Why I decided to vote
I have actually never abstained in a presidential election. Four years ago was when I started thinking more seriously about not voting, both as a Christian and as an anarchist. But ultimately I decided to vote then, defensively, against Bush.
In the months leading up to this election, I’ve wrestled with the question of whether or not to vote quite publicly on this blog, and at Vox Nova. I’ve certainly come to believe that voting isn’t everything, especially when imagining the type of politics that Christianity calls us to. I also believe more and more that the electoral process as it exists in the united states reveals the divisions and conflict that exist in the church, and more importantly, that it seems to reveal where the true allegiance of most Christians lies.
Indeed, I continue to believe that not voting can be a powerful form of protest in many situations. But I have resisted the idea that Christians either must vote or may never vote, and likewise, the idea that anarchists should vote or should never vote. As I said a while back at Vox Nova, “I am not, nor have I ever been, an absolutist when it comes to voting. I find both positions problematic: to insist one has a duty to vote or to insist that Christians may never vote is to elevate voting to a level of importance that it does not deserve.”
In that same post, I said, “Sometimes, though, in the immediate circumstances, a particular election can mean the difference between life and death, or at least tip the scales slightly in favor of life.” What I was getting at was the importance of context. As I have said repeatedly, had someone like Hilary Clinton won the democratic nomination, I probably would not have voted. But after a lot of reflection, I decided that there are plenty of sufficient reasons to vote in this presidential election, and to vote for Barack Obama. Some scattered thoughts and positions I have come to as a result of this reflection:
1) Voting in the united states is indeed participation in a corrupt system. Critics of voting are indeed right that casting a vote is, in some sense, to be complicit in that system. There is a real danger, though, in believing that abstaining from voting will make us less complicit with this death-dealing system. While I believe Christians must witness to “the wider culture,” to imagine that we are completely separate from that culture, and that we play no role in making it and perpetuating its good aspects as well as its bad aspects, is an illusion.2) I find it troubling that most of the Christians who call for abstention are twenty- and thirty-something white middle-class males. And I find it troubling that many of these Christians compare voluntary voting in the u.s. to rituals of allegiance such as forced worship of Caesar in the Roman empire. The pressure to vote is strong and it’s ideologically driven. But the fact that we are pressured to vote is not the sort of political oppression that many Christians believe it is.
3) I largely agree with the oft-repeated phrase “if voting could really change anything, they would make it illegal.” I agree with Chomsky and Zinn that there is only one party in america—the Business Party—and that it has two factions. I have also come to agree with them when they point out that these two factions are not identical, that, in Zinn’s words: “Even for the ‘purest’ of radicals, there must be recognition of differences that may mean life or death for thousands.” That recognition of differences is often on the level of individuals, and not so much on the level of political party. (Clinton, for example, seems to me a much different sort of candidate than Barack Obama.) In certain contexts, and with certain candidates, it seems to me that opportunities do arise, however limited, to derail certain aspects of the imperialism, racism, sexism, nationalism, and capitalism of this country.
4) One opportunity in particular seems to me to be quite obvious. Radicals consistently and rightly criticize the fact that the american presidential tradition has only included white, rich males. This election gives us an opportunity to break from that tradition in some respects and I am in favor of contributing to the breaking of that tradition and sending it to hell. The types of racism and scapegoating that republicans have shown in this campaign compels me to register a small action that indicates which side I want to stand on when it comes to race in america. Racism runs deep in the people of this country and is not limited to any political party. But one party has proven itself to be quite open about its racist worldview and political tactics. To hell with them.
5) Another opportunity that appears to be within our grasp is the potential for some changes in the health care system in the united states. American for-profit health care is unambiguously demonic. Libertarian types often ask me how an anarchist could be in favor of universal health care. Such libertarians prove how little they really care about “liberty.” The way I see it, there is a hierarchy of tyrannies and not all forms of rule are equal. The tyranny of corporate capitalism is one of the worst in that it thrives on the illusion of freedom. In an ideal, utopian community, people’s health needs would be cared for, and the “systems” that provide this care would be in the hands of the people. Universal health care can be imagined and implemented in various ways in the united states. None of them would be ideal. But any of them would be better than keeping the power over life and death in the hands of corporations. The opportunity for universal health care that we seem to have represents a much needed move toward taking power away from corporations. My understanding of “liberty” does not include capitalism. (More on the topic of anarchism and health care here.)
