The case against casting a ballot for the president -- even if you think he's better than Mitt Romney

obama full sitting reuters.jpg

Reuters


Sep 26 2012, Conor Friedersdorf (TheAtlantic)
Tell certain liberals and progressives that you can't bring yourself to vote for a candidate who opposes gay rights, or who doesn't believe in Darwinian evolution, and they'll nod along. Say that you'd never vote for a politician caught using the 'n'-word, even if you agreed with him on more policy issues than his opponent, and the vast majority of left-leaning Americans would understand. But these same people cannot conceive of how anyone can discern Mitt Romney's flaws, which I've chronicled in the course of the campaign, and still not vote for Obama.

Don't they see that Obama's transgressions are worse than any I've mentioned?

I don't see how anyone who confronts Obama's record with clear eyes can enthusiastically support him. I do understand how they might concluded that he is the lesser of two evils, and back him reluctantly, but I'd have thought more people on the left would regard a sustained assault on civil liberties and the ongoing, needless killing of innocent kids as deal-breakers. 

Nope.

There are folks on the left who feel that way, of course. Some of them were protesting with the Occupy movement at the DNC. But the vast majority don't just continue supporting Obama. They can't even comprehend how anyone would decide differently. In a recent post, I excoriated the GOP and its conservative base for operating in a fantasy land with insufficient respect for empiricism or honest argument.

I ended the post with a one-line dig at the Democratic Party. "To hell with them both," I fumed.

Said a commenter, echoing an argument I hear all the time:

I mean, how can someone who just finished writing an article on how the Republican Party is too deluded, in the literal sense, to make good decisions about anything not prefer the other party?

Let me explain how.

I am not a purist. There is no such thing as a perfect political party, or a president who governs in accordance with one's every ethical judgment. But some actions are so ruinous to human rights, so destructive of the Constitution, and so contrary to basic morals that they are disqualifying. Most of you will go that far with me. If two candidates favored a return to slavery, or wanted to stone adulterers, you wouldn't cast your ballot for the one with the better position on health care. I am not equating President Obama with a slavery apologist or an Islamic fundamentalist. On one issue, torture, he issued an executive order against an immoral policy undertaken by his predecessor, and while torture opponents hoped for more, that is no small thing.    

What I am saying is that Obama has done things that, while not comparable to a historic evil like chattel slavery, go far beyond my moral comfort zone. Everyone must define their own deal-breakers. Doing so is no easy task in this broken world. But this year isn't a close call for me.

I find Obama likable when I see him on TV. He is a caring husband and father, a thoughtful speaker, and possessed of an inspirational biography. On stage, as he smiles into the camera, using words to evoke some of the best sentiments within us, it's hard to believe certain facts about him:    

  1. Obama terrorizes innocent Pakistanis on an almost daily basis. The drone war he is waging in North Waziristan isn't "precise" or "surgical" as he would have Americans believe. It kills hundreds of innocents, including children. And for thousands of more innocents who live in the targeted communities, the drone war makes their lives into a nightmare worthy of dystopian novels. People are always afraid. Women cower in their homes. Children are kept out of school. The stress they endure gives them psychiatric disorders. Men are driven crazy by an inability to sleep as drones buzz overhead 24 hours a day, a deadly strike possible at any moment. At worst, this policy creates more terrorists than it kills; at best, America is ruining the lives of thousands of innocent people and killing hundreds of innocents for a small increase in safety from terrorists. It is a cowardly, immoral, and illegal policy, deliberately cloaked in opportunistic secrecy. And Democrats who believe that it is the most moral of all responsible policy alternatives are as misinformed and blinded by partisanship as any conservative ideologue. 
  2. Obama established one of the most reckless precedents imaginable: that any president can secretly order and oversee the extrajudicial killing of American citizens. Obama's kill list transgresses against the Constitution as egregiously as anything George W. Bush ever did. It is as radical an invocation of executive power as anything Dick Cheney championed. The fact that the Democrats rebelled against those men before enthusiastically supporting Obama is hackery every bit as blatant and shameful as anything any talk radio host has done.  
  3. Contrary to his own previously stated understanding of what the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution demand, President Obama committed U.S. forces to war in Libya without Congressional approval, despite the lack of anything like an imminent threat to national security. 

