Death
By Election
By
David Swanson
02 January,
2008
Afterdowningstreet.org
There
must be a Star Trek episode (if there's not, there should be) in which
all the best minds in the leftist political opposition on some planet
are diverted into an obsession with a virtual reality game, leaving
all the right-wingers free to drive the planet into inevitable war and
destruction. A game is a harmless thing when not put to such use. Elections
are a fundamental pillar of democracy when not put to such use. That
makes the case I want to argue all the more difficult. My thesis is
that, if we do not change our thinking, elections are going to be the
death of U.S. democracy.
How can that
be? Without elections, there can be no democracy. And participating
in elections is the principal, if not sole, duty of the citizens of
a democracy. The health of our democracy can be measured by the wide
range of candidate choices we've been offered. We've even got a woman
and an African American. What in the world can you be talking about?
Well, I would
make a slight modification to one of the claims above: Without HONEST
AND CREDIBLE elections, there can be no democracy. We have not had anything
approaching those in the past 8 years, and we have left in place a system
that will deny us those again in November 2008:
http://www.freepress.org/departments/
display/19/2007/2920 Citizens who are busy working to create a credible
election system in certain states, and perhaps someday in the entire
United States, are doing crucial work. They should be encouraged, joined,
and supported.
I would make
another slight modification: Without honest and credible elections and
an INFORMED ELECTORATE, there can be no democracy. The corporate media
that dominates the U.S. information system does not provide useful electoral
information. While we are developing an independent, web-based, and
radio communications system, much of that system currently, voluntarily,
and self-destructively submits to the frames of the corporate media,
serving as critic rather than educator, boosting cynicism rather than
participation. Leftists, liberals, and progressives, and those who share
their views but run in fear from their names, have more than enough
money to create honest democratic television news. In fact, every election
cycle, we dump that much money into election advertising that funds
the destructive corporate media. It's as if we're hooked on the game
and keep feeding it quarters without stopping to think.
I could go
on modifying the claim about elections to rule out systems that have
legalized massive bribery, imposed undemocratic primaries, locked out
new parties and movements, developed election seasons that last from
one election to the next, or in the immediate instance already weeded
out any truly decent candidates. (Yes, you should vote for Kucinich.
Yes, you should believe anything is possible. But you're going up against
the televised voices in everyone's heads.)
Well, what
are we supposed to do, ignore elections until we can fix them? That'll
just get us more elected officials less likely to fix them, won't it?
That depends.
Certainly focusing on the elections will do that, given that the elections
are now routinely stolen. And I wouldn't want you to ignore elections
in order to watch football. I would ask you to ignore elections in order
to fix the election system now and in order to fix other pressing problems
that you don't need elections to fix. I would modify this claim:
"And
participating in elections is the principal, if not sole, duty of the
citizens of a democracy."
to read:
Participating
in honest, credible, informed elections is one of the LESS IMPORTANT
of the many necessary duties of the citizens of a democracy. Participating
in non-credible elections is a DISTRACTION. Of course, in the current
system, the primaries offer more real choices, less fraud, and many
fewer voters than the general election. They also don't put anyone in
office.
Have you
ever noticed that the U.S. Constitution doesn't mention primaries? Or
political parties? Or corporations? Or churches? It provides no right
to vote. Instead, it mentions the freedoms to speak, to assemble, to
publish news, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
And it goes on repeatedly, at some length, to establish the power of
the people's representatives in the House of Representatives to hold
an outlaw executive or judiciary in check through impeachment.
O.K. But
how do we petition our government for a redress of grievances except
by waiting until the next election and voting it out?
Is it possible
we really have to be told this again? We do it by assembling, by speaking,
by publishing news, and by drawing on the traditions of Henry David
Thoreau and Martin Luther King Jr., the tradition of suffragettes and
labor, the lessons of abolitionists and populists. We resist injustice
here and now through creative nonviolent action. In early January, the
peace movement will announce a series of major actions in March 2008.
Resistance to the new American policy of torture is planned for January
11: http://www.witnesstorture.org
A growing list of members of the House Judiciary Committee is pushing
for hearings to begin in January on Dick Cheney's impeachment: http://impeachcheney.org
On January 26, we can join the world for World Social Forum events:
http://www.wsf2008.net On January
31, we can all help end global warming: http://www.focusthenation.org/nationalteachin.php
On February 15, we can demand an end to the occupation of Iraq: http://www.iraqmoratorium.org
By the time March comes around, we can build the activist culture needed
to revive a democracy that is wilting under the heat of election madness.
And not a
moment too soon. Scientists agree that we have a limited number of years
to reverse the current climate change, or we will be past the point
of no return. The common acceptance that we must waste the next year
before acting is evidence, I think, of greater self-destructive tendencies
than ever surfaced during the Cold War. We do NOT have to wait another
year. We have to impeach Cheney and Bush. We have to work at the state
level. We have to work internationally. We have to educate and mobilize,
pressure, resist, and sacrifice. The occupation of Iraq is worse every
year. The attack on Iran is still a threat. Pakistan, a nation that
really DOES have nuclear weapons, is in turmoil. And where is the so-called
progressive online media? Where is the blogosphere? Why, it's got its
nose so far up the ass of the November 2008 elections it can taste the
inaugural champagne.
Is it really
true that the health of our democracy can be measured by the wide range
of candidate choices we've been offered? Take this 1-minute test, and
then tell me if you still believe that: http://www.dehp.net/candidate
How closely
did any of the candidates come to agreeing with you? Did those who came
closest fall into the category of corporate-acceptable "viability"?
Why can't you find anything about this situation or any substantive
reporting on candidates' positions at all? Because for some politics
is a sport, and the fascination lies in the techniques and maneuvers,
not in what it might mean for the world. For others, politics is a soap
opera, an excuse to obsess over whether in the next episode Obama will
take his shirt off or Giuliani's ex-wife's ex-husband will claim to
have Hillary's child. Think I'm exaggerating? Not much.
The political
blogs, like MyDD are all election, all the time. Firedoglake gets credit
for being 2/3 election, all the time. Huffington Post is 3/4 election,
and 3/4 of that is election fluff and refuse. On New Year's Eve, this
was the top HuffPost story, with two big photos: "Edwards: Obama
Too "Nice" For The Presidency." It was followed by these
edifying tracts:
Huckabee
Questions Romney's Honesty
Marty Kaplan: I Know Who's Going to Win
Iowa>> Romney Surging In Polls As Caucus Nears
Live Iowa Campaign Journal - Blowing Bubbles
Politics >> Clinton-Backing Ohio Governor Calls IA Caucuses "Hugely
Undemocratic"
Washington Post Editorial Misses Mark With Criticism of Obama
More in Politics >> McCain's Extensive Wooing Of Lobbyists Exposed
... NYT: Bloomberg Moves Closer To Prez Run
Obama: "The Real Gamble Is Having The Same Old Folks Doing The
Same Old Things And Expecting A Different Result"
Joe Biden: Dem Rivals "Not Making Sense" On Bhutto...
Huckabee Pleads Poverty As He Takes Cash For Speeches
Edwards Radicalizes Anti-Corporate Pitch
Ron Paul Third?
BIO: Up Close and Personal With Edwards
HuffPolitics: Marc Cooper >> Will Edwards Really Win Iowa?
BIO: Obama Rolls The Dice With Latest Edwards Criticism
Edwards: Bill Clinton Has A Place In My White House
Hillary's Final Strategy: Be Afraid
Media Insiders Shaft Biden, Richardson, Dodd, Kucinich and America
What's the Matter with Iowa?
Some of those
articles are by people I greatly admire, and in some cases know and
like. But if they were in that Star Trek episode I mentioned, my concern
would be that their abilities were being wasted when we needed them
most. Here is the complete set of headlines that the otherwise wonderful
website BuzzFlash Emailed out in a New Year's Eve Email:
Awhile back
there was a rumor buzzing around that McCain was pleading with the NYT
not to post an article revealing his extensive -- and hypocritical --
tie to lobbyists. Turns out it was the WP working on the article, and
they posted it on Dec. 31.
Latest MSNBC-McClatchy
Poll: Dem Race Still Too Close to Call, With Shifts of One or Two Percentage
Points Day by Day. "Where Edwards previously had lagged slightly
behind Clinton and Obama, the poll showed him at 24 percent, compared
with Clinton at 23 percent and Obama at 22 percent."
BuzzFlash's
Last Chance Democracy Cafe: Screw Bipartisanship
Senator Obama's
Barber Shop: Come on a BuzzFlash Video Visit to the Home of the "Obama
Cut." Learn About Barack's Favorite Sports Team and His Loyalty
to His Neighborhood Barber of 13 Years. We Needed a Break, As You Do,
from the Doom and Gloom.
