Class Politics and the Elections

[/ dave /]

Gordon Fitch wrote:

> But why should one participate in and thus legitimate such
> a choice?

With all due respect, why must voting legitimate voting in every case - in whose eyes? For
all we know, a hypothetical Lee Harvey Oswald may have voted the straight Democratic ticket.
He may have had some favorite programs or pending legislation that he thought might get lost
in the shuffle under a Republican administration. And then, step two, which we all know.
Hey, it works. OK, so there may have been a few other interests at play in his case...

Are you thinking of those polls that say 48 percent voted in this or that election, and
hoping they'll drop to 45.8 percent this year, 43.3 percent in the year to come, and maybe a
precipitous plunge down to, say, 38.7 percent in the year to follow? Great - that's four
years. What happens to a lot of people in the meantime? But wait - You can vote wherever
it's prudent for 4 years, picking out the key elections (esp. on the local level) where some
significant number of people might have a slightly better life if candidate X makes it into
office or this or that zoning restriction is maintained, whatever, and you can *still*
agitate on other fronts, work all the other angles, engage in whatever revolutionary
activity that suits you. In the meantime, 16,873 low-income workers would thank you if they
could because they didn't lose their housing subsidy and get booted out on their ass in the
cold of winter, and 4,871 single parents might appreciate not having lost their child care
for another two years. Thanks to you, and the others who bothered to drag themselves out of
the house for a 15-minute trip to the polling station at the synagogue down the street.

Or maybe you have your personal biographer following you around, or a camera crew from 48
Hours, documenting your every move. Wouldn't want to give anyone the wrong impression - they
see you walking into the polling station on TV, and they might think, "Hey, he supports the
*system*! Look - he's fucking voting for the *MAN*!" But wait - there is no camera crew? No
one's going to get a flawed impression of where you really stand, what your principles
really are? Maybe they shouldn't assume they know what's on your mind as you walk in, in any case.

The principle, the only one that matters, has something to do with making a better life for
everyone. If you have to get a fucking job at Monsanto or Union Carbide and work your way up
the ladder over the course of a year just so you can get close enough to drop the poison in
someone's cappucino, then so be it. Yeah, desk jobs suck. And working for Union Carbide?!
But that first all-important principle has just been advanced a notch, and the revolution
might be that much closer.

Sorry, tangent there.

But legitimate? What's *not* legitimate is having 14 opportunities, of whatever kind, in
whatever arena - chosen or *not* - to advance the cause of humanity, and only taking 9.

Your "moral connection with the candidate you vote for" business makes no sense to me. Sure,
in a perfect world. We have to get there first! Back to your doctor example - they both want
to heal x number of patients in exchange for killing x more. One of them is definitely going
to win. So, what do you do? You cover your eyes and turn away and say, "I had no part in
it." The worse doctor wins, and 172 additional patients die as a result (simple math).
Where's the moral positive in all this? How can you look in the mirror and say, "I did the
right thing!"

172 corpses beg to differ, and they're pretty convincing.

--

/  dave  /