For decades I and many of my fellow Americans were forced, every 4 years, to hold our noses and vote for the “lesser” evil. Of course we recognized that the “lesser” was still evil but we had no other option. After all, we have a “democratic” two party system where both candidates genuflect to the ruling elite.
Most often the “lesser” was a Democrat, a man whose rhetoric during his candidacy indicated a caring for the working man and woman as well as those stuck in a life of poverty. These “lessers” kept our hopes alive and so we ran to the poles to vote for them.
The reason I refer to the candidates as “he” is because up until 2008, they were always white men. But in 2008, we had the option of voting for either a woman (Hillary Clinton) or a African-American man (Barack Obama) to become the Democratic candidate for President of the United States.
Obama won the Democratic nomination and ran against Republican, John McCain. For most people this was no longer a choice between two evils, Obama was the man who was going to change things in this country. WRONG!!
I don’t wish to focus on Obama’s 7+ years in office, but would like to mention some of his policies which have been less than progressive. Not only have we been involved militarily in the Middle East throughout his administration, but Obama has expanded U.S. military involvement by bombing Libya, overthrowing the Gaddafi regime, supporting terrorist groups in Syria in order to overthrow President Assad, supporting the overthrow of an elected government in the Ukraine, and re-entering the military conflict in Iraq after withdrawing most of the U.S. troops. He has expanded the drone program which has killed thousands of innocent people; he has participated in the weekly formation of a kill list . . . those who are deemed threats to the U.S. and are targeted for assassination. This is without any charges, any trials, or any true convictions. Obama has criminalized whistleblowing and has punished these men and women while the people implicated in committing actual crimes remain free.
I have only touched the surface of what damage Obama has done to our freedoms and constitutional rights. He has also been one of the best friends Wall Street has ever had in the White House. Those who orchestrated and profited from the economic collapse in 2007, were never held accountable, they were bailed out with public money, and there were no regulations drawn up to control their criminality in the future.
In other words, my friends, the great hope became the great disappointment. As Glen Ford, editor of Black Agenda Report stated, “Obama is not the lesser evil, he is the more effective evil.”
Which brings us to the present. It appears that the presidential election this time around will pit Donald Trump against Hillary Clinton. The greatest danger in this scenerio is that one of them will be elected.
The Donald has effectively brought racists and white supremacists out of the closet with his own racist rhetoric. In other words, he has given them legitimacy. If racist comments were not enough, Trump has also endeared himself to women with his misogynistic statements and attitudes. He is a narcissist, with little mouth control and does not hesitate to insult those with whom he disagrees. Is this someone who should have his finger on the nuclear button?
Hillary has a long political record, one that will tell us more about her than anything she has to say in her stump speeches. Bernie Sanders has raised a legitimate concern, “Why would Goldman Sachs pay Hillary $250,000 to speak to them for about an hour if they didn’t expect something in return?”
What was it she said to them in this private, for them only, presentation? Why doesn’t she wish to make public the content of her presentation?
We must keep in mind that Goldman Sachs was one of the most powerful financial institutions involved in scamming the public and causing the almost fatal economic crash of 2007. They were involved in criminal activities. Why is Hillary, who wishes to be the next president, addressing them privately and receiving lots of money for her pearls of wisdom?
Hillary’s record also makes clear that there hasn’t been a war or military conflict she didn’t like. She was the major influence, as secretary of state, to have the U.S. bomb Libya. Thousands died, the country’s infrastructure was destroyed and that country is facing a humanitarian crisis. Muammar Gaddafi, the president of Libya was captured and not only assassinated by his captors, but tortured and sodomized before his death. She has supported the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and the invasion of Iraq, the overthrow of Assad, a democratically elected president in Syria, the overthrow of Viktor Yanukovych, elected president of Ukraine. who had a close relationship with Russia, and has rattled her saber regarding Iran.
Is this someone who should have her finger on the nuclear button?
As the Democrat, can we really say that she deserves our support because she is the lesser of two evils? I do not remember the author of the following statement but I would like to share it with you. I think it puts things in perspective: “Trump will slap you in the face, but Hillary will stab you in the back.” He is blunt, straight forward and obnoxious. She is slick and evasive and does not hesitate to lie.