6) As a middle class, male, white american, I have the luxury of voting or not voting. (No, I’m not buying into the “gift” that american political ideology presumes voting to be, and I do not fall for the “your ancestors fought and died for your right to vote” stuff. I’m merely stating a fact: I have a choice whether to vote or not.) The majority of the world’s poor (and non-poor) do not have a say in who the leader of the “free world” is going to be, but their lives are affected by our choice too. Perhaps even more. Most of the world is terrified of four more years of the neoconservative nightmare, and not out of middle-class political discomfort or mere difference of opinion. They are the ones who will be on the receiving end of u.s. bombs, not us. I’m voting on their behalf to help keep John McCain out of the White House. He’s bombed human beings before and he’ll do it again.
7) “And what about abortion?” some have asked me quite directly. Many of them know that I am 100% against abortion in all cases. (What this means in terms of specific political practice is a long complicated question, and one I can’t deal with fully here. On this issue, like others, my anarchism informs my politics and from a Catholic perspective this is legitimate, as opposition to abortion may take form in various legitimate political options.) The problem, of course, is that we know by now that the republican party has done and will do nothing to defend the unborn and the rest of their policies are decidedly anti-life in the very deepest sense. I was duped for many years by the rhetoric of the republican party and of Catholic republicans. Been there, done that. Long ago I joined the ranks of those who say we will not be duped again. The republican party hates abortion, but refuses to see how their foundational principles contribute to abortion’s causes. If they will not attack the causes, their pontificating is meaningless and will only serve as an issue to exploit every four years to fool well-meaning folks who cannot (or refuse to) see the big picture. The best way to end abortion is to change our society at its roots, and in the mean time, to do what Christians have always done in the face of what seems to be an unchangeable situation of death-dealing systemic sin: change hearts one at a time.
It should be clear by now to anyone who has read my blog that I am no democrat. And voting for Barack Obama is not meant to suggest that I have any loyalty or allegiance to that party, which I consider to be a party of death much like the republican party. I reject both parties. Indeed, I reject this system entirely. Depending on the election, I could see myself sitting out of the process entirely. But sometimes opportunities present themselves which allow us to conduct some minor derailing of this death-dealing system. This time, I am voting primarily for those around the world who were on the receiving end of the republican party’s bombing raids because they are getting far too organized and must be stopped. I am voting to help do my part to send the all-white american presidential tradition to hell.
And I am voting for my daughter and my new nephew because, despite my cynicism, they deserve a better world and I am a part of the world that they are inheriting. I do not float above it in a pretty Christian cocoon and I can’t settle for the middle-class Christian illusion that sitting this one out will preserve my “purity.” I reject the culture and politics of death in every place I find it, and I won’t fall for the inflated rhetoric of “hope” and “change.” But strangely, perhaps miraculously, the system itself provides tiny openings that we can take advantage of in order to derail it toward its own destruction and the birth of something new. And every little bit helps in seeking out and exploiting those openings. Even my stupid little ballot.
“The best way to end abortion is to change our society at its roots, and in the mean time, to do what Christians have always done in the face of what seems to be an unchangeable situation of death-dealing systemic sin: change hearts one at a time.”
Michael, I’m sympathetic to this sentiment in many ways, as I indicated in the comments of my post last night at AC.
I’d also note, though, that the US Bishops (I still don’t understand why Syria merits caps but the US doesn’t… Syria doesn’t win any corruption-free prizes, last I checked) have made clear of late that it’s changing both the law and the culture that we must strive after, not just one (the err of many of the religious right wrt the former, and folks like yourself wrt the latter).
Happy voting tomorrow.
Good post. I too saw that post on not voting from Emergent Village. I think it is important to think about.
I’d also note, though, that the US Bishops (I still don’t understand why Syria merits caps but the US doesn’t… Syria doesn’t win any corruption-free prizes, last I checked) have made clear of late that it’s changing both the law and the culture that we must strive after, not just one (the err of many of the religious right wrt the former, and folks like yourself wrt the latter).
And I agree with what the bishops say, absolutely.
I am not saying that laws should not be changed, as some democrats have explicitly said. I definitely disagree with that position (some Vox Nova bloggers have taken that route, unfortunately). By across the board, my politics (and my ecclesiology) are more oriented to a direct-action approach and my view on abortion is no different.
Happy voting tomorrow.
I appreciate the wishes, but 1) I sent in my ballot 2 weeks ago and 2) voting doesn’t make me particularly happy. ;)
I’m not ignoring your emails, BTW. I’ll try to reply tomorrow.
mikey,
just read this on vox nova, and came over here to comment…just to commend you on an excellent post. you’ve articulated some things that have been swimming around in my conscience for quite a while, and many of the reasons why i am voting today, both in national and in our wv state elections.
anyway, nicely said!
good post.
i started this election season (18 months ago) saying that I, for the first time, would not vote. for a lot of the same reasons as you but also because i dont like what happens to me spritually: anger, etc.
however, like your point #4, i cannot ignore the blatant racism and fear-mongering that has gone on over barack. ultimately, i think it will be important for americans to see that a person of color, whose middle name happens to be hussein, with a diverse background and experience can be president of this country.
and doesnt have to be a terrorist or closet muslim. ridiculous.
to think that there needs to be a law against abortion is folly. the only thing that makes in more criminals in a country where we have already criminalized far too many things. the ONLY answer to the problem is to change the hearts and souls of those who want abortion. until their minds change there will always be abortion whether it is legal or not. until then it should be able to at least be “safe” (as in not in an alley with a coat hanger or any other vulgar way) and happen in a real doctors office. also, like almost everything in the united states, children need to be better educated and parents need to be more responsible. america is a society of binge drinkers because kids are never educated about alcohol. there are so many drug addicts because people demonize marijuana and then their kids try it and find out it isn’t as bad as they were told and assume the same about other drugs. we are a nation of teen pregnancies because teens learn about sex from television and movies and only see the sex, and never the unwanted pregnancy that results. (when was the last time you saw a movie where they took the time to show the person stop to put on a condom?)
so in short, it is not and never can be able making laws, it has to be about changing minds.
Good post.
1. On whether or not to make abortion illegal: It seems to me that the only job of the government is to represent the will of the people. While abortion is surely evil, if it is not the will of the people to ban it, does a democratic-republic have the right to do so?
2. You write: “Most of the world is terrified of four more years of the neoconservative nightmare, and not out of middle-class political discomfort or mere difference of opinion. They are the ones who will be on the receiving end of u.s. bombs, not us.” It is important to remember, though, that Obama is not that much less of a militarist than McCain. I like your thought and argument here, but I’m not sure our neighbors around the globe can expect much less warfare from President Obama than from President Bush (or Clinton, for that matter).
3. Tonight, we’ve helped make a step (however small) towards racial justice in this nation. Tomorrow, we’ve got more work to do.
Michael,
If you voted to support Obama as a strategic way of standing against McCain (i.e. choosing the ‘lesser of two evils’ – if I am not mistaken), then what is your main objection to Hillary Clinton, and why couldn’t you have voted for her in the same situation (mutatis mutandis)?
Hi Larry –
In the last election I voted for Kerry, definitely as a defensive vote against Bush. This time, I don’t think my vote was merely against McCain. As I said above, I did find positive reasons to vote for Obama. I don’t think I can say the same thing about Clinton. I think she ended up very much like McCain, and indeed could have been his running mate!
Thanks for this post. I fit into the 20something, middle class white male who once(?) held some pretty lofty and grandiose views about my abstaining from the voting process. Part of it was due to laziness, because I am studying out of the country this semester and didn’t want to bother myself with the steps of getting a ballot.
However, as I reflected on the entire thing with the election upcoming, I began to regret my decision not to vote. I’m sympathetic with your statement that “voting isn’t everything,” and I could see myself possibly not voting again in the future, but I think I learned a good lesson this election by not voting,
I guess it can be summed up by refusing to take an absolutist stand regarding it. Currently I’m feeling rather ambivalent towards the whole thing, and while I don’t think that’s a bad way to approach it, I expect my thoughts to change.
I am glad that my non-ballot didn’t effect the election against Obama. I’m glad he won and I’m hopeful that he can implement some positive reforms in this country. I’m skeptical, but certainly much less skeptical for him than for seasoned beauracraticians like McCain and Clinton (although that is certainly no implied endorsement of Palin; I’m not even going to go there, enough jokes have already been made).
I also decided to abstain for the 2008 election. I agree with the theme of this post in that I reject the extremes that you must vote or may never vote. For me the decision was for personal reasons which I have summarized on my blog.
The contradiction is that I did think Obama was the all around better candidate, yet would not vote for him. However, I think most people who vote make different, but equally complicated contradictions. This is especially true of those who choose based on the “lesser evil” (which by the way we need to come up with an expression that doesn’t label people as evil).
Scott raises an excellent point about the use of language around the principle of choosing the lesser of two evils.
Perhaps we need to develop a new expression for this very helpful and practical way of resolving moral conflict.
However in this case – the voting situation -, I would say that when we are faced with an extremely limited choice of candidates and political parties (are there really more than two national federal parties in American politics today?), then by choosing the lesser of two evils (i.e. the Democrat rather than the Republican party and its platform)— it is not essentially labeling of the PERSON who is the candidate. But rather it is an understanding that neither PARTY offers us an unqualified positive good, but rather one (party and platform) is relatively less evil than the other.
I know this sounds like jesuitic casuistry. Perhaps it is, but at least it provides us with a rational solution to the moral and ethical conflict facing us on election day in our contemporary North American society.
If and when we move beyond the limited politics of the one juggernaut mega-party of big business and laissez faire capitalism, shattering the illusion that Democrat, Republican, Liberal and Conservative are separate and distinct political parties (they clearly are not), then perhaps we will have real options and true moral-ethical choices when going to the polls. Right now, we really don’t have that kind of free choice.
Noam Chomsky is brilliant at explaining how this concept works – at least for him and apparently for thousands of others who do give this question of voting serious consideration.
Larry and Scott—you both represent a disturbing trend of self-defeating cynicism. If you don’t like either of the major party candidates, there are many 3rd party candidates. If everybody who said “I don’t like the two major parties, so I’m not voting” just voted 3rd party instead, it would transform American politics. But to say that “3rd party candidates can’t win national elections” is to create a self-fulfilling prophecy.
And Scott—insofar as a candidate represents militarism and materialism, we can absolutely say, with legitimacy, that said candidate represents evil. The candidate that represents those forces of evil to a lesser degree represents a lesser of two evils. This is, I suppose, a tad different than saying that a candidate IS a lesser of two evils.
Nobody here said anything prior to this about 3rd party candidates and their relative potential to change the face of American federal elections. But it is an intriguing concept.
Moving to another model of democracy with several parties acting in coalition or in opposition to serve the common good, brings with it some fascinating (sometimes frustrating) alternatives.
In the Canadian parliament, there are currently four political parties in the House of Commons speaking and acting on behalf of their constituents. As many as six or seven candidates may appear on the voting ballot at election time, each contending for a seat in the parliament to represent the local riding constituency as well as their own political party. There are also a handful of independent members.
Back to the American conundrum: I understand that quite a few people who voted for Ralph Nader or for the Green candidates in 2004, in effect stole the presidency from Gore and gave it to Bush, given the slight percentage of advantage that pushed Bush into the White House.
So, although there is theoretically nothing wrong with voting for a 3rd party candidate, the challenge is how to make it an effective choice for real change that is needed?
Don’t look to Canada for your answer. Certainly not in the present configuration of minority government ruled by a Conservative party with a mentality and ideology that is straight out of the neoconservative handbook of neoliberal capitalism. These people came to power recently by claiming close ties with the Bush administration. Blind fools in Canada were entranced and voted them in to power.
The large corporate business class rules North America. It is the Industrial Military Complex which Eisenhower warned about fifty years ago in his final days as retiring commander-in-chief and President. This is the Empire we are all subject to, and God knows, we really do need a big change. Metanoia and repentance would be a good beginning.
At this point it seems doubtful and unrealistic to believe that Obama in the White House (and the boys in the pentagon) is really going to bring about the change we need.
This may sound cynical. But it is not self-defeating. Our true citizenship is in the reign of God, and our ultimate loyalty is one of faith in our redeemer and not in any political system. Meanwhile, we often are faced with choosing the lesser of two evils or perhaps between a multitude of evils and the one singular brilliant but painful choice that will truly save us.
It is the human predicament. But the incarnate God has entered our human condition and the Spirit of God guides us in conscience to choose the greater good.
Larry—recasting the “lesser of two evils” as the “greater good” is a rather ingenious linguistic act. I’m not sure I buy it, but it’s interesting nonetheless.
The self-defeat I was referring to, I suppose, was more aimed at people who say: “I won’t vote third party because third parties cannot win.”
In fact I’m really not sure that you even attempted to argue that voting third party is a bad idea, so I’m not sure that I’m arguing with you at this point.
