If you are part of the half of Americans who voted for either of the two ruling parties, you voted for torture. The only people who haven't are those who don't vote, or who vote for (certain) third parties.
I quickly grow weary of the constant anti-establishment chant on HN to "vote out all the incumbents" (not going to happen) and support an independent candidate (not going to get elected). How about I vote for the one of the two major parties that didn't opt for the useless wars that spurned this and didn't authorize torture in the first place? I know Obama hasn't prosecuted Bush, Cheney, and the other torture enablers (it's political suicide in case you didn't know), but at least he didn't let it happen under his watch.
The issue with voting isn't that it influences the government one way or another: it doesn't, and pretty much any of us can get more influence by working all those hours we would otherwise think about politics and using that money to purchase connections with actual power brokers (though even that is mostly a waste).
The real issue with it is its influence on your identity. Electoral politics is a twisted parody of real politics, morphing autonomous values and communal choices into something closer to the emotions felt when watching team sports. My guy good, your guy good. Which isn't bad, in itself--it's a form of entertainment like any other. But it's not real politics.
My suggestion would be to skip voting for all federal offices and maybe even state offices, and focus on the local, if you must do electoral politics.
In any event, 3rd parties often look so honest and admirable because they've never had to hold power and make tough decisions. If any of them managed to hold power for a significant portion of time, we'd be clamoring to vote them out of office for their misdeeds all the same. Part of politics is about accepting the dirtiness of the game and doing the best with what you have. I'll throw my support behind the party that's good enough for me, and has a chance of actually bringing about some meaningful change.
e.g http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/23/obama-drone-program...
When the parties change and there's some more files revealed and what not, you'll be part of the people who voted for the party that did opt for X.
In a word, yes. If you vote for the lesser of two evils, you've still voted for evil. The government derives its legitimacy through votes. Even if you "throw your vote away" you can at least say that the ruling party did not derive a single quantum of legitimacy through you.
People know so little about how the executive branch, including the President, must do the jobs that we, in our comfortable ignorance that maintains our lifestyle, need them to do for National Security.
At least Cheney is honest when he says he would do it again. There are many things that happen when you and your kids are comfortably sleeping or having hot cocoa.
Trust me. There are worse people in the world than the ones prople are blaming today. And it is just a matter of time before a drone takes care of them. And you want it that way.
If someone is uncomfortable with that notion, then maybe they should run for office or serve in some public capacity. But he or she will then discover the harsh reality.
Just watch a few videos of the news in 2001 or 2002 to refresh your memory a little about what we were asking our leaders to take care of.
All of them should be imprisoned to protect society from their machinations.
Torture isn't even effective in getting any information. So you can't justify it on pragmatic grounds.
that's not a lot, unless you really up the frequency--except that one's fixed at per four years.
If I vote for the losing party, I implicitly agree to abide by the choices made by the winning party because I would expect the same from their supporters if the roles were reversed. None of the parties represent my interests, so I don't vote and I certainly don't agree to respect the decisions made by those who don't represent my interests.
To tie it back in with the original point, those who voted against Bush implicitly agreed to abide by his decisions if he won. Only those who refuse to participate in the system can claim zero complicity.
The result of refusing to participate is that you lose even more freedom to pursue happiness. Your captors don't care a whit about credibility.
> None of the parties represent my interests, so I don't vote and I certainly don't agree to respect the decisions made by those who don't represent my interests.
Then you waste an opportunity to help prevent greater evil from happening. You needn't agree with the lesser evil when you vote for them.
> To tie it back in with the original point, those who voted against Bush implicitly agreed to abide by his decisions if he won. Only those who refuse to participate in the system can claim zero complicity.
The good people who didn't vote in 2000 could have prevented a needless war from happening. They had the opportunity, so they are complicit. Only those who voted for the lesser evil can claim zero complicity.
Even if it did, why would you remove yourself from any philosophical obligation to your government, but live within its laws and regulations? You're basically trying to be separate but, by choice, not really separate and not really equal.
I think it would require some proof to what design you are referring to.
False.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/06/1260721/-The-Nader-...
As the first link points out, Monica Moorehead, the Worker's World Party candidate, got 1,804 votes. David McReynolds of the Socialist Party collected 622 votes.
The people who visited for Moorehead, or for McReynolds are the ones you should focus your ire upon. Not those who voted for Nader.
The Socialist Party is more to blame for Bush winning the office than Nader.
Oh, and all those non-voters? They were also partially responsible. And all those who refused to steal ballot boxes from heavily Republican district are also to blame! Because preventing evil justifies everything. Including torture.
And somehow have a magic ball to say what the future brings, and what the alternative future might have been.
This seemingly reasonable argument (assuming that you do not reject violence as fundamentally immorally ) is how Augustine turned a religion of peace into one with soldiers, as Just War theory.
But it doesn't stop. It also twists a phrase like "imminent threat of violent attack" into "does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons will take place in the immediate future" and "enemy militant" into "all military-age males in a strike zone, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent."
