redblueamerica.com

WATCHING POLITICS:This year, for the first time in my life, I will not be “throwing my vote away”

 My first voting experience was probably similar to many “civically conscious” youths - I needed help from someone I looked up to.  It’s not because I couldn’t understand the ballot or found my “chads” hanging.  I needed help understanding “the system.”  You know what I am talking about; I needed to figure out how this whole democracy thing really works.

 “What is the difference between a Republican and Democrat?”  “How do I figure out what each person really stands for?”  And, inevitably in the modern political arena, “What if I dislike all of the “top” choices but instead prefer a minor candidate with no real chance of winning?”  It was in response to this last question that my father gave me his version of the sage advice given to many young adults:  “Unless you vote for the candidate with the best chance of defeating the worst candidate you are just throwing your vote away.”  Put another way, you should vote for whoever you must in order to defeat the worst choice.  So I did, I cast my first vote against the worst choice.

 As the years passed, I continued to vote against each successively worse “worst candidate.”  I consistently felt let down, regardless of whether the person I voted against won or lost.  After every election I asked myself, “Is this really the best we can do as a nation?”  I sought comfort in the rationalization, “There is no way it can get any worse,” but as impossible as it seemed, the choices kept getting worse in every subsequent election.  This year I find myself in the position of being unable to determine the worst choice among an equally odious group of candidates.

 The rubric with which I based my vote in every election of my adult life was suddenly rendered invalid, and this left me in uncharted waters.  My father can’t even help me because he is in the same boat.

 My initial idea, actually more of a reaction, is to simply not vote.  Whenever a problem of conscience presents itself in modern society, most people ignore it and hope it goes away.  Why should I go against the trend?  Fortunately or unfortunately, I was raised to believe it morally unconscionable to be a citizen of the greatest nation in history, with the greatest form of government, and be too apathetic to try to make it better.  I couldn’t, in good conscience, not vote.

 My next idea was to vote for the same party I voted for last time.  This tactic is certainly easier than thinking, and has been used by “party line voters” across the country for years.  You know the “party line voters;” you may even be one.  In daily life, they disagree with most of what “the party” stands for but continue voting for “the party’s” candidates and issues because that is how they have voted their entire lives.  Using this theory I would feel “civically conscious” and politically astute without taking time away from American Idol, celebrity sex scandals and the brain-dead musings disgorged from Hollywood.  After all, what other options do I have?

 Then, while killing brain cells watching National Geographic and contemplating what to feed my dog who is allergic to meat (no, really), I had an epiphany.  Charles Darwin supplied the answer to my political predicament.  Bear with me.  Medication, vet visits, special food, etc. keep my dog from the mortal grip of “natural selection.”  I love my dog to death but he is a wimp.  Intervention by me and others like me in the genetic history of my dog has resulted in a member of the canine species that wouldn’t survive for five minutes if nature were left alone to select away.  But what does this have to do with politics and why do you care about my dog?

 By voting against the worst choice, we, as a nation, have been intervening in Darwin’s theory as practiced in politics.  Follow me.  The “candidate most able to defeat the worst candidate” is similar in many ways (mass appeal, cross over voters, etc.) to the worst candidate, but possesses one or two distinguishing positive features.  We are, in effect, giving a similar, weak dog, just enough vitamins and diet pills to make it look good enough to overcome the worst dog.  And in subsequent elections, the rolls are reversed and the other dog gets the artificial boost.  The unintended consequence is that we are breeding two types of dogs that are virtually identical and staying alive because of the intermittent boost they receive in every election.  None of the dogs has a killer instinct; none of the politicians have any new ideas.  You have to look no further than presidential approval ratings in the 20s and congressional ratings in the teens to see that all the major “dogs” are very weak.  If you look at the main presidential choices over the last 30 years more sick-dog metaphors become apparent.

 How do we reverse this trend?  Simple - give the supplements to the strong dogs to make them stronger even though they have no chance of winning in the current election.  By voting for the best candidate we give the strong dogs the support they need to thrive and take away the support keeping the weak ones alive, letting natural selection weed out the dogs that are weak or allergic to meat (why me?!).  It will take time, and the results may often seem discouraging because natural selection does not happen overnight.  The only way to reverse the trend is to vote for good people regardless of whether they can defeat the worst choice. Even if it doesn’t pay off immediately, supporting the strong ones is the only way to make them stronger.  And when more and more people vote for the good dog, nature will run its course and Darwin will do what he does best; leave us with a good, strong breed of politicians.

 So, how will I vote this November?  I can’t, in good conscious, vote for McCain, Clinton or Obama because these dogs have fleas, mange, rotten teeth, smell bad and will probably bite us – the hand that gives them the medication that keeps them alive, not to mention feeds them and keeps them fat.  (Now that I have started the dog metaphors I am having too much fun and just can’t stop.)  We have a group of presidential candidates who have managed to combine a complete lack of moral conviction with unwavering blind support of the most destructive national policies possible.  Before now I didn’t even think it was possible to be that morally contradictory, but unfortunately I have been proven wrong.

 Rumors are circulating of some combination of a Ventura/Lieberman/Paul ticket and I may vote that way if for no other reason than the fact (no, the hope) that these individuals actually think for themselves and don’t bow to political whim (something I will have to judge if or when it happens).  I readily admit that there are few options because most independent minded politicians dedicated to doing what is in the best interest of the nation (versus their own) are never allowed to rise to the national stage.  But even if I have to write in “Kinky Freedman for President!!” this year for the first time in my life, I will not be throwing away my vote.