In different ways, each of these transgressions run contrary to candidate Obama's 2008 campaign. (To cite just one more example among many, Obama has done more than any modern executive to wage war on whistleblowers. In fact, under Obama, Bush-era lawbreakers, including literal torturers, have been subject to fewer and less draconian attempts at punishment them than some of the people who conscientiously came forward to report on their misdeeds.) Obama ran in the proud American tradition of reformers taking office when wartime excesses threatened to permanently change the nature of the country. But instead of ending those excesses, protecting civil liberties, rolling back executive power, and reasserting core American values, Obama acted contrary to his mandate. The particulars of his actions are disqualifying in themselves. But taken together, they put us on a course where policies Democrats once viewed as radical post-9/11 excesses are made permanent parts of American life.

There is a candidate on the ballot in at least 47 states, and probably in all 50, who regularly speaks out against that post-9/11 trend, and all the individual policies that compose it. His name is Gary Johnson, and he won't win. I am supporting him because he ought to. Liberals and progressives care so little about having critiques of the aforementioned policies aired that vanishingly few will even urge that he be included in the upcoming presidential debates. If I vote, it will be for Johnson. What about the assertion that Romney will be even worse than Obama has been on these issues? It is quite possible, though not nearly as inevitable as Democrats seem to think. It isn't as though they accurately predicted the abysmal behavior of Obama during his first term, after all. And how do you get worse than having set a precedent for the extrajudicial assassination of American citizens? By actually carrying out such a killing? Obama did that too. Would Romney? I honestly don't know. I can imagine he'd kill more Americans without trial and in secret, or that he wouldn't kill any. I can imagine that he'd kill more innocent Pakistani kids or fewer. His rhetoric suggests he would be worse. I agree with that. Then again, Romney revels in bellicosity; Obama soothes with rhetoric and kills people in secret.

To hell with them both.

Sometimes a policy is so reckless or immoral that supporting its backer as "the lesser of two evils" is unacceptable. If enough people start refusing to support any candidate who needlessly terrorizes innocents, perpetrates radical assaults on civil liberties, goes to war without Congress, or persecutes whistleblowers, among other misdeeds, post-9/11 excesses will be reined in.

If not?

So long as voters let the bipartisan consensus on these questions stand, we keep going farther down this road, America having been successfully provoked by Osama bin Laden into abandoning our values.

We tortured.

We started spying without warrants on our own citizens.

We detain indefinitely without trial or public presentation of evidence.

We continue drone strikes knowing they'll kill innocents, and without knowing that they'll make us safer.

Is anyone looking beyond 2012?

The future I hope for, where these actions are deal-breakers in at least one party (I don't care which), requires some beginning, some small number of voters to say, "These things I cannot support." 

Are these issues important enough to justify a stand like that?

I think so.

I can respect the position that the tactical calculus I've laid out is somehow mistaken, though I tire of it being dismissed as if so obviously wrong that no argument need be marshaled against it. I am hardly the first to think that humans should sometimes "act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law." I am hardly the first to recommend being the change you want to see. I can respect counterarguments, especially when advanced by utilitarians who have no deal-breakers of their own. But if you're a Democrat who has affirmed that you'd never vote for an opponent of gay equality, or a torturer, or someone caught using racial slurs, how can you vote for the guy who orders drone strikes that kill hundreds of innocents and terrorizes thousands more -- and who constantly hides the ugliest realities of his policy (while bragging about the terrorists it kills) so that Americans won't even have all the information sufficient to debate the matter for themselves?

How can you vilify Romney as a heartless plutocrat unfit for the presidency, and then enthusiastically recommend a guy who held Bradley Manning in solitary and killed a 16-year-old American kid? If you're a utilitarian who plans to vote for Obama, better to mournfully acknowledge that you regard him as the lesser of two evils, with all that phrase denotes.

