Reading recent posts, I have come to the conclusion that one of the major divisions in the left is between those who believe in symbols and those who believe in actions and their consequences.
Some recent excerpts from posts:
Yoshie:
“votes for Nader/Camejo, whether the ticket wins or loses, registers American dissent from the bipartisan consensus for wars, occupations, and empireâ€
Joseph:
“voting for Nader/Camejo is a self-conscious expression of hope for some other kind of social and political reality. It is not an expression of hope that he will win this or any election.â€
Shane:
“I don't especially call for voting for Nader (unless "Nader" is synecdoche for any left-wing alternative candidate). Between the two, I would probably vote for Cobb. The point is that the message is to our future selves--that the electoral strength of the opposition is marginally more than if we would have abstained or cast wasted votes for the Dumbocrats.â€
(I remember an episode of Star Trek NG where the crew sent a message to their future selves by diddling with Data’s positronic matrix. It was nifty.)
Expressions of hope, messages to future selves, registering of dissent are all possible symbolic interpretations of voting.
But on November 3, 2004, a real election is going to take place with real choices and real consequences. I think it might be helpful to look at that.
The election in November can have one of two outcomes: the re-election of George Bush or the election of John Kerry. Whether the realistic choices should be limited to two is a different argument.
With the two outcomes established, we can look at possible voting actions to be taken:
a) Voting for Bush b) Voting for Kerry c) Voting for a Candidate Other Than Bush or Kerry d) Not Voting At All
Each of these actions will contribute to the outcome: the election of either Bush or Kerry.
Note: if you believe that there would be no functional difference between a second Bush administration and a Kerry administration, then you should stop reading now.
Actions A and B are obvious: they will render the election of the selected candidate more likely than the election of the one not selected.
Actions C and D will also render the election of one candidate over another more likely. Which candidate is granted this advantage will depend on a person’s view of the candidates.
In my case I believe that Bush’s re-election will cause more tangible harm to queers, blacks, women and others than would Kerry’s election. I, therefore, will vote for the more beneficial/least harmful outcome. If I were to vote for a candidate who cannot win or abstain from voting, I would increase the possibility of the worst outcome occurring, i.e., the election of Bush.
Thus in my case, not voting/voting for a candidate who cannot win/voting for Bush are all equivalent actions since they all result in the same outcome: an increased likelihood that Bush will win re-election.
Setting aside all possible symbolic values a vote may have (and who can guarantee that the symbolic messages people intend to express are the ones that are received?), the reality is that on November 3, 2004 one of two outcomes will occur. All citizens who are eligible to vote will contribute to the triumph of one outcome over the other by their actions. As such, they should be prepared to accept responsibility for their actions. In my case, I am prepared to work to make sure John Kerry ends the war in Iraq.
My question is how do leftists who oppose Bush's actions in Iraq, but who enable his continued Presidency by voting for a minor candidate/not voting, plan to accept responsibility for their actions? Will they say to Bush: "Look, we hate you and your policies, but either we didn't vote or we voted for somebody who couldn't win. So now, will you please stop both the war in Iraq and your campaign for empire?"
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister