According to Brian Faler of The Washington Post, the turnout for the 2004 presidential election was the highest it has ever been since 1968, or “more than 122 million people.” This would be somewhat encouraging, if it were not for the fact that a large bulk of the populous was voting for Kerry explicitly on account of the fact that they despised Bush.
Contemporary American politics has become a despicable ordeal for the general population, filled with nonsensical argumentation and non-existent debates. We’ve become stricken with the sickness of a two-party system locked in a brutal battle for power, fueled primarily by 30-second television spots that are mere facades designed to convince the populous that they are voting for someone with a modicum of credibility. Truth be told, they are not, and the notion that the American people should be forced to vote for someone they do not even like in order to prevent the possible destructiveness of someone even more despicable is very dubious.
The whole reasoning behind the brain-dead credo of Democrats in 2004 — “anyone but Bush” — is a rationalization for timidity. Americans are so afraid to lose that they will throw their support behind anyone who fulfills two criteria: one, who is the best of the possible alternatives and two, who has a decent chance of winning.
It is this latter criterion that is truly threatening. As long as Democrats, suspicious of Obama, and Republicans, suspicious of McCain, are too timid to affirm that they have a breaking point, the devolution of the two existing parties will continue towards absolute and total degradation.
Democrats and Republicans who have no breaking point hold no power in whomever they support. There are certain segments of the population that politicians have to be aware of — for example, Republicans are conscious of the libertarian faction of their party — precisely because of the fact that many of them have a point at which they throw their support for the party out of the window. But as for many left-leaning and right-leaning people, they truly hold no sway in decisions, due to the fact that they refuse to give up in their support of one respective party.
It would be of greater benefit to vote one’s conscience in a third party than to lend support to a campaign that one does not wholly support. The only two other options are to lend support to the lesser of two evils, or to abstain from voting altogether.
Supporting a third party is not for the weak of heart. One risks being forced to give far more justification for one’s support than the typical member of either of the two defunct mainstream parties. Also, the losing side of an election may try to pin blame on one’s small party (e.g. Nader in 2004), rather than the blatant dysfunction of the losing mainstream party’s platform and/or candidate. However, it comes with the much greater satisfaction of enacting real change, rather than the shame of pathetically helping to elect a charlatan to the highest office of the United States government. Ralph Nader, even before he went into politics formally, compiled a massive list of good legislation that many people reading this very article may owe their lives to.
The support of a third party candidate, then, is bittersweet. True, one will not have the satisfaction of knowing that they voted for the “winner”.
However, it comes with the even greater satisfaction of knowing that soon new reforms may be passed that bear striking resemblance to the platform of the lesser-known candidates that one recently supported. What one decides ultimately is up to the reader; however, I urge readers to make the right decision, even if it means being contrary to popular sentiment.
7 responses so far ↓
1 Stuart Weston // Mar 28, 2008 at 11:54 pm
“Contemporary American politics has become a despicable ordeal for the general population.”
I’d argue that federal-level politics in America always have been a despicable ordeal and it has nothing to do with television ads. Many of the most important and recent changes in America, including but not limited to: labor laws & worker’s rights, civil rights, the proliferation of feminist thought and new attitudes toward war (namely around Vietnam… not that they lasted), have been brought about by citizens speaking out against both institutional policy and the ineffectual nature of federal government.
In other words, it seems counter-productive for socially-aware people to even give the presidential election a passing glance, and the problem has little, if anything, to do with party affiliation.
2 Matt Bachman // Mar 29, 2008 at 10:16 pm
I’d have to question how “socially-aware” you could possibly be to pledge willful ignorance to a Presidential election.
3 Matt Bachman // Mar 29, 2008 at 10:22 pm
Change that, I think that last statement can be construed as crass-sounding and a personal attack. My mistake.
What I believe that you are saying is that people shouldn’t care about things like the Presidential election, because of the “ineffectual nature of federal government.” We are agreed in this.
My idea is that Democrats and Republicans should be willing to part with their party; I’m not naive, I don’t believe this will fix everything (and I don’t even know if people are willing to hear me out on this).
But as long as people are trapped into voting among two parties, neither of which they like or truly support, we aren’t going to improve.
Thanks for the comment, Mr. Weston.
4 Adam Smith // Apr 9, 2008 at 8:12 am
Maybe a third party should be made, but not this election cycle, we need a democratic majority to make any changes in congress.
If there was a third party candidate for president that I thought might win, I’d have to consider it, but like I said, not this election cycle.
5 Matt Bachman // Apr 13, 2008 at 10:38 pm
Adam Smith (or “Adam Smith”),
There is a Democratic majority in Congress, unless I am mistaken.
Someone should inform me when they start actually delivering on all the crap they promised, and continue to promise, voters. Of course, everyone knows that they will never change; in many ways, many Democrats are more asinine than many Republicans are.
Sorry, I just can’t assent to your optimism for the ‘other party,’ that seems, at the moment, less dysfunctional than the ‘bad guys,’ the Republicans.
Furthermore, Mr. Smith, third parties already exist. Noone votes for them, however, because they don’t wish to break from their dualistic mindset. I think I mentioned that somewhere above.
6 garonsen // Apr 14, 2008 at 1:56 am
I have to agree with Adam’s comment. There’s no question an Obama administration with a Democratic Congress would be far and away better than McCain and company.
The Democratic majority is largely ineffective now because they only hold a majority in the House (in the Senate, even without Lieberman, Harry Reid is hardly effective), and because the Bush administration ignores or vetoes most meaningful laws that are passed.
But the two-party system as it is now isn’t anywhere close to ideal. Realistically, a third party is going to need to create a message that resonates with people combined with a strong grassroots effort over a substantial number of years. Campaign finance reform within the system would also help (there’s a reason both parties reject this, and it’s not about free speech). Or an independently wealthy candidate — it would have been interesting to see Bloomberg give that a shot.
The way things are, a vote for president is marginally meaningful at best because of the way the electoral college works, and a vote for a Nader or Bob Barr is just disparaged as a protest vote by our lackluster press.
But this is certainly accurate: “Contemporary American politics has become a despicable ordeal for the general population, filled with nonsensical argumentation and non-existent debates.”
I think the root of the problem is money. How that problem’s effectively addressed I wish I knew.
7 Matt Bachman // Apr 14, 2008 at 1:31 pm
I have to clarify my previous comment in regards to Aronsen’s objection. I’ll give you the disputatious assertion concerning Obama, or at least leave it alone (I sincerely want to keep this discussion focused around 3rd parties).
Regarding money, Nader is significantly wealthier than many people imagine, but the real test of who wins what is whether or not he’s able to procure influence and wealth from benefactors. You’re totally right, though, that money makes the world go around, or, in this case, elects assholes.
The only way that I think this issue of money could be effectively addressed is to amass more wealth than anyone else. Period. If it’s solely a question of wealth allocation, then people who want change should educate themselves on these matters and work to become wealthy.
Leave a Comment