But I don't see many Obama supporters feeling as reluctant as the circumstances warrant.

The whole liberal conceit that Obama is a good, enlightened man, while his opponent is a malign, hard-hearted cretin, depends on constructing a reality where the lives of non-Americans -- along with the lives of some American Muslims and whistleblowers -- just aren't valued. Alternatively, the less savory parts of Obama's tenure can just be repeatedly disappeared from the narrative of his first term, as so many left-leaning journalists, uncomfortable confronting the depths of the man's transgressions, have done over and over again.  

Keen on Obama's civil-libertarian message and reassertion of basic American values, I supported him in 2008. Today I would feel ashamed to associate myself with his first term or the likely course of his second. I refuse to vote for Barack Obama. Have you any deal-breakers?

How is this not among them?

Views: 165

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I agree with your ideals, but in practice democracies are always compromises, always a lesser of evils. You don't get to just vote in a touchdown, you only get to vote to push the ball upfield or downfield. But then you have to keep pushing with every vote in every election and not give up just because you haven't scored yet. Somewhere in the midst of all that back and forth lies that best that we can do in a democracy, the best we can do when we have to allow our neighbor to have as much voice as we have. Insistence on accepting nothing less than the absolute extreme of your own position is what can lead to the terrible polarization we have today, where dialog is being usurped by screaming matches and all substance is lost.

FYI... I didn't write this article. I forgot to source it but I do agree with the sentiment.  I have to agree with you that I have to accept the type of Democracy in a government where the power is monopolized by the two party system.  And there are multiple issues that have to be taken into consideration, but the article outlines "the deal breakers" for me too.  So I'm voting my conscience and voting Green and not let my decision be based on fear of Romney.

jaybee said:

I agree with your ideals, but in practice democracies are always compromises, always a lesser of evils. You don't get to just vote in a touchdown, you only get to vote to push the ball upfield or downfield. But then you have to keep pushing with every vote in every election and not give up just because you haven't scored yet. Somewhere in the midst of all that back and forth lies that best that we can do in a democracy, the best we can do when we have to allow our neighbor to have as much voice as we have. Insistence on accepting nothing less than the absolute extreme of your own position is what can lead to the terrible polarization we have today, where dialog is being usurped by screaming matches and all substance is lost.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

Best guide to hip hop, soul, reggae concerts & events in San Francisco Bay Area, Los Angeles & New York City + music, videos, radio and more

Connect

Bookmark and Share

Win Tickets

Scarface
Thu, Jan 23 @ Yoshi's, Oakland

Jacquees
Fri, Jan 24 @ The Masonic, SF

Kev Choice
Fri, Jan 24 @ Yoshi's, Oakland

Gregory Porter & Ledisi
Thu, Feb 6 @ Fox Theater, Oakland

Tarrus Riley
Fri, Feb 7 @ UC Theatre, Berkeley

Atmosphere
Tue, Feb 11 @ Regency Ballroom, SF

Nas x Wu-Tang Clan
Fri, Feb 21 @ Oakland Arena, Oakland

Amanda Seales
Sat, Feb 22 @ Fox Theater, Oakland

Raphael Saadiq
Fri, Feb 28 @ Fox Theater, Oakland

Davido
Thu, Mar 5 @ The Midway, SF

Thundercat
Fri, Mar 6 @ Fox Theater, Oakland

G Herbo
Sun, Mar 22 @ Slim's, SF

Lupe Fiasco
Sat, Apr 4 @ The Warfield, SF

Nightmares on Wax
Sat, Apr 25 @ The Midway, SF

Russ
Sun, May 3 @ Greek Theatre, Berkeley

Stormzy
Tue, May 26 @ Fox Theater, Oakland

TOP PICKS

Members

Photos

  • Add Photos
  • View All

Groups

Latest Activity

bosshogg posted discussions
1 hour ago
Colossal Music Group posted a blog post

[Exclusive] Young Thugs Signed YSL Fargo Unites With Flexx Kapone Dropping "Cut The Cheque"

