So...a lot of democrats still love to litigate 2016. And, I keep getting in the same arguments over and over. And I find them infuriating. The gall of these people, for expecting me to vote democrats to avoid republicans. I'm tired of debating the subject, so I figured I'd just write this blog post and just give it to anyone who uses these arguments instead. If you're reading this, odds are you decided to push the 2016 button with me, or the vote blue no matter who button. You shouldn't have done that.
Discussing duverger's law and the basis of vote blue no matter who arguments
So, the basis of these arguments mostly lies on the concept of duverger's law. Essentially it argues that within a first past the post system, elections generally speaking come down to two parties. There are third parties, but third parties are wasted votes. Why? Because if you vote for a third party, it comes at an opportunity cost of voting for one of the two major parties, and by endorsing a third party, you're tacitly "splitting the vote", or "stealing" a vote that rightfully belongs to the two major party closest to your views. So, in 2016, if I voted for the greens, my vote is the equivalent of voting for Trump, because I took a vote away that could have gone to Hillary Clinton, and instead gave it to Jill Stein.
To go further, democratic loyalists and apologists will often claim that people have a moral obligation to support the lesser evil in elections, because their failing to do so leads to a greater evil existing. In other words, by failing to vote for Hillary, I tacitly allow Trump to win the election, and therefore I should be ashamed. Essentially, a vote for Stein is a vote for Trump, in their mind.
This is largely based on consequentialist thinking in which only the outcome of the immediate election is concerned. You are supposed to, according to this ethical approach, only take into consideration who you think would be better for the next election. The election is for Hillary, or Trump. Which one do you want to win? In the immediate future, who will do the most good, or reduce the most harm? Donald Trump, Or Hillary Clinton? And therefore, you should vote for Hillary.
Isn't this a bit....simplistic?
My biggest objection to this argument is that I feel like this is a very oversimplified, unnuanced, and unjustly imposes a moral duty on people that should not exist, and if it does exist, essentially means democracy is meaningless anyway.
Objection #1 - How democracy is supposed to work
My biggest objection, and the reason that I get enraged at the very thought of the above article, is that it's a betrayal of how democracy is supposed to work. Democracy is supposed to be a system in which voters are the ultimate authority in the system. Politicians are merely servants of the people. You are supposed to vote for what you WANT. Your vote is your say. If I vote for a democrat, and I don't really like a democrat, am I really having my say?
While a two party system is inevitable due to the structure of the FPTP system, nowhere in the constitution were the republican and democratic parties mentioned. If anything, the founders hated parties. George Washington was never a member of a political party because he didn't believe in parties. Of course, with Adams and Jefferson politics devolved into the federalist and anti federalist factions, and we've had two parties ever since. The parties haven't always remained the same, but by the civil war, we ended up with the republican and democratic parties that we know today. Although they didn't exist in the form they do today, but more on that in another argument I want to make.
But, safe to say, the founders hated parties. John Adams, who ironically ran in one of the first political parties post George Washington, wrote that:
"There is nothing I dread So much, as a Division of the Republick into two great Parties, each arranged under its Leader, and concerting Measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble Apprehension is to be dreaded as the greatest political Evil, under our Constitution."
And sadly, that's the exact kind of evil that the above argument in favor of voting blue no matter who is advocating for, in all of its rank glory.
Here's the thing. As I see it, we voters are in charge, and if we want to be represented in government, we need to vote for the person who represents us. If we believe a candidate fails to be representative of our politics, then in my opinion, we are not morally required to support them.
A moral requirement to vote for a lesser evil, is, in my eyes, an abdication of our responsibility and power as citizens to be the ultimate bosses in our democracy. It's a reversal of how power should exist in a democratic system. Politicians should answer to voters, but voters are responsible for supporting certain politicians? What nonsense is this?
How can democracy even function this way? Which brings us to my major objection with this. if we follow this logic to its logical end, well...it basically means voters are morally beholden to support certain leaders and certain leaders are entitled to votes. How is this not a complete betrayal of the core ideal of democracy? If voters are responsible for supporting certain leaders, then democracy is a farce. We don't really have a democracy. We have feudal lords who we are required to pay fealty to. And the society we live in is not libertarian, democratic, and free. It's authoritarian, undemocratic, and unfree.
Now, this is not to say that you cannot vote for a lesser evil in and of itself. If you believe voting for a lesser evil is the right thing to do, that is your choice. In my ideal world, voters are responsible for making their own decisions. And you can use your power in whatever way you see fit. Ideally you should like a candidate you support, but if you cynically game the system and vote for a lesser evil, just be aware that you are giving your power away to a candidate who has no reason to ever listen to you, and that despite all your screaming about democracy and being anti fascism, you're actually contributing to the erosion of the democratic ideal.
Objection #2 - How can we ever hold politicians accountable if we vote for them regardless?
I must ask. How can we ever hold politicians accountable if they know we will vote for them regardless. If we promise to vote blue no matter who, what signal is that giving to Hillary Clinton? Well, it's telling her that whatever you care about is off the table. Any issue that you are an advocate for and support, that she isn't, she can safely ignore. After all, why should she support them if she's already gotten your vote?
It's even worse if the candidate KNOWS you support certain issues and ignores you anyway. That's what really pissed me off about Hillary and the dems. They knew what I was about, or more specifically voters like me, but they would get up in front of a crowd, enthusiastically tell us it would never happen, but that we have to support them anyway.
It enraged me. Why should I support her if she's going to ignore my issues? Isn't holding, for example, the supreme court hostage, essentially extortion? That's how I see it. if voters don't stand up and aren't willing to tell a candidate like Clinton "no", then they're just going to be able to ignore us. There's a saying among the US government, don't negotiate with terrorists. The reasoning behind this is that negotiating with terrorists signifies weakness, and encourages more terroristic acts as we keep compromising with them until we're weak enough for them to walk all over us. Well, if she is going to hold the system hostage to extract a vote, how can we hold her to account if we don't, refuse to vote for her? That said, I would argue if a candidate explicitly ignores you, and you vote for them, then you're just encouraging more of that kind of behavior.
Objection #3 - This is exactly what's wrong with the system
Look around you. We keep going from a GOP that is very vibrant, and aggressive, and stands for what it believes in, and a weak, feckless democratic party that abandons its ideals and its voters, and it just shifts the overton window right.
I used to be a republican. Heck, I was originally part of the tea party. And we didn't take crap. If we didn't like moderates, we didn't support them. The politicians on that side of the aisle feared the voters, and caved to their bidding regularly. I remember here in PA, we ran out a politician known as Arlen Specter. Arlen Specter was considered a RINO. Republican in name only. He sided with the left on a lot of issues, and was a constant source of frustration for republicans in congress. He was basically their Joe Manchin or Kirsten Sinema. And you wanna know what, we, the tea party (since I was a member of that at the time), did? We ran him out of office. He was gonna lose his republican primary, so he switched, and then he lost the democratic primary. So he didn't get elected at all. Now, do we do this on the left? No! Because the left are cucks. They have this vote blue no matter who mentality of you better support the democrat we give you or else. This leads to a lot of moderates who are never really held responsible by voters.
But the right holds their side to account. Heck, wanna know why so many republicans still defend Trump? because they know their voters like Trump, and won't tolerate their crap if they don't. This kind of mentality is completely absent from the democratic side, and it's a huge reason our system has slid so far to the right. The right is responsive to their voters and over time has become more and more polarized to the right, because that's what the voters wanted. but on the left, having demands is considered bad. You're bad if you want things from your politicians. Don't you know you should just vote blue no matter who? And sadly, most fall in line. So we have these democrats who don't do what we want in office, and aren't held accountable, and a right wing that shifts further and further right due to the increasingly insane demands of their voters.
And this is why we have a system most people are unhappy with. The republicans win among their fired up base, but then alienate moderates and the left. And then democrats win as a mere opposition party to the republicans, and because they can't govern due to being moderate, and then blocked by even more moderate candidates from doing anything, as well as united opposition from the right, then they dont do anything, and insist they need to keep running further and further to the center. Look at the difference in incentive structure here. The right listens to their voters and are legitimately scared not to represent them because they know they will face an electoral bloodbath if they do. On the left the dems don't listen to their voters, but instead are drawn to the center by collective ideology, big monied interests, and their most moderate members of congress. The right is pulled to the right, and then the left is dragged to the right with them, and we're forced to watch, horrified, and continue supporting them or we end up with the right wing crazies in charge. But, I'd argue, we've only allowed things to get this far because we don't hold our own accountable.
So, let me, a former tea partier who realized the errors of my ways and come to the left, teach you how it's done. You know