A coworker asked me who I voted for today, and I said that I didn't vote. She asked me why not, her disapproval being frankly palpable, and I told her I didn't vote for the same reason I don't always come to complete stops at stop signs: the act reeks of undue deference to constituted authority. The presumptive obligation of each citizen to vote is one of those goofy tenets of the democratic civic religion. Like most religious precepts and practices, we continue to valorize it even as we abandon it. Well over half of us now abstain. Even Catholicism is in better shape. I actually will haul myself into a booth if there's a seat on the city council at stake, because, fuck, man, the potholes. On the opposite end of the scale you get instead the idea that if you aggregate the binary decisions of millions of people you will produce some aspirational avatar of The People, The Country, whatever . . . some pure representative of the collective will and the Direction We're Going In and so forth and so on. Most political discourse is infected with the plainly insane notion that there exists a sort of ineffible national political consensus which political leadership must tap into, like a bunch of psychic mediums, in order to Get Things Done, Bipartisanly. "The American People want . . ." begin many such ponderings. Naturally, the American People don't want anything in particular, because there are 300 million of them. We live, as we dream, alone, says Conrad. What any given soul desires at any given moment of any given day is the impenetrable business of that person uniquely. All else is obfuscation of the essential randomness of individual existence--we are but slaves to fate, etc.--usually in the servie of keeping those who are better fed and better paid than you better fed and better paid than you. Participation in the maintenance of a political order is a sucker's game. It's a beautiful day in Pennsylvania. Go outside. The sun doesn't give a damn who's president.
27 comments:
too lazy to google at the moment, so i'm just going to put this out there... do you folks think "ineffible" and "unfuckable" share the same etymological root?
Man, great closing line, IOZ.
Oh, the sun will give a damn when we invade it!
"presumptive obligation?"
That's a funny way to describe a right.
YF
The idea of voting "rights" strikes me, more and more each day, as eminently silly.
I always go to the polls to vote for nobody (or equivalently, a Libertarian or maybe Constitutionalist). Overty withholding my consent from the Democrats and Republicans is worth expressing. Nonetheless I have no beef with those who don't vote -- it's a far more rational strategy than mine. Spending any significant effort on a meaningless gesture is not completely rational.
Nonetheless, if practically everyone did as you do... nothing would change. Nonvoting is interpreted by the system as apathy and also as consent. If practically everyone did as I do, the system would collapse. Thus the categorical imperative suggests voting but abstaining, not nonvoting.
I fought out the issue of voting vs nonvoting with Billy Beck at UO, in the following thread:
http://highclearing.com/index.php/archives/2006/06/19/5219#comments
Nonlibertarians probably won't be interested in that, but libertarians might be.
"The sun doesn't give a damn who's president."
And the world doesn't care about American imperialism. Except that it does, of course -- your blog assures us -- thereby making this closing a complete non-sequitur, and a not very poetic one besides.
The problem is not Americans' shared apathy but, as you imply, that the choice is inevitably a "binary" one.
Ioz never said the world does not care about American imperialism, only that the ritual of choosing between two identical in all fundamental respects "parties" has no real effect. If Obama is elected, we will still be "Supporting the Troops," we will still be digging ourselves into bankruptcy, and the sun wkll still be shining. Your post is itself has no relationship to the arguments or discussion at hand.
Nor do we really make the claim at it is a binary choice? I don't see that at all...Leonard throws in a third "option" which makes plenty of sense for him.
Hey IOZ. I haven't checked in here in awhile. I dig the new design. Your entries in the last couple of weeks have been sublime, lots of gems to be kept. Keep up the good work.
I haven't paid attention to what's going on with the whole voting thing in like...four months. Haven't even watched network news or anything, even for laughs. It's really quite relaxing and I recommend it to everyone.
But they're still going on? Maybe a duel would solve this once and for all. Think of the ratings.
Even if there were 3 or 4 or 5 parties, the likelihood is that none of them would be particularly interested in running on an entirely deconstructionist platform. They would likely all run on the vision of the Mythic America. That doesn't really get you anywhere substantial.
Jeffrey Friedman has done a good job of elaborating our hosts ideas on "majority will". You can find some links from here.
The classic essay on the "right" to vote is, of course, Lysander Spooner's.
...you get instead the idea that if you aggregate the binary decisions of millions of people you will produce some aspirational avatar of The People, The Country, whatever . . . some pure representative of the collective will and the Direction We're Going In and so forth and so on.
It certainly does seem to me like for the past 30 years or more, Americans have been using the Presidential Election process to try and find Neo Andersson from 'The Matrix', rather than an efficient, honest, and/or effective chief bureaucrat of the State apparatus, which is the way elections work in sane countries. Another peculiarly American disease, we seem to take Hollywood clichés seriously when making real-life decisions.
Beautiful post.
Single Member District Plurality Voting. That is All.
I'm writing in dead people this year. Very unlikely they'll win. If they do manage to pull off an upset, the legal challenges to their capacity for the office will be vast. And if they do survive the legal battles, they're dead...what harm can they do?
If someone gives you shit for not voting then you can always (shamefully) pull a page from Dr. Phil's book and ask "How's THAT been working out for ya?"
la rana wins
My answer is: "I'm not a Democrat."
Very simple really. I don't belong to either party, so I don't get involved in their run-up festivities.
Here in GA, we can vote in EITHER primary, no matter what party we belong to. But only one vote per customer, so you got to choose which primary you want.
That, to me, is the epitome of stupidity and yet, representative of where we are as a democracy today.
Egalite, fraternite, stupidite!
But IOZ,
If everyone emulated you, where would this great nation be?
Do you want the bad guys to keep winning?
If fewer of Pa.'s finest had acted like you, that awful, awful woman would no longer be in the Race, and we would be discussing the impending Obama/St. John runoff.
Oh well, it's still a glorious morning. The sun is out, no rain is falling from a heavy sky, and some of us, anyways, have faith that Obama will indeed lead us to the Promised Land!
You're still welcome at the Party, whether or not you actually voted.
(I believe in my heart of hearts you'll come around by November!)
FOD (Friend of Dibgy)
Msr. puppylander:
Not sure, but I do believe "ineffable" and "unfuckable" share the same roots...at least in the "Not to be uttered; taboo" sense.
Mike
If everyone emulated you, where would this great nation be?
Dear Immanuel Kant,
1) You neither can nor should attempt to live your life as if "everyone" should do the same things you do, unless you're a totalitarian-in-training;
2) It could never happen anyway. No one is ever going to get "everyone" to emulate them. There are some people who will reflexively do the opposite of what a large group of people is doing. Why bother with such a ludicrous hypothetical?
But IOZ,
If everyone emulated you, where would this great nation be?
i dont know, somewhere in pittsburgh?
and what the fuck do you mean by great anyway?
Guys, Friend Of Digby is clearly a gimmick poster, and a great one at that.
I'm voting for McCain.
we've got one wheel off the vehicle, three more to go.
we could really use a pothole.
"Maybe a duel would solve this once and for all."
So many Hamiltons, so little time.
-- A. Burr.
Amen, Mr. Fundamental. McInsanity ahoy!
what the fuck do you mean by great anyway?
Perhaps that it is better to give than to receive where global violence is concerned? Admittedly, the connection between this and the right to vote is not something I feel I could make clear without a very long post.
Post a Comment