The calculus of violence is very coarse, yet you want to hang us all on its balance scales of greater or lesser violence and harm.
the parties no longer represent us. We are lead to fight over wedge issues while the elites take everything. A vote doesn't matter by itself either.
The only way a vote will have any impact is if you use it to add just a little sting to any political activity you do elsewhere. If your only political action is voting, you might as well stay home.
The only real hope is if a large bipartisan alliance forms. That's more important than if we get Romney or Obama as President (two candidates who are mostly different in terms of party affiliation and skin color, but not in terms of approaches to governance).
...and then you admit you're using a throwaway account here. Ironically, you're hiding behind your throwaway account instead of posting it under your real account/persona. Precisely because you are afraid that people will do what you told them is the best way to fix this problem of government we're discussing, and alienate/shun you for your views..
Any which way you slice it, buddy, both halves are to blame (and should take accountability and act to fix it). Too bad people fall for your line of thinking and simply excuse any bad stuff by blaming it on the other side. How convenient.
Truthfully, you have a few alternatives. Voting third-party, e.g. libertarian or something. Or, you could not vote at all.
Gore laughed, and said, "Of course it's a violation of international law; that's why it's a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass." This was persuasive to Clinton, and thus started the practice of extraordinary rendition.
(http://www.economist.com/node/11837595)
In 2000, Bush was yet to advocate for torture or to be complicit in it. The same could not be said of Gore. Who was truly the lesser of two evils, as far as voters in 2000 could tell?
Following your logic, Jesse Ventura would never have been governor of Minnesota as people did not know that he was a dominant candidate on voting day but was polling in third place.
Why were the 773,713 Ventura voters wrong to vote as they did? Was it because Humphrey wasn't evil enough?
If we had vote ranking at the national level, like Minneapolis does, this wouldn't be an issue.
> Following the primary election in September, a poll on October 20 showed Humphrey leading 35% to Coleman (34%) and Ventura (21%)
That's pretty far behind. But I'm not going to research this because you're the one trying to make the point, and you need to defend your position that it's a useful one, not switch topics to alternative voting systems.
If people followed your suggested voting tactic then Humphrey or Coleman would have been governor. They didn't, and ended up with Ventura. Not only was he a plurality winner, but from what I can tell he was a Condorcet winner too.
The voters got who they wanted. Not what the polls said was the lesser of two evils as you would have had them choose.
I don't like making these kinds of calls, though, which is why I support vote ranking or some other way to make third parties more viable.
In the 2000 election, "Gore was leading Bush and third parties with 44-42-4 among registered voters" in late October according to one poll.
In Minn. it was Humphrey 35%, Coleman 34%, and Ventura 21%. You posited "Humphrey was way worse than Coleman". That's inverted compared to 2000. Assume that a Ventura supporter considered Coleman way worse than Humphrey.
In that case, what should the Ventura supporter do? I believe you would say to vote for Humphrey. By ignoring that advice, the Ventura supporters ended up with Ventura.
Yes, vote for Humphrey. If Ventura then loses by one vote, you still made the best choice with the info you had. 9 times out of 10, or whatever high percentage, the 3rd place poller would've lost even with your vote, in which case you did the best by voting for the lesser of the top 2 evils.
Perhaps Ventura won because Ventura supporters felt that Coleman and Humphrey were equally worse, in which case voting for Ventura wasn't risky.
Yes, unfortunately. We are effectively slaves, so absent a revolution (or alternative that leads to viable third parties) we don't have a choice about this.
> and no one is ever to blame.
No. Those who voted for the lesser evil are blameless for the actions they didn't support, until the next election when a new choice is made based on the info at that time. The other voters are to blame.
It's very simple: when you make the best possible righteous choice, you are blameless.
Ah, but by your own admission, the best possible choice is actually to start a revolution, not to vote for a party that is also evil. So why doesn't your unique take on morality instead assign blamelessness solely to those actively trying to start a revolution, instead of conveniently assigning blamelessness to those that vote for the lesser of two evils but perpetuate a system you admit perpetually ratchets up in evilness? Is it because its easier to tick off something on a piece of paper and tell yourself you're doing your part rather than devoting your life to actually making things better?
Seems to me that if you really want to have this black and white view where only, and I quote, those that make "the best possible righteous choice" can be blameless, then you unfortunately fall into that ... other bucket :/
I don't support revolution, because it's not the best viable way to improve things, let alone very viable at this point. A much better way is for the good people to ostracize (as much as possible) the bad people. Imagine if Bush's daughters had disavowed love for him, over his needless violence. It may well have had an effect, and if not then at least been a consequence to him, serving as a warning to others.
Revolution from within! (Oh, wait, that's what happened with the Republican party starting in the 1980s.)
But that that's not as easy as ticking off a piece of paper and assigning blamelessness.
This image comes to mind whenever people talk bring up this kind of thinking. http://i.imgur.com/afp9dQp.jpg
Additionally, the threat of one of the major parties losing votes to a third party has been shown to influence the politics of the major party, so even if the third-party candidate doesn't win, it still may have a positive effect down the road. People don't seem to think very far down the road, unfortunately.
