: wait until
> 7:30 our time on election day to see how the vote's going
> back East. If Oregon's going to make a difference, they'll
> vote Gore; if not, Nader. I understand the rationale
> behind this, but it seems like a sad corruption of the
> democratic process. Color me naive, but why can't people
> just vote for the candidate who best represents their
> interests and political beliefs? Why second guess what
> millions of other people will do?

I explained this. The Gore-if-it-makes-a-difference voters are choosing an illusion which pleases them -- one of participating meaningfully, even critically in a great historical event. There's a thrill in imagining that one wields some kind of power, especially of the smoky-room sort. Similarly, I may go to the polls and vote for some marginal candidate in order to pursue the illusion that I am somehow kicking over the apple-cart. It would take only about five minutes for me to perform the slight task of registering my opposition to Gore's (and Bush's) programs of war, mass murder, theft, fraud, imperialism and plutocracy. Though the sky is empty, one might stop by a wayside chapel and mumble a prayer anyway. Mammon, Moloch, Kali, Ashtoreth, Spider Woman -- the choice is yours.



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list