After Hillary, Voting with Conscience and Pride

Time to Vote Against the Two-party Plutocracy

This general election more than most will test the courage of voters to avoid lesser-evil strategic voting that has propped up our two-party plutocracy. People with intelligence and conscience must resist peer pressure and the temptation to
vote against John McCain by voting for Barack Obama.

Of course, a McCain presidency that pursues much of the same policies and values of the totally inept and morally bankrupt Bush administration is something to loathe. But lesser-evil voting sustains our corrupt political system.

Many say they are voting for Barack Obama in a most enthusiastic and positive way. For me, this does not work. I see no compelling evidence in Obama's history that he has what it takes to be a true, solid reformer. All I see is a young, inexperienced terrific talker that has used slick rhetoric to sell himself. With intellectual and ideological elitism and an aura of superiority and academic smugness, he has successfully fooled millions of people who are so disillusioned with our corrupt political system that they have let themselves be manipulated by poetic promises of change. In reality, he is just another super-ambitious, lying mainstream politician that has taken considerable money and support from all sorts of corporate and other special interests.

Indeed, despite all the hoopla about huge numbers of small contributors to he has also relied on exactly the same kind of big, wealthy supporters as the other candidates. As the Washington Post noted in the article Big Donors Among Obama's Grass Roots: "Seventy-nine 'bundlers,' five of them billionaires, have tapped their personal networks to raise at least $200,000 each. They have helped the campaign recruit more than 27,000 donors to write checks for $2,300, the maximum allowed. Donors who have given more than $200 account for about half of Obama's total haul, which stands at nearly $240 million. ...The list includes partners from 18 top law firms, 21 Wall Street executives and power brokers from Fortune 500 companies."

 
Comments 1 - 3 of 3  
Comments
Type in Your Comments Below

I personally like Mike Gravel at this point; he's seeking the Libertarian Party nomination and is by far the most left-leaning of all the potential libertarian nominees. Ralph's OK with me as a social activist and commentator, but as an elected official I think his approach would involve too much "nannyism," the practice of protecting Americans from their own choices againts their wills, which is associated mostly with liberals in the public's mind, but is actually advocated more by people who claim to be conservatives. (See Nanny State, by David Harsanyi) I'll by getting a copy of your book soon, and thanks for your comment on my article. I generally agree with the point you are making here.

Posted on 05/14/2008 at 10:05:55 AM

While I don't agree with you about Nadar I thoroughly enjoyed your trashing of the unaccomplished Mr. Obama! Too bad the press in general ignores all of that.

Posted on 05/09/2008 at 4:05:31 PM

A vote for Nader will have the same influence on American politics as staying home with a six-pack on election day. We've seen this act before....what revolution?

Posted on 05/09/2008 at 12:05:57 PM

Comments 1 - 3 of 3