I’ve been seeing desperate Democrats working to “get the vote out” lately on Facebook and on a handful of liberal online magazines that I occasionally read. Here’s a “cute” example of a graphic used to promote the idea of voting for Democrats on November 2.

So we should “Vote Democratic” to save our asses?

Why?

Obama has continued and in some cases made worse the policies of Bush. The Democrats controlled Congress and never truly fought for anything worth a damn. They have been all sound and fury with generous capitulation to special interests on Wall Street and in the Health Insurance industry. Then, once they have sold out any progressive legislation, they either try to make it sound like it’s more than it really is or blame Republicans for obstructing it instead of taking responsibility for their own lack of meaningful action.

Voting is a form of control. When you vote for a Democrat or a Republican you are simply legitimizing the control of the ruling class. You are not changing anything. Your voice is not being heard.

A small elite group of the population actually has a voice in government – those wealthy and powerful people who fund campaigns, sit on boards of powerful corporations and prestigious universities, and run giant corporations. These people and their sycophants get to rub elbows with politicians and sometimes even get to write the legislation.

Voting allows these elites to control the state while appeasing the rest of us through offering the illusion of power. But it is just an illusion. You are just a number. A voting statistic.

Put your X here next to Coke or Pepsi. Having a say in the recipe of the beverage that you are forced to consume be damned!

Don’t play their silly game. Don’t vote this November. Organize! That’s the only way your voice will ever be heard.

Here’s an insightful quote by Abraham Lincoln that I recently read about the meaning of liberty and how different people with different interests define it in different ways:

We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men’s labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name, liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names — liberty and tyranny.

The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep’s throat, for which the sheep thanks the shepherd as his liberator, while the wolf denounces him for the same act, as the destroyer of liberty… Plainly the sheep and the wolf are not agreed upon the definition of the word liberty.

The following is a list of Paris newspaper headlines reporting the journey of Napoleon across France, on his return from exile on Elba, March 9 to March 22, 1815:

March 9

THE ANTHROPOPHAGUS HAS QUITTED HIS DEN

March 10

THE CORSICAN OGRE HAS LANDED AT CAPE JUAN

March 11

THE TIGER HAS ARRIVED AT CAP

March 12

THE MONSTER SLEPT AT GRENOBLE

March 13

THE TYRANT HAS PASSED THOUGH LYONS

March 14

THE USURPER IS DIRECTING HIS STEPS TOWARDS DIJON

March 18

BONAPARTE IS ONLY SIXTY LEAGUES FROM THE CAPITAL

He has been fortunate enough to escape his pursuers

March 19

BONAPARTE IS ADVANCING WITH RAPID STEPS, BUT HE WILL NEVER ENTER PARIS

March 20

NAPOLEON WILL, TOMORROW, BE UNDER OUR RAMPARTS

March 21

THE EMPEROR IS AT FONTAINEBLEAU

March 22

HIS IMPERIAL AND ROYAL MAJESTY arrived yesterday evening at the Tuileries, amid the joyful acclamation of his devoted and faithful subjects

]]> http://wrathfuldove.org/2010/01/29/telling-and-amusing-headline-progression/feed/ 0 http://wrathfuldove.org/2010/01/21/why-activism-matters/ http://wrathfuldove.org/2010/01/21/why-activism-matters/#comments Fri, 22 Jan 2010 03:41:51 +0000 John http://wrathfuldove.org/?p=208

When political activists engage in discussions with sympathetic non-activists, we often encounter the idea that all the work of protesting injustice, educating the public, and agitating for change is futile in the face of the monolithic weight of social inertia and elite power structures. Indeed, despite being armed with a knowledge of the history of how political activism has shaped the world and brought about progressive changes, we can still find that, when we beats our fists against the imposing wall of power time and time again and our fingers stand bleeding at that effort while not a single damn brick has been dislodged, it can be discouraging to say the least.

Here’s a comment that I ran across today on a post from the excellent Kasama Project:

It is interesting and appropriate, G, that you bring up the Milgram experiments (“The Perils of Obedience” I think, is the title of the paper he wrote about them). Overall, Milgram’s studies found that a huge percentage of the population (at that time)–as he summed it up, it didn’t matter what social strata or country the people came from–would go along, playing their obedient role in helping to electro-shock a stranger beyond the point of rendering them unconscious, even when that victim complained aloud that they had a heart problem, so long as the subject was told clearly by a team of lab coat technicians that 1) the Experiment required that the test-shocking go on, and 2) that the subject (who was asked to press a button, giving the victim a shock each time he or she gives a wrong answer… or no answer at all) will NOT be held responsible for the effects of the experiment; the scientists take “full responsibility.” Something like 90% go all the way to not only torturing, but potentially killing the shocked-subject. Shocking indeed.