Young Thugs newly signed artistYSL Fargo and Flexx Kapone teamup to bring you Cut The Cheque!Cut The Cheque is about making your safety prioritynumber one in life. Spending more money on securitythan anything else to live a long happy and prosperous life.Go cop this single in all digital outlets now:…See More
13 hours ago
Editor's Pick posted discussions
17 hours ago
Editor's Pick posted a video
19 hours ago
Ms Carmen PlatinumVoicePR posted a blog post

[NEW MUSIC] TAYO-"RACKS ON ME"| @BYETAYO

Why Is Everyone Talking About Tayo?Seattle native, Tayo is an upcoming artist that's fresh on the music scene. He became active about a year ago when he put out his first releases, previously under the name Yvng Tayo. Even though his debut songs are indeed quite recent, he is no stranger to music-making. Tayo has been perfecting his craft behind the scene for quite a while, before eventually making a splash into the music world! As a former basketball player, Tayo was quite busy, but some…See More
yesterday
An event by Editor's Pick was featured
Thumbnail

Ren the Vinyl Archaeologist at The Hunter Public House (Alameda) at The Hunter Public House, Alameda

January 24, 2020 at 10pm to January 25, 2020 at 2am
FRIDAY, JAN 24Ren the Vinyl Archaeologist at Hunter Public House in AlamedaHunter Public House 1403 Webster St, Alameda21+ | 10pm-2amABOUT REN THE VINYL ARCHAEOLOGISTAs a Bay Area resident hailing from New York, Ren made his mark as the founder of True Skool. Originally a party which featured Hip Hop legends, emerging artists and world-class turntablists, the brand has…See More
yesterday
Editor's Pick posted discussions
yesterday
bosshogg posted discussions
Thursday
Editor's Pick posted an event
Thumbnail

Ren the Vinyl Archaeologist at The Hunter Public House (Alameda) at The Hunter Public House, Alameda

January 24, 2020 at 10pm to January 25, 2020 at 2am
FRIDAY, JAN 24Ren the Vinyl Archaeologist at Hunter Public House in AlamedaHunter Public House 1403 Webster St, Alameda21+ | 10pm-2amABOUT REN THE VINYL ARCHAEOLOGISTAs a Bay Area resident hailing from New York, Ren made his mark as the founder of True Skool. Originally a party which featured Hip Hop legends, emerging artists and world-class turntablists, the brand has…See More
Thursday
Editor's Pick posted videos
Thursday
Editor's Pick updated an event
Thumbnail

Nas x Wu-Tang Clan at Oakland Arena, Oakland

February 21, 2020 from 8pm to 11pm
ENTER TO WIN A PAIR OF TICKETS. WINNER WILL BE DRAWN RANDOMLY AND ANNOUNCED 2 DAYS PRIOR TO EVENT. FRIDAY, FEB 21 EMBA presents Nas Wu-Tang Clan (Method Man, RZA, GZA, Raekwon, U-God, Ghostface & More) Dave East Too Short +more!Oakland Arena, Oakland, CA 8:00 PM…See More
Thursday
miss candi posted an event
Thumbnail

Translating Selena at Brava Cabaret Theater, SF

January 29, 2020 at 8pm to February 2, 2020 at 9pm
Richard Montoya’s“Translating Selena” Directed by Sean San JoséBrava Cabaret TheaterSan Francisco, CaliforniaJan 29th - February 2nd, 2020“Translating Selena” is an examination of many things, a by the book procedural in drag. Which book we refer to will stay purposely blurred: the Selena Song Book or the Selena Murder Book?”, says Playwright Richard Montoya. “With Campo Santo, we obliterate the walls of conformity and gender norms for fun and deadly seriousness. How else can we grapple with a…See More
Thursday

© 2020   Created by Ren the Vinyl Archaeologist.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service