There's no contradiction. You made the best viable choice. You can't be made "bad" by doing that.
That benefit of voting for a non-viable third party is outweighed by the advantage of voting for a lesser evil that can viably win. If hypothetically you were the voter that could tip the election to Gore in 2000, your best choice is to vote for him, not Nader, even if voting for Nader has some benefit. Voting for Nader could be reasonable only if Gore had no realistic chance of winning your state.
Assuming your logic has merit, the benefit for you not committing voter fraud is surely outweighed by the benefit of not letting the Great Evil Bush get power, making voter fraud the best viable choice, no? Why would voter fraud be "bad"? Surely even the worst case of spending a couple of years in jail is worth the future of not having Bush in charge, right?
Are you ready to commit voter fraud for what you think is the greater good? Are you ready to torture for the greater good?
On your hypothetical I'll say only that I strongly support the The Congressional Oath of Office, namely this part:
> I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same
That said, the best ways to effect change are still legal, like general strikes and boycotts.
If you'll torture for that oath then you'll commit voter fraud for that oath, and commit murder and other felonies for that oath. You'll do anything so long as you can justify it with your consequentialist ethics.
Glad to know where you stand.
Or rather don't stand, since your ethics allow you to break that oath to prevent greater violence. And you get to decide which is greater. Which is why the death of thousands in 2001 justify the torture of innocent people now. Our employed and elected torturers got to decide which of those was the greater violence, without making that information public, as it was clear to them that that was the right choice with the information they had.
My ethics are rock solid and will never break the oath.
That's messed up.
And you've just relied on the No True Scotsman fallacy. Obviously anyone who doesn't interpret your oath the same as you do must have flouted it. Or perhaps it's Cheney who says you flouted the oath. How do I tell again who's right?
Oliver North was photogenically insistent that selling arms to Iran, in violation of US law, in order to fund the Contras against the democratically elected Sandinista government, was part of his oath. The enemy had become "liberal politicians, gutless judges and left-handed journalists" says one biography.
I'm pretty sure he believes his ethics are "rock solid" and oath unbroken. How am I to tell if it's broken?
> And you've just relied on the No True Scotsman fallacy. Obviously anyone who doesn't interpret your oath the same as you do must have flouted it. Or perhaps it's Cheney who says you flouted the oath. How do I tell again who's right?
Just as obvious as that, except for those lacking empathy, is that some things are wrong. You needn't prove they're wrong, you need only believe they are. Do you have to seek others' say-so to tell whether it's okay to kick a toddler in the face?
Oliver North flouted his oath, because his actions didn't serve the greater good. Simply consult your own conscience to tell whether ones' oath is broken.
But there are a lot of folks who have turned in favor of everything Bush did as long as Obama does it. You can't hide behind "I am trying to at least get the loser on the race to the bottom" if you cheer for that party to win that deplorable sport.
> Such people rarely change their beliefs.
You honestly believe that 50% of the country rarely change their beliefs? That we are actually divided into the "rational good people" and the "religiously fevered bad people"?
Most people that voted for "the other side" did so because they thought it would be better for their jobs, better for their taxes, voted the same as the rest of their family, were misinformed, or a million other reasons that has nothing to do with them being unshakable ideologues incapable of being convinced otherwise in the next election and not deserving of your contact. The fact that you view half the population of this country that way is quite frightening.
What's the issue with that number? Too low? I'd probably place it around 95%.
I don't have a problem with people being killed by drones, American citizens or no, when that's the best viable way to prevent greater violence.
It's hypocritical to blame one side for torture, when the other side instead just started doing assassinations via drone. If you truly believe anyone who voted Republican supported torture, you must admit anyone who voted Democrat supports assassinations.
Full Disclosure: I've voted Libertarian in every presidential election since I've been eligible to vote. I see hypocrisy and political spin on ALL sides of the discussion.
It isn't hypocritical to be for drone assassinations where that's the best viable way to prevent greater violence.
> If you truly believe anyone who voted Republican supported torture, you must admit anyone who voted Democrat supports assassinations.
No, I've said many times here that whoever votes for the lesser evil is blameless for the things that party does that they disagree with. Voting for the lesser evil gives you line-item support, because you made the best possible choice. You can't be made "bad" when you couldn't have done more to support good.
Are you talking about the half pretending to try to close Gitmo or the half not pretending?
Only sustained, long-term communication and engagement creates lasting cultural change. That means talking to the people you know who disagree with you. In fact if you know them, you're the best person to change their mind.
If you don't believe this can work, compare the political status of gay marriage in 2004 vs 2014.
We now have better support for gay marriage largely because of youth becoming of age to vote [1]. The youth are open-minded. Go ahead and tell the person you're ostracizing why you're doing it. But odds of seeing a change are nil.
[1] See trend here: http://www.gallup.com/poll/169640/sex-marriage-support-reach...