Nonetheless, one remarkable finding of Milgram’s studies–he ran the experiment many many times, playing with different variables along the way–has always represented a certain basis for hope. Namely: the fact that when the study was staged so that one of the three lab coat technicians (all played by actors of course) rebelled, verbally protesting and then refusing to continue with the lab experiment, ALL OF THE TEST SUBJECTS (the shock-button pushers) ALSO REFUSED AND STOPPED. EVERY SINGLE TIME.

I have always thought of this as a kind of allegory for how the rebellious actions of a minority or even a single person–particularly someone that occupies some position of authority within a particular community–can utterly transform a situation, opening up the possibility of others’ real freedom. That is, we might say that it is the psychic space created by the rebellion amongst the so-called “experts” that enables the “subjects” to act upon their own impulses, which were already present, but were suppressed in service to a up-till-now unified and seemingly monolithic authority.

I take comfort from this in the knowledge that even if it sometimes seems like activists are talking to the air, speaking out about injustice and speaking up for the voiceless and oppressed is never futile. Every voice is like a little light that opens up just a little more space in the darkness allowing some other soul to find his match and light his own candle to join the growing chorus of lights. Eventually, there comes a point where there is sufficient brightness for everyone to locate their own light source if they have one, and then, this flood of lights will banish the darkness to the tiny cracks and crevices.

• $100 million – The amount of aid pledged by Obama to help save lives and rebuild Haiti
• $150 million – The amount spent on Obama’s Inaugural Ball
• $2 million PER DAY – The cost of operating the US aircraft carrier that Obama sent to Haiti nearly a week ago
• $7 million PER DAY - The amount of military aid given to Israel by the US during Fiscal Year 2009
• $280+ million PER DAY – The cost of fighting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan so far
• Less than $2 per day – Until the recent tragedy, the amount of money paid to tens of thousands of Hatians working in sweatshops run by US based corporations like Disney

“They’re like insects”.

Thus spoke a man that I overheard several months ago who was describing homeless people to a group of his peers.

While this man offered up such charming words of wit, others in the group swapped stories about personal encounters with a homeless person or beggar who they assumed had engaged in some form of scam. Another person offered up complaints about unemployed people receiving some form of benefit from the State.

It is easier to sneer and look down on the poor and justify one’s cold, callous heart when you tell yourself that they are all unworthy, lazy scam artists.

Of course, we all know that the rich have no scam artists.

Ezekiel 16:49-50: “Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.”

Recently, I’ve been frequently seeing people refer to Obama as a socialist and making accusations that the new stimulus package amounts to socialism and that the new administration has a “socialist agenda”. Cafe Press is filled with “clever” t-shirts where people have juxtaposed Obama’s face with that of figures such as Marx, Lenin, and Mao.

It’s enough to make me scream.

As a socialist, I find that these claims add injury to insult as these people are using the label as though it were a slight all the while bestowing it on an individual who is clearly not a socialist.

Bonafide socialist and radical historian Paul Street puts it quite nicely in a recent ZNet commentary on the filtering out of authentic Left voices in mainstream media:

Two weeks ago, the leading weekly U.S. magazine Newsweek actually published a cover story titled “We are All Socialists Now.”  By “socialism,” the corporate magazine appeared to mean any sort of escalated government intervention in the U.S. economy. There were two things missing from this remarkable Newsweek story:

1. Any remotely accurate understanding of socialism as it is grasped and advanced by its modern-day adherents: democratic workers’ and peoples’ control of economic and political life in the interests of social use, equality, and the common good instead of private gain and social hierarchy. As Lance Selfa, a Marxist author, notes at the end of his recent and officially invisible (in the broader political culture) historical analysis of the Democratic Party, “in a socialist society, workers would take control of the factories and offices.  The repressive apparatuses of the state – from prisons to the military would be brought under democratic control and then abolished.”

2. Discussion with a single solitary living U.S socialist to get his or her take on whether or not the U.S. has now suddenly and miraculously embraced a socialist world view and program.  Such a person could easily be found but actual living socialists must remain offstage since they are and their ideals – shared to no small degree (as only a tiny percentage of Americans are permitted to know) by great historical personalities like Albert Einstein (author of a brilliant essay titled “Why Socialism” in the first issue of the Marxist journal Monthly Review), Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and Helen Keller – are officially invisible under the reigning corporate-Orwellian rules.