In many ways, she is more dangerous than Trump. As a Democrat and a woman, she will likely be given greater latitude to effect the damage she will thrust upon us. Charming Bill Clinton or “Slick Willy” kept the progressive community immobilized for eight years. He was supposed to be our man . . . how could we attack him?
Barack Obama also kept the progressive community tied in knots. Not only was he our man, but he is the first black president in U.S. history. How could we confront him? Do we chance being called racists?
The Democrats serve a very important service for the elite rulers. They keep us from organizing and rebelling although they favor most of the same policies as do the Republicans. The loudest confrontations came under the Bush administration. We all knew whose interests he protected and served.
Meaningful change in how we do business and how we live our lives will not come from the ballot box. Elections, in this country, are a meaningless distraction making us feel that we have a voice. What kind of voice do we really have when either of the candidates will represent the monied folks. As the Donald clearly stated, “The system is rigged.”
When a billionaire tells us the system is rigged, we ought to listen. For a good part of my adult life, I’ve been told, “If you don’t vote, don’t complain.” Recently, I’ve seen a quote that seems much more appropriate, “If you vote, you can’t complain.”
By voting, you are supporting a “rigged” system and, therefore, nothing will change. Change will only occur when you willingly get active, join community groups that share your values and goals, take to the streets to let the powers that be know that it will no longer be business as usual, talk to your neighbors and help them understand the issues and the importance of becoming activists, and use social media (the Internet, Facebook) to get alternative views and information that will not be found in the mainstream media.
The thing to keep in mind is that it is not the person alone sitting in the White House that will create change. It is we, the people, who will create the environment needed to change our corrupt, criminal, exploitative system. Change will, as history shows us, come from the bottom up not from the top down. This cannot be accomplished by voting every four years for the lesser of two evils. As James Baldwin stated, “The lesser of two evils is still evil.”
WATCH WHAT THEY DO, NOT WHAT THEY SAY.
Dave Alpert has masters degrees in social work, educational administration, and psychology. He spent his career working with troubled inner city adolescents.
Not voting simply submerges a citizen into that historic fifty percent of our public that are politically lumpen and portrayed as unconcerned. Voting a third party that represents one’s values is an effective and publicly declared “none of the above”.
“After all, we have a “democratic” two party system where both candidates genuflect to the ruling elite.” Certainly that does not apply to Trump who is widely hated by the Republican establishment, especially pro Israel neocons like Max Boot, Jonah Goldberg and Bill Kristol.
Tony, as an election boycott advocate since 2006, I happen to know that many non-voters are better educated, better off economically, and more concerned than voters. The media may not portray them that way, but then who do you suppose owns the media?
The United States does not have proportional representation. A third party that gets 5% of the vote does not get 5% of the seats in Congress the way that political parties do in many European countries. Instead we have winner-take-all elections, where the entire turnout, no matter who they voted for, is considered to be the mandate of the winner. So when you vote for a third party, you’re not voting “none of the above,” you’re voting for whoever the winner turns out to be, and it isn’t likely to be anyone you or your third party supports.
Our electoral system was designed by the Framers of the Constitution so that the popular vote would never be able to change things. Today’s article on Intrepid Report by Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman, entitled, “How the Electoral College could make Paul Ryan president in 2016,” explains just one of the many ways that our Constitution ensured that the popular vote would be irrelevant.
As Dave Alpert says, “By voting, you are supporting a ‘rigged’ system and, therefore, nothing will change.” In fact, by voting, that is by doing your civic duty to and supporting a rigged system, you are demonstrating the ultimate in apathy–a total lack of concern as to whether the system is rigged or not, as long as you can participate in it.
Nobody can educate those who wish to remain deliberately ignorant, and nobody can force them to care if they don’t wish to. But those of us who understand how the system works, and who are opposed to its Constitutionally-mandated corruption, will continue to withhold our consent and support by withholding our votes. We don’t care how political party operatives and the mass media may portray us–they’re paid to lie. We know who we are and what we stand for, and we will not consent to the tyranny of “representatives” who represent only their own selfish interests, not even by casting often uncounted and always unverifiable ballots for candidates who, even if they won, would not have sufficient seniority and numbers to made a difference.
And by the way, since both major parties are beholden to the same big corporate and foreign donors, it is technically incorrect to speak of a third party. First we’d need to have a second party.