American voters
should shift their electoral strategy from seeking to put the lesser of
evils into power to seeking to elect the force for the greatest good.
Oct. 20, 2008 (World News Trust) -- With the U.S.
presidential election fast approaching, Americans are settling on their
decision for who would best take their country in the right direction
and serve their interests. Most view the political system with
cynicism. Most see the two dominant political parties, Democratic and
Republican, as serving the interests of corporations and the financial
elite -- but not their own. Many feel disenfranchised. Many feel that to
participate in a system that merely perpetuates the status quo without
offering any hope for real change is to grant it legitimacy when it
deserves none. And if past trends are any indication, most won't vote.
Among
those who will cast their ballot, most, even those who will vote along
party lines, view both Barack Obama and John McCain with skepticism.
They are both seen negatively, both representing the established order.
But one or the other of them is viewed as the lesser evil. To keep the
greater evil out of power, a vote for the lesser one becomes necessary.
This
remains true even when there are alternatives to the Democratic and
Republican candidates, and even when the alternative candidates are
seen far more as representing American interests and far less as being
corrupted. A great many voters will vote for who they see as a lesser
evil rather than who they see as actually being a good candidate
because they so greatly fear the possibility of the greater evil
gaining power.
This voting strategy is deeply ingrained. During
the 2000 election, Ralph Nader was an extraordinarily popular
candidate, particularly among the left. He was seen as far more worthy
than the Democratic candidate Al Gore. And yet many liberals who shared
that view chastised their fellow leftists for casting their vote for
Nader, particularly when it came down to the Florida election.
The
reasoning is straightforward: voting for Nader meant not voting for
Gore, which meant George W. Bush, the Republican candidate, had a
better chance of winning. Voting for Nader helped ensure a Bush win,
the argument goes, because liberals might swing their vote away from
Gore, but conservatives were less likely to do so. Nader didn't have
nearly as good a chance as winning as Gore, and so the strategic goal
of keeping Bush from power meant voting for Gore even if Nader was the
better candidate.
While this appears to be a perfectly logical
argument and pragmatic voting strategy, it is rooted upon a number of
fallacies. First and foremost is the deeply ingrained belief that
alternative candidates don't have a chance of winning, and so to vote
for one would mean "wasting" your vote.
This year, the most
extraordinary candidate was, hands down, Ron Paul. He was extremely
popular, and remains so after having withdrawn his candidacy. He made
waves in America, and, despite being old enough to be their
grandfather, spoke to a whole new generation of voters that are
disillusioned with business as usual in Washington. His position on the
issues make sense and Americans recognized that he represented real
change. The fact that he was even in the running gave hope to many that
the U.S. political system might actually be able to function as the
founding fathers intended, that a restoration of the American Republic
based upon the U.S. Constitution as the supreme law of the land might
be possible.
Still, one could turn on the TV and watch news
reports where people on the street are interviewed about their
preference of candidates and see people saying things like, "I really
like Ron Paul. I think he's the best candidate. I like his position on
the issues, and he makes sense. But he doesn't have much chance of
winning, so I'm probably going to vote for Barack Obama."
Therein
lies another fallacy. People don't vote for who they actually like for
the presidency based upon their opinion of whether or not they think it
is likely that they will win. The "we have to ensure the greater evil
doesn't gain power" mindset wins out over "we have to ensure the best
candidate wins" But, of course, strict adherence to this electoral
strategy can only result in the self-perpetuation of the same political
process they they are so disillusioned with in the first place.
The
truth is that the only reason a candidate like Ron Paul is "unlikely"
to win an election is because people won't vote for him. And they won't
vote for him because they think he's unlikely to win, which of course
results in the self-fulfillment of that reality.
The American
people need to recognize that an alternate reality exists, and that the
way to bring it about requires merely a shift in paradigm. American
voters should shift their electoral strategy from seeking to put the
lesser of evils into power to seeking to elect the force for the
greatest good.
There are, of course, those who already adhere
to this alternative framework. If there were a few more among their
numbers, alternative candidates like Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, and
Ralph Nader would gain more votes. They might still lose. But does
voting for a losing candidate mean one's vote has been wasted? How much
more wasted is a vote that goes towards the lesser evil? You've still
voted for the perpetuation of evil.
Far more worthy alternative
candidates might still lose, but it wouldn't mean votes were wasted.
The increased percentage of the votes that went towards them would send
a powerful message to Washington. It would encourage more people in the
next election to do the same and vote their conscience, rather than
adhering to a voting strategy that virtually guarantees nothing will
ever substantially change.
Eventually, the number of votes
being cast towards alternative candidates would be enough that the
message from the American public could no longer be ignored. Even if
still resulting in a loss for the worthiest candidateit would remain a
win for the American public, because whichever evil from whichever
party did win the election would be under far greater pressure to
implement real reform.
And for Americans who don't believe
their voice is heard in Washington or that public pressure has any
effect, a simple refresher course in history could remind them that
advancements in society are not made at the behest of government or the
ruling class, but only by pressure from the masses reaching a tipping
point. Politicians don't go out on a limb to promote radical change on
their own accord. They have to be pushed out there under massive public
pressure and under the fear that one's constituency might very well
vote one out of power if one doesn't do precisely what they are
publicly demanding.
One of the most effective means by which
the American people could send a message to Washington would be by
voting. There's every reason to be cynical of the political system in
the United States. But there's no reason for despair. There is hope. And there
are individuals working within the system representing real hope and
real change. More Americans need to take the time to stay informed and
get engaged in the political process. And of those Americans who do
vote each election, more need to recognize that the "lesser of evil"
strategy only perpetuates the framework wherein it remains a choice
between evils.
The only real voting strategy that can offer
real hope for change is the one wherein Americans vote their conscience
and cast their ballot for the candidate they think is truly the most
worthy to be called by the title of President of the United States of
America.
Until Americans realize this, there will indeed remain little hope for the future.
Jeremy R. Hammond is the editor of Foreign Policy Journal,
a website providing news, analysis, and opinion from outside the
standard framework for debate offered by government officials and the
mainstream corporate media. He has also written for numerous other
online publications. Contact him at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..