Over on Dailykos
on New Year's Eve, the top story was "Huckabee's Imaginary Conception."
Below it were posts like these: "More failed 'leadership,' please!
On white toast with mayo," and "Mike Huckabee's incisive grasp
of foreign policy." The top recommended diary was "MSM Continues
Blackout of John Edwards." It was followed by "The Iowa Edwards
Surge -- first-hand, on the ground," and "Barack Obama will
change the system part 2."
I guess it's
a relief to know that WE don't have to be the ones to change the system.
Over on Alternet, the top story on New Year's Eve was "GOP Mess
in Iowa: Romney Stalls, Giuliani's Flailing, Huckabee Scares the GOP
Establishment." It was followed by these gems:
Despite Media
Hype, Iowa's Democratic Caucuses Will Have No True Winner
Huckabee: 'I Don’t Know' If People Are 'Born' Gay, But It’s
a 'Choice' to Act Gay [VIDEO]
Election 2008: Huckabee has a record of using the power of government
to discriminate against the choices that gay Americans make in their
private lives.
Iowa: Edwards Takes on Corporate Greed
The Imperial Presidency: The '08 Candidates Weigh In
Behind the Edwards Surge: Right Message at the Right Time
The Best Moments in Mike Huckabee's Extremism
Iowa Caucuses: Not the Battle of the Century
Oh, and that
"Imperial Presidency" one - contributed by Huffington Post
- is a column arguing that we should address through an election, a
year away, exactly what the authors of the Constitution told us to address
through impeachment.
Better than
average on the awaking-from-eternal-election-daze count is Common Dreams,
which on New Year's Eve ran the top headline: "FROM IOWA CORNFIELDS,
A LEFT-TILTING TRADITION, MOST DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES VOTE FOR NUCLEAR
POWER," but which carried below it a relatively small percentage
of election headlines, including these:
An Endorsement
from the Wilderness
Behind the Edwards Surge: Right Message at the Right Time
What Hillary Hasn’t Done in Foreign Policy
Mitt Romney’s Pursuit of Tyrannical Power, Literally
Candidates Split Along Party Lines on Healthcare
Truthout.org
does relatively well too, tending to run 50% or less election coverage.
OpEdNews is superb, making election coverage far less than half its
news. On New Year's Eve, it featured two election-related top headlines,
but one of them was about preventing election fraud and the other about
Ron Paul's refusal to support impeachment.
Democratic
Underground is pretty far gone on most days, running lots of election
blogs and even more election videos. Video websites are easily dominated
by election fluff, but video-heavy Crooks and Liars tends to keep election
nonsense to a relatively low level.
I mention
all of these websites, because they are the ones I like and would like
to see focused on the work needed to restore our democracy, not a year
from now, but immediately. My goal is not to leave the business of elections
to those who will steal what we break our necks preventing them from
winning. My goal is to shift the political discussion in ways that,
among many other things, compel better political candidates.
I know there
are tender feelings involved here. I know John Edwards is cute, and
even Hillary seems measurably less insane than Huckabee. I know Gravel
has more heart than Biden. I know you adore Ron Paul more because you
think he'll shut down the empire than because he's a xenophobic bigoted
moron. I get that there are differences and intrigues, personalities,
and tons of money and hard work at stake. My point is that we need not
lower our standards so far that supporters of the last invasion who
refuse to forswear the next one count as the best we can do.
But we cannot
raise those standards through electoral work. If we want John Edwards
to promise never to launch an aggressive war, we will impeach the people
who launched the last one. If we want Hillary Clinton to commit to not
spying on Huckabee (or any of us) without a warrant and probable cause,
we will put behind bars the architects of the current spying programs.
If we want the world to understand that Bush and Cheney and the current
Congress do not speak for us, we will raise our voices now, not next
November. Focusing on the choices presented to us in a two-year electoral
campaign leads to insufficient pressure on Congress (with disastrous
results in 2007), not to mention independent billionaire campaigns.
If we want
credible elections and palatable candidates, we will break the electoral
spell and start behaving like the citizens of a democracy.
Leave
A Comment
&
Share Your Insights
Comment
Policy
Digg
it! And spread the word!
Here is a unique chance to help this article to be read by thousands
of people more. You just Digg it, and it will appear in the home page
of Digg.com and thousands more will read it. Digg is nothing but an
vote, the article with most votes will go to the top of the page. So,
as you read just give a digg and help thousands more to read this article.