I continue to believe that lesser evilism is the correct strategy in rigged games like voting in capitalist democracy. Vote, and get on with it. Don't bother with the campaign crap, except perhaps very selectively. Put your effort into something else: reading, research, education, demonstrations. Education is the big one, I always say. And it starts with self-education. And there are endless ways to do that.
However, YMMV. If you have another vision, go for it. 3rd parties* are a perennial favorite among the most dedicated. Less dedicated--perhaps--go for anti-voting. IMO anti-voting doesn't have much positive effect in the historical record. Believers might counter that when it (may) have an effect, it will turn the tables, unlike merely reordering the silverware. It's not for me, but if you want to go for that, go for it!
(IMO, 3rd parties may be productive in some places, but in most of the USA almost all of the time, they are not. Worked for Teddy Roosevelt, though, one of USA's best Presidents.)
As John Emerson at his Trollblog website says, movement conservatism has succeeded not because of following a single coherent "best" strategy, but by endless experimentation on the part of endless entrepreneurs. Some lose big. Fortunately, with all the money from plutocrats sloshing around, even the big losers can get nicely taken care of afterwards. Perhaps better, even, to be a bigger looser. So therefore big risks are taken, and sometimes pay off. That's politics, not following the rules of one academic political scientist or another, as the Democrats do. 90% of all political science PhD's are Democrats, meanwhile one of the most successful political operatives ever--Karl Rove--took a political science course once.
Meanwhile, if you want me to vote 3rd party, show me the good bets first, that won't be what I would consider spoilers. I'd even do more for a principled candidate (of the right kind, the only kind actually) than just vote, if they really, not in fantasy, had a decent chance of winning. I do also support candidates, as I did the Kucinich presidency, largely for educational effects, though I denied that to myself at the time. Kucinich, a primary challenger, never became a spoiler (to my knowledge, though he didn't sign the Texas Democratic Party loyalty oath).
However, YMMV. If you have another vision, go for it. 3rd parties* are a perennial favorite among the most dedicated. Less dedicated--perhaps--go for anti-voting. IMO anti-voting doesn't have much positive effect in the historical record. Believers might counter that when it (may) have an effect, it will turn the tables, unlike merely reordering the silverware. It's not for me, but if you want to go for that, go for it!
(IMO, 3rd parties may be productive in some places, but in most of the USA almost all of the time, they are not. Worked for Teddy Roosevelt, though, one of USA's best Presidents.)
As John Emerson at his Trollblog website says, movement conservatism has succeeded not because of following a single coherent "best" strategy, but by endless experimentation on the part of endless entrepreneurs. Some lose big. Fortunately, with all the money from plutocrats sloshing around, even the big losers can get nicely taken care of afterwards. Perhaps better, even, to be a bigger looser. So therefore big risks are taken, and sometimes pay off. That's politics, not following the rules of one academic political scientist or another, as the Democrats do. 90% of all political science PhD's are Democrats, meanwhile one of the most successful political operatives ever--Karl Rove--took a political science course once.
Meanwhile, if you want me to vote 3rd party, show me the good bets first, that won't be what I would consider spoilers. I'd even do more for a principled candidate (of the right kind, the only kind actually) than just vote, if they really, not in fantasy, had a decent chance of winning. I do also support candidates, as I did the Kucinich presidency, largely for educational effects, though I denied that to myself at the time. Kucinich, a primary challenger, never became a spoiler (to my knowledge, though he didn't sign the Texas Democratic Party loyalty oath).
No comments:
Post a Comment