In this post, I won't bother setting forth a political platform of any kind. However, I will set forth a pattern of political behavior that could serve as the basis for a new political movement. This movement is to abstain.
Well, I can't call it the abstinence party, so I'm working on a name. However, by its nature, it wouldn't be a party. It would only be what I have said, a form of political behavior.
What do I mean? Well, by abstain I mean to not vote for anyone! That's right DON'T VOTE!
This sort of idea makes politically minded people really upset. They say, "If you don't vote, you can't complain!" or "You live in a democracy and take it for granted." No, I am not apathetic, I am abstaining!
I believe that leaders don't create movements, movements find their leaders. Until a proper leader arises that not only inspires me to support him, but also convincingly describes what he will do, and explains the necessity for his leadership, I will not vote.
In other words, I hope to create a movement of abstainers. Eventually, someone will come along with real leadership to pick up these votes. However, this will never happen if everybody keeps settling for the lesser of two evils. It doesn't even matter if you don't consider the current options 'evil', we require more than 'officials' or people who share our political views. We need leaders who help tap into our hidden angst and reveal to us our needs. Like I have said, they do not change us, they respond to us. When we see what we want, we attach to that.
A great many see this in Barack Obama, however, I certainly do not. He may tap into certain anxieties and needs of the people, but I feel like this is mostly rhetorical. Things like, "We need a better, united America! We need to be strong and support peace and a strong economy. We need a strong and great environment, by having policies that support strong environment" etc. In many ways he does fulfill real needs, but these needs are mostly identity needs. I won't consider the racial element, because I don't want to be unfair. I will say that Barack Obama (I find it disrespectful to just use a person's last name) taps into the identity of the liberal very strongly. He talks about everyone being discouraged. That rhetoric makes a lot of sense in the context of the 1930's, but life has become pretty tolerable since in comparison. There have been ups and downs and many dramatic changes, but if we are all discouraged in our day, I think we may always be discouraged. I think the discouragement idea, besides being a liberal rhetorical hallmark, is a discouragement from having 8 years of conservatives in power in the white house. It is a political discouragement felt uniquely strongly by the liberals. However, because things are getting rough (oil, gas, economy, foreign relations, a war - which is going considerably well - but is still a war, and changing and confusing social mores), and because a large enough group supports the 'hope' candidate, others buy into the 'hope' rhetoric because they want that and they are convinced - not by Barack Obama - but by everyone else being convinced.
Hence, Barack Obama represents a certain kind of real leader. However, he only offers the rhetoric of hope. What our society needs is leaders willing to take it in a direction.
Let me give an example. We have high oil prices. Democrats oppose drilling because it will harm certain wildernesses, is a short term mild solution, and will add to global warming and make our long-term problem of finding an energy solution more difficult. However, in order to achieve that long term solution, we must somehow fundamentally change our society and how it consumes energy. Whether or not we should do that, if that's what the democrats want, they must advocate it. Otherwise, if we are not prepared to give up cars and have controlled thermostats, or more, we need to drill now. It certainly might make things worse, but half-solutions don't make things better.
So, Barack Obama would be a leader if he came out and said that we need to change how our society works. He talks about 'change', but he must quantify that change. He must explain that he will increase the size and role of government for our betterment (according to his ideal). He must advocate this, and explain it, and make sacrifice for it. Then you are a true leader. He cannot do that really, because then people will vote against him. This is because people don't want government taking that role.
Barack Obama needs to wait until people want that, and then maybe he can be a true leader. Al Gore is an example of someone who is trying to be a true leader. Even if his motives are entirely insincere - lets assume - he is still a true leader because he advocates and explains a certain position and garners the amount of support people are willing to give him. I do not want Al Gore to be an elected official, because I disagree with his politics. However, if I agreed with him (the question of his motives being sincere being irrelevant assuming that he will do what he says) then I think that he is the sort of person to vote for.
So, to ABSTAIN properly, you don't vote at all. Not for anyone, president, congress, mayor. When you find a true leader who advocates and explains a clear direction and you agree and support this direction, vote for that person. On any level.
For the whiners, who think this is a bad idea, I have a few words. First of all, an abstainer wouldn't complain if there are problems, they'd acknowledge that they exercised their right to vote by not voting and that they are comfortable with the consequences of doing that. Secondly, an abstainer may try to be a leader themselves. I don't see any leaders I can put my trust in, so I am trying to be a leader as best I can. Example (though small): this blog.
So, it is not apathy or inaction I advocate. Abstention, not abstinence, that we must engage in. Until we find a leader, at which point, at any such point, voting is entirely appropriate. However, no one should settle.
How to do this? One, whichever candidate is the best, support that person. If you liked Joe Biden the absolute best (and you are not a loyal democrat, just a democrat, that is, you don't look to the party overall for leadership) vote for him. If you like the guy from Tuesday night TV best, vote for him (not Fred Thompson, just a 'whoever'). Whoever is your ideal leader, who inspires you to want that person for president (obviously, lack of experience or desire to run would be reasons to not want someone to be president, I'm just making generalizations).
The same goes for congress and other people for whom you can vote. You might wonder about how this country, if everybody did this, could ever agree on a president. Think George Washington. If we didn't compromise our values to have a president, but abstained, a person who was very competent but neutral politically would be the compromise. I could vote for a president who I trusted to be honorable and neutral, that's a form of leadership (for the office of president). Congressional seats are over smaller areas, so we can afford to be more partisan. That is why congress is entrusted to make policy and the president execute it.
So, if you aren't inspired, don't vote, or vote for that person that does inspire you. Forget who wins! Sometimes our country needs to make mistakes for people to learn once and for all what those mistakes are. In other words, if Barack Obama is so bad, we'll know soon enough and there won't be another Barack Obama for a while. Otherwise, it means he wasn't so bad. So it's okay if he wins, but it's not okay to vote against him by voting for 'the other guy'. I suppose, there is 'anti-leadership'. If someone inspires you so much that you must not have them be your leader, then you might vote against them. Etc. You know what I'm trying to say.
Abstain!
I will not vote for president, or I may write in Mitt Romney. Why? I'm not voting to play and win some game, I'm voting to express my will for who I want to lead the country. I think Mitt Romney is someone who had convinced me more or less that he knows what's wrong and would do a good job handling things. He said not to vote for him, but assuming (in imaginaryland) he won the office, I don't think that he said not to vote for him would make him be worse at his job - so I can vote for him still. However, I may not vote for him, because despite convincing me that he has a grasp of what needs to be done, I don't know if I see him as someone to take the country in a 'direction'. So I may yet abstain. I suppose both John McCain or Barack Obama might yet gain my vote, but I doubt it. And if they don't I will wholeheartedly abstain!
How about this whiners! People complain that there's never anyone good to vote for, it's the lesser of two evils. Maybe that's because people always vote for one of the two lesser of two evils! So to all your, 'don't vote and don't complain' talk, I say, stop complaining about the poor presidents we've had when you always vote for one of the two 'evils'.
And I have spoken!!
0 comments:
Post a Comment