Progressives' predicament: To vote, or not to vote?

The nomination of Joe Biden and by the Democratic Party has put progressive independents in a double-bind. They’re asking themselves:

Is a second term of a corrupt president more or less acceptable than a vote for a corrupt establishment?

If the president in question were anyone other than Donald Trump, the answer would be easy. Corruption has become so entrenched in our political system — thanks to corporate money, Gerrymandering, etc. — that voting for any candidate who enables this system seems nothing less than a vote for corruption.

Joe Biden has spent his career enabling the system, from his oversight of the Anita Hill hearings to his vote in favor of the Iraq War. And, perhaps most tellingly, his openness to weakening Social Security and his opposition to universal health care.

Now, there’s no question that Donald Trump is worse. There isn’t enough space in this article to enumerate his myriad failings. Voting for Trump is not an option for thinking progressives.

The question is whether voting for Biden is.

What ifs

A vote for Biden will further entrench a corrupt system that relies on big-money corporate donors who’ll expect something in return from whomever they support. And yes, they’ll get it.

If Trump wins, on the other hand, he’ll continue to wreak havoc with everything from healthcare to minority rights. He’ll likely get a chance to appoint one or two more Supreme Court justices. He’ll keep lining his pockets and telling lies, and his victory will affirm everything so many progressives loathe about his blustering, egocentric approach to politics.

Will the damage caused by Trump be lasting? Certainly, a Trumpist high court would be a long-term nightmare. And the longer Trumpism flourishes, the more entrenched it will become.

On the other hand, however, the longer voters actively support candidates who cater to corporate donors, rather than the voters themselves, the more entrenched that pattern will become. And, in consequence, the less anyone’s vote will matter eight, 12 or 16 years down the line.

One-dimensional Joe

It’s tempting to say, “I’ll put my checkmark by Biden’s name, but I don’t believe in him and it won’t be a vote for him. It will be a vote against Trump.”

Biden won’t care. He’s run his entire campaign, not on issues or personal character, but on the mere idea that he’s the person best positioned to beat Trump. He doesn’t care if you support him, so long as that checkmark is next to his name.

He’s not running as Joe Biden. He tried that twice before and failed to win a single primary. He’s running as “the safe guy” and the “anti-Trump.” But “safe” means maintaining the status quo — which, in turn, means winking at corruption while putting your hand out to accept money from as many corporate donors as you can find.

In doing so, Biden is enabling corruption.

Trump, on the other hand, is actively engaged in it. Is one worse than the other? Sure. Should either one be acceptable? Surely not.

Blame game

So I can understand those who choose to vote for Biden on the grounds that four more years of Trump could be catastrophic. But I can also understand those who sit the election out or vote for a third-party candidate on the grounds that the corrupt system itself is a bigger problem even than the most corrupt individual ever to hold the office. There are potent arguments to be made both ways.

But whichever course an individual chooses to follow (and I can’t stress this strongly enough), there is no good argument for shaming those who disagree with you. There is no good argument for casting blame on those with whom you largely agree of the issues, who are following their consciences and exercising their right to vote. And there is no good argument for pressuring, goading or threatening them unless they act the way you think they should.

That’s not democracy.

And, apart from being rude and childish, such behavior almost never works: People who feel disparaged and dismissed tend to dig in their heels rather than even consider doing things differently — regardless of their political persuasion. (Mitt Romney’s remark about the “47 percent” and Hillary Clinton’s derision toward “deplorables” on the one hand and “Bernie Bros” on the other provoked precisely that reaction, and cost both of them at the polls.)

It’s the system, stupid

Besides, it’s not the voters who are at fault for a lost election. It’s the candidate and, to varying degrees, the system.

That’s why the current situation is so galling. The system has, as it often does, produced two candidates who are woefully lacking. No, they’re not equally bad — I’m not suggesting some false equivalency here. But whichever one wins, it will make the situation worse by reinforcing a corrupt, bought-and-paid-for system that churns out “lesser of two evils.”

At least, they appear as two evils to many of us. It can feel like a choice between Machiavelli and the Marquis de Sade.

For corporate sponsors, by contrast, the result is a win-win. They often donate to both major candidates, so that, either way, they’ve got someone in their pocket. It matters little to them whether that someone is an incompetent egomaniac or a status quo partisan hack.

Worst-case scenario

Maybe, at this point, it doesn’t matter to the future of the country, either.

Here’s a chilling thought: Trump’s scorched-earth presidency and corporate corruption may have both already done so much damage already that our democracy is beyond repair.

That bleak prospect is what keeps many people from bothering to vote. I’m not saying that’s the best response, merely that it’s understandable. You can rebuke them for their supposed apathy — and alienate them further. Or you can consider the possibility that, instead of caring too little, they actually cared too much. And that, at a certain point, people stop are bound to stop caring in self-defense if caring never makes a difference anyway.

It’s not being a sore loser. That’s not it at all. Most people don’t stop caring if they’re losing a fair fight. They stop caring if they believe the game is rigged and they never had a chance in the first place.

Criticizing them won’t help. Only one thing will: Leveling the playing field.

And barring a miracle, whichever candidate wins in November, that won’t happen.    

Trump vs. Biden: 10 things it says about the U.S.A. in 2020

1. Hope is dead

Remember when Barack Obama ran on the theme of hope? It seems like a million years ago. Joe Biden isn’t running on the idea that we can actually make progress. In fact, he’s not offering anything substantially new. Instead, he’s promising to return us to a mythical “golden age” (the Obama years, ironically), in which everything was somehow great and wonderful. I’ve even got a slogan for him: “Make America Great Again.” Oops. I guess that’s already taken. Trump’s nomination was the shot across our bow, and Biden’s coronation is the answering volley. Together, they signal that both parties have abandoned their ideals and sacrificed hope for the future at the altar of yearning for a past that never was – except maybe in the era of snake oil and sweatshops.

2. Fear reigns supreme

This isn’t new. In fact, it’s the rule, not the exception. Politicians know this, and they play on it. Fear of nuclear war in 1964. Fear of terrorism in 2004. Fear of immigrants in 2016. Fear of Trump in 2020. Occasionally, hope rears its head, but it’s an anomaly. Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and a few others who have dared to suggest looking to the future instead of the past have been sidelined by fear that their ideas were too “radical” — even ideas, such as universal health care, that are standard operating procedure for the rest of the civilized world. But hey, that’s not how we do it here in Merica, where one candidate wants destroy the inadequate safety net we have and the other has vowed to destroy a better one if anybody even tries to build it.

3. Winning is everything…

Or, rather, the only thing. Biden’s rallying cry throughout the primaries hasn’t been a platform or a policy proposal. It’s been this: “I can beat Donald Trump.” Again, this sounds a lot like someone else we know: Trump is, famously, obsessed with winning. It doesn’t matter what. It doesn’t matter how. It only matters that you win. In the words of Hillary Clinton: “I don’t care who the nominee is. I don’t care. As long as it’s somebody who can win...” Treating politics as a team sport isn’t new: The two-party system encourages it. The difference is that now, it’s no longer merely an undercurrent that drives the process; it’s a mission statement. And suddenly, nothing else really matters. Not policies. Not people. As Al Davis said, “Just win, baby.”

4. …And so is instant gratification

Long-term goals are ignored or dismissed for the sake of short-term election wins. Instead of addressing the major flaws in our democratic system, politicians exploit them. The list is too long to list here, but includes unlimited corporate funding; a process that rewards campaigning instead of governing; the Electoral College; gerrymandering; superdelegates; irrelevant primaries (most  of them, after South Carolina) voter suppression... Politicians like Trump and Biden don’t bring up the tilted playing field, because it benefits them. And while they might give lip service to long-term challenges like lifting people out of poverty, dealing with climate change, or reducing health care costs, their real pitch is merely: “I can beat the other guy.” The only long-term priority either side really cares about is the makeup of the Supreme Court, which, once again, is just about winning.

5. The opposition is the enemy

For years, it was assumed that both parties wanted what was best for the country; they just had different ideas about how to get there. That’s no longer the case. The other side is no longer “the loyal opposition” but an evil enemy out do destroy the country. Politicians have figured out that the key to winning is fear, and there’s no better way to instill fear in people than to demonize and dehumanize the other side. It works in war, where it leads to atrocities. The Vietnamese weren’t women or children, they were subhuman “Gooks.” And it works in politics, too. (Is Trump’s use of belittling nicknames any different?) So now we’re in a civil war between red and blue, and when individual citizens are wounded in the crossfire, it doesn’t matter. They’re not people. They’re just collateral damage.

6. It’s about loyalty, not values

Trump demands personal loyalty above all else. But are Democrats any better? After Hillary Clinton lost in 2016, those who didn’t vote for her were excoriated online as though they were Judas Iscariot, Benedict Arnold, and Brutus all rolled into one. They’ll likely use the same treatment on anyone who doesn’t vote for Biden in 2020. And it’s not just enough to vote for the person, you have to offer unflinching, undying loyalty. Clinton said as much when she all but accused Bernie Sanders of costing her the election even though he endorsed and campaigned for her. John F. Kennedy’s plea has been warped to become: “Ask not what your candidate can do for your country, ask what you can do for your candidate.” Whether or not you voted for him in the primary (and it’s still nearly always “him.”)

7. Independents are screwed

The two-party system doesn’t naturally lend itself to independent thinking. If there are only two options, you tend to gravitate toward one or the other. But the “winning is everything” mentality has made things worse. Today’s partisan climate rewards tribalists, conformists and dittoheads. People who might be conservative on one issue but liberal on another are excluded because they can’t be trusted. Never Trumpers are ridiculed as RINOs by the right, and those who don’t support the Democratic standard-bearer are blamed for election losses by the left (rather than blaming the candidate for failing to make a compelling case). Independent thought isn’t just inconvenient, it’s anathema, and free speech isn’t protected, it’s shamed as blasphemy.

8. Compromise is dead

The old skill set of “working across the aisle,” touted as recently (though somewhat disingenuously) as the George W. Bush administration, has fallen by the wayside. When the other side is seen as the enemy, any civility or attempt to actually work together is viewed as complicity. Or treason — one of Trump’s favorite words. Politicians talk a lot about unity, but they don’t mean they intend to compromise. What they mean is, “I’ll tell you want to believe and how to act, then you fall into line like a good little puppy.” Compromise has, in fact, become a dirty word. Instead of give and take, or meeting in the middle, it’s more often viewed as contamination: “The integrity of our message has been compromised” by those who dare to think for themselves.

9. Corporations run the show

No matter who wins in November, the next president will be a pawn of corporate donors. Trump boldly declared in 2016 that he’d be using his own money to run for president. No lobbyists. No donors. Yet, this year, to date, he’s raised $164 million of not his own money. Bernie Sanders raised more than that from thousands upon thousands of small donors, and there was talk that his success in doing so might shift the balance of power back to actual voters. But it didn’t. Joe Biden, who relied instead on corporate donors, won the nomination. So, guess who’s going to be running the country the next four years. That’s right: corporations.

10. We’ve lost our way

George Washington warned against “the baneful effects of the spirit of party,” and his successor, John Adams, opined: “There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader.” Alexander Hamilton’s take: “Nothing could be more ill-judged than that intolerant spirit which has, at all times, characterized political parties.” And James Madison remarked on humans’ propensity to fall into animosity “when no substantial occasion presents itself.” Indeed, the remarked, “the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly actions and excite their most violent conflicts.” Yet, here we are. Donald Trump is no George Washington, and Joe Biden is no James Madison. But far worse: The system we have is not the system our founders envisioned. It’s a bad counterfeit and a perverse caricature of the democratic republic they believed they’d established. They’re not just rolling over in their graves. With any luck, their ghosts will be coming back to haunt us. It wouldn’t be half as scary as what we’re dealing with right now, and besides, we might learn something from it all.

Mail-in election the only humane response to coronavirus

Politicians in both parties claim that Americans’ safety during the coronavirus pandemic is their top priority. Unfortunately, their actions indicate just the opposite.

Donald Trump, true to form, is more interested in protecting his brand and deflecting blame than anything else. His first concern is his own political survival. And he’s not alone. Politicians in both parties are showing their true colors — and their hypocrisy — in calling for businesses to close, events to be canceled and people to stay home. Except, of course, when it comes to political events. And voting.

Neither political party has, as of this writing, canceled its national convention. This is the height of irresponsibility, and more than that, it’s a thumb in the eye of ordinary Americans who’ve been put out of work and are facing fines if they don’t stay at home.

The Democrats deserve more blame that the Republicans, in this case, because its convention is set for July, more than a month before the GOP gathering. The Dems say they’ve got a backup plan, but won’t say what it is. Trump, meanwhile, says there’s “no way” he’d cancel the Republican con. He doesn’t give a flying you-know-what about anyone but himself. Neither, it seems, do a lot of other people in Washington.

Alexandria Cortez-Ocasio threatened to force representatives to fly back to Washington so they could vote in person on the massive virus relief package. Republican Thomas Massie actually did so. Because a roll-call vote was more important than being safe — even though it was entirely unnecessary.

Or at least not nearly as necessary as earning a paycheck to pay the bills, so families can stay fed and housed. It won’t do any good to have a “shelter in place” order if you’ve got no shelter in which to place yourself.

It’s yet another example of the clueless Beltway mentality: Politicos consider themselves a privileged class, and rich politicos (which is most of them), even more so. While the rest of us are stuck at home, many of us out of work and dealing with monthly bills, the parties are hell-bent on having their parties. To “protect democracy.” In their minds, democracy is synonymous with their own re-election, not with a fair and honest vote count. Read on for the details.

Speaking of voting, they’re telling people to go to the polls and cast their ballots, even though poll workers are contracting COVID-19. That happened in Florida, which (along with Illinois and Arizona) went ahead with their in-person primaries March 17 despite the spread of the virus. That was two weeks ago, and it’s spread a lot more since then. But even with 80% of the nation on orders to stay home, Wisconsin is vowing to forge ahead with its April 7 vote.

Republicans are largely to blame on this one: The GOP leader of the state Assembly called the Democratic governor’s request for a mail-in election “logistically impossible and incredibly flawed.” In other words, it wouldn’t benefit them. I guess people dying of a virus doesn’t rise to the level of “logistically impossible and incredibly flawed” in their book.

And it’s funny, because somehow, Ohio managed to make the switch to an all-mail-in primary on short notice. So it’s not impossible at all. In fact, it’s the only rational, humane way forward.

Resisting mail-in voting for political reasons is nothing new. Doing so when people’s health is at risk is. It’s a time-honored (and shameful) tradition: The party in power rejects mail-in voting because it recognizes that such an option will increase the number of votes for the opposition. Party leaders and incumbents don’t want to relinquish power, pure and simple. They do it for the same reason they draw “safe” districts, resist motor-voter laws — and for the same reason they supported poll taxes, literacy tests and other anti-democratic measures in the past. They’d do it again if they could get away with it.

They say they want to protect democracy? Their actions, historically speaking, say the exact opposite. And how about protecting people for a change?

The political parties should both cancel their self-congratulatory conventions; they’re little more than exercises in free advertising (propaganda) anyway. And, more importantly, the federal government should immediately institute a fully mail-in general election. If Ohio can do it on short notice, the feds can do it eight months out. If the virus abates, they can reopen the polls, but it’s time to plan for the worst-case scenario. If the government really believes 100,000 to 240,000 people could die of this thing, holding an in-person election amounts to a death sentence for some of the people who’ll show up at the polls.

A mail-in vote is feasible this far out. But the more they put off planning, the harder it will get. It must be done now.

Failure to act will prove one thing: Our supposed representatives care more about their own power than people’s lives.

I already knew that anyway.

It’s up to them to prove me wrong.

Photo: CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 by eagle.dawg