I’ve lost my train of thought.
Thanks to MM for the opportunity to dialogue further on this issue of voting third party in the time of national elections. And it’s not often that I have been complimented with offering anything called ingenious. So let’s try to continue with this discussion. I believe that we are in need of finding creative and ingenious solutions to our global disaster and the spiritual / political stalemate behind it.
Let’s face it, we are in an unprecedented human crisis.
Danger and opportunity are facing us simultaneously. And I believe that the Divine Creator is stirring us to action which could be redemptive and creative for a new beginning of salvation history. Perhaps what we need to do is to rediscover that there is only one God, that we have only one Redeemer and that we are all gifted by the Spirit of God to participate in the ongoing creation of the only universe we know of…
Voting third party may be a step in the process. Who knows? I think it’s worth a try. Now the question is how to ensure it is effective.
In terms of making progressive electoral politics effective, I would like to see the construction of a “Life Party” that analyzes every issue through the lens of human dignity. I imagine it would look a lot like an anti-abortion Green Party. Such a Party, if it was well-organized and well-funded, would have the potential to take the majority of religious voters away from both major parties. Such a Party would beat Democrats (in the minds of religious voters) on the abortion and stem cell issues (and probably would be more consistently progressive and populist.). It would also beat Republicans virtually across the board.
If such a Party, once again, was well-organized and funded, it could probably start out an election polling between 5 and 10 percent. If it pushed hard enough and got enough media coverage, it might be able to get 15%, which would include the candidate in the televised presidential debates. Then it;s just an issue of doing the ground work to get the message out and convince people that they can win.
My concerns, though, are that secular progressives would refuse to vote for an anti-abortion candidate, and that too many Christian conservatives flirt with idolatry in their love for the GOP and free market capitalism.
These are all just pipedreams, obviously, but it’s something I’ve been thinking about.
The biggest problem with such a pipedream is that accomplishing something like this, while it would be a monumental shift in American politics, would cost too much time and energy and money. It’s probably more prudent to work for change from the outside, as Ralph Nader did successfully for decades before running for president.
Still, when Ross Perot was heralded as a political hero by Larry King, he created the Reform Party, got into the debates, and wound up with 19% of the vote (which, in a three-way race, isn’t bad). Ever since then, the Reform Party has held major party status in many states, allowing their congressional candidates easy access to the ballot and public financing. If progressive Christians did this sort of thing, it could end very well.
I believe that this idea of Michael Meloday is worth pursuing in our sincere desire for a real change in North American politics, culture and society. He proposes the idea of a ” ‘Life Party’ that analyzes every issue through the lens of human dignity “.
This brings me back to a memorable and powerful statement of our host, M. Iafrate who wrote in the original post above:
“The best way to end abortion is to change our society at its roots, and in the mean time, to do what Christians have always done in the face of what seems to be an unchangeable situation of death-dealing systemic sin: change hearts one at a time.”
A Party of Life would focus not simply on abortion, but on what Cardinal Bernadin called the seamless garment, the “consistent ethic of life” that covers the entire spectrum of respect for life and human rights across the board. The focus would be on challenging the interconnected evils of poverty, unjust distribution of wealth, violence, war and the systemic degradation of the ecosystem.
Apply to this vision the bright promise and hope expressed in Obama’s mantra repeated in his acceptance speech last week: “Yes we can!”
This may sound visionary and unrealistic. But let us all remember that prophetic line from Proverbs: “Without a vision, the people perish”.
Fleshing out the incarnation of this vision is the task before us. From the head to the heart to the hand, we can make a difference in this world of ours. That is my concept of the Good News.
“In that same post, I said, ‘Sometimes, though, in the immediate circumstances, a particular election can mean the difference between life and death, or at least tip the scales slightly in favor of life.†What I was getting at was the importance of context.’” When Clinton announced that she would favor preemptive strikes during the primary, Obama quickly agreed. Also, Obama has said on numerous occasions that he would not hesitate to use military force in Africa. Let’s face it: neither candidate protests bloodshed. Obama is showing no sign of beginning a gradual military withdrawal from Iraq. Needless to say, he doesn’t quite have my trust. It will be a long while before Bush is over.
just found your blog through a friend, and have been catching up on all you’ve had to say recently. I love your insight and clarity, thanks very much for talking about the topics that you engage. Hope to keep in touch..
amos
LOL