I will return in a future commentary to a closer examination of Newsweek’s fascinating “We Are All Socialists Now” claim.  In the meantime, I, an officially invisible American, leave you, dear reader, with the definition of capitalism in the second (1979) and unabridged edition of Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary.  Please note that it contains ample room for significant government intervention and that it contains no reference to the “democracy” and “freedom” with which it is routinely and falsely conflated in “mainstream” U.S. media and political discourse: “the economic system in which all or most of the means of production and distribution, as land, factories, railroads, etc., are privately owned and operated for profit, originally under fully competitive conditions: it has been generally characterized by a tendency toward concentration of wealth and, its latter phase, by the growth of great corporations, increased government controls, etc.”

Many Christians in America align themselves with the Republican party. Once upon a time, I was among their number, but after a renewed commitment to my faith, I found that the more I studied and understood my faith, the more my old conservative ideology crumbled away. Today, I am convinced that the Republican party and its values are far from the values that God would have us embrace and that Republicans and many Christian leaders in America today have more in common with the Pharisees than with Jesus.

90 percent of the time, when you ask a Christian why he or she votes Republican you will find that a big factor is that he or she finds voting for a politician who supports abortion unconscionable. I’ve been there myself as a fellow pro-life Christian and know that the intentions are honorable, but the sad truth is that the issue of abortion is simply a political football in American politics. While Christian voters pat themselves on the back for pulling the Republican lever election after election, nothing has changed to stop the deaths of millions of unborn children every year and nothing will if Christians keep allowing themselves to be manipulated by politicians.

Consider that it has been over 30 years since Roe v. Wade, and we are no closer to overturning that decision today. More importantly, Republicans have had control of all three branches of government for six of the last eight years. From 2000 to 2006, we had a Republican majority in Congress, a Republican President, and 7 Republican appointed judges out of the 9 justices on the Supreme Court. And yet, no legislation was ever passed to challenge Roe v. Wade.

Instead of making excuses for the Republicans, we need to call a spade a spade: the abortion issue is a wonderful carrot to dangle in front of Christians to get their vote every election cycle, and the Republican party sees no reason to take that carrot off the table any time soon. Keeping things the way they are is a win-win because it keeps the Christian vote coming in while preventing the Republicans from experiencing the serious political damage that they should expect from any serious attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade. A majority of Americans support Roe v. Wade and have supported it ever since 1973 with little fluctuation. While sad, it is the reality that we face, and the Republican party is not going to risk turning off so many voters for the benefit of a voting block that they can evidently keep in their pocket with little more than lip service.

So where does that leave us if we admit that Christian voters are being manipulated for political gain?

Well, for starters, we need to realistically look at the limites of electoral politics. As indicated above, no political party is going to have the political capital to legislate the overturning of Roe v. Wade any time soon. When it comes to government actions, we are left with embracing policies that can reduce the number of abortions performed.

It so happens that policies that fight poverty supported by the Democratic party (and other left-leaning parties such as the Green Party and independents like Ralph Nader) and opposed by the Republican party can reduce the number of abortions because many woman get abortions out of a sense that they will not be able to financially support a child. Easing the economic strain of low-wage earners, making child-care accessible to single mothers for work and for school, and ensuring that all people can receive decent health care – these moral and Biblical issues of standing up for the poor while fully worthy as issues in their own right have the virtue of reducing the conditions that tempt people into getting abortions.

So if you are a Christian, consider voting next time for a candidate whose policies will better honor God’s concern for the poor and thereby better combat abortions, instead of voting for an empty promise.

Recently, my mother and aunt were discussing the bailout bill and the elections. They are both Obama supporters although my mother traditionally supports Republicans. My aunt asked my mother for whom I was going to vote come November. When my mom told her that I would be voting for Ralph Nader, my aunt said: “Oh. So he’s going to waste his vote.”

I’m really sick of hearing this silly talk of wasted votes! Let’s settle this thing.

In order to have any meaningful discussion about what it means for a vote to be “wasted”, we have to understand what we intend to accomplish by voting. We are constantly told by the media that voting is our chance to express ourselves – our chance to stand up and be counted and heard. While I submit that voting is a pretty sad excuse for political expression, let’s run with this common notion about what voting means.

If I am to have any chance of expressing myself politically and supporting those political ideals and practices which I hold dear, then rationally speaking I need to vote for the candidate whose ideals and actions line up most completely with my own. I have thoroughly examined the positions and political history of John McCain and Barack Obama and find both candidates quite disappointing. On the other hand, I find Ralph Nader matches up quite well with me on issue after issue. Thus, given our established criteria for the meaning of voting, I would be wasting my vote if I did not vote for Ralph Nader.

The way supporters of Barack Obama talk sometimes you would think the most important thing about voting is to make sure you vote for the side that is going to win! Now that’s what I call a wasted and meaningless vote.

Voting for the lesser of two evils gets you nothing but an endless circle of evil.

Vote for the candidate who best reflects your ideals or don’t vote at all.

I ran across this cartoon today on ZNet that nicely captures the essence of U.S. “democracy”: