More thoughts on the lesser of two evils issue
Apologies that I've been a bit lax on the blogging, but I've feeling ill lately and have spent most of my time lying on the couch with the boyfriend watching baseball and old episodes of Star Trek Deep Space Nine. At any rate, a few blogs ago I brought up the "lesser of two evils" business, and wanted to see some other people's takes on it: do you intend to vote for the candidate you like, or against the candidate you hate? I posed this question to my Aunt Elissa and Uncle Damien this weekend, but their response was a bit too colorful for this space. Basically, they really hate Nader and are not too pleased with people such as myself who voted for him--their feeling is that you have to be pretty priveleged and well-off to not be worried about the very real economic hardships that Republican candidates inflict.
The other side comes from faithful Mikhaela.Net reader Philip Pangrac, whose advice regarding the Greens is "Just Do It":
Re: choosing between Greens and Democrats, it's no choice for me, I vote Green. For several reasons:
1. The Green party better represents my own opinions than the Democrats.
2. I don't worry that Green party members will roll over for conservatives once they get elected.
3. I hate hate HATE the "lesser of two evils" argument as a way to justify betraying yourself.
4. The Democrats have had almost 21 years (a full 21 this next Tuesday) to win me over and they haven't.
5. I don't buy the bullshit belief about this being a two party system.
6. The Democrats have made it clear they don't need me or care to win my vote, so I don't need them.
7. It's just plain right to vote your beliefs.
8. Possibly most important: the Democrats roll over because they know most voters don't vote and those that do (and are liberal) will vote for them anyway because they're afraid of Republicans/feel guilty/don't bother thinking about voting for other parties/etc. If we voters were to grow a collective spine and leave the Democrats high and dry, then the Democrats would change. But since most votes continue to vote status quo, it'll never happen soon. Voting Democrat will hinder change and voting for a third party will help advance it.
Also, I did vote Nader, and I never regretted it. Always remember that (1) Gore did win in '00, even though (2) he almost completely fucked up what should have been one of the easiest victories in polictical history, Ralph Nader or no Ralph Nader. Just read tomorrow's (10.13) Boondocks as a reminder of part one.
A compelling argument... but as I said before, I'm still planning to vote for O'Brien in the Massachusetts governor's race, a vote made slightly less distasteful by her recent statement that she supports gay marriage. (Meanwhile, Romney is busy explaining why he gave to a university with anti-gay rules, and why he called homosexuality "perverse" in a 1994 address)