I hate the idea of voting for the lesser of two evils because the other candidate scares me more. I like the rhetoric of one party better than that of the other, but I don't regard either one of the parties or the presidential slates as being good choices.
I am unable to vote for the libertarian candidate because they pandered to the people who think they should be able to insert themselves into the relationship and decision-making between a woman and her doctor. They aren't serious about what they claim to stand for.
When I cast my vote, it will because of the sort of Supreme Court nominations I think each is likely to make. It will be because one candidate seems less likely to fly off the handle than the other. It will be because I am far more comfortable with one VP nominee than the other, and with the sort of judgment that went into the choice. It will be because I think one candidate is likely to be consulting people who mean somewhat better for the ordinary American's interests than does the other party, despite both being largely ignorant about how things actually work and how we might intervene to make things more just and more efficient. It will be because one presidential candidate is a high-stakes gambler, a man who called his wife names he acknowledges are offensive (google "trollope" with his name for more detail), a man with little foresight or depth. It will be because I prefer a president with a grasp of and respect for constitutional law, particularly after one who abused us with his signing statements. It will be because one candidate may have some serious health problems which to date he has not considered the business of the voters. It will be because I care about how the other 95% of the world regards us. It will because I think one slate is more likely to be reality-based than the other, even if neither of them have really good lenses through which to understand reality.
Can I suggest lenses that will clarify their understanding of reality?
Absolutely. Start with some of Henry George's speeches ... The Crime of Poverty, Thou Shalt Not Steal and Thy Kingdom Come. Move next to Bob Andelson's essay, "Henry George and the Reconstruction of Capitalism." Then read Progress and Poverty and Social Problems, a collection of essays.
Am I sufficiently indifferent between the two major party candidates that I will write in the sort of candidate I want? No. For me there is enough difference that I must vote for one of them, and continue working to promote my best understanding of how we can transform America into the country we say it is and is meant to be.
Democracy is not enough to produce widely-shared prosperity. And our current form of capitalism, which might reasonably be termed land monopoly capitalism, is a poverty machine, a wealth concentration machine -- but a machine which can be very easily transformed into a machine to produce broadly shared prosperity. All we need is an understanding of the mechanics of that machine, and we'll be on our way to retooling it. We need to understand which sorts of wealth ought to be socialized, and which ought to be privatized, and then to act on that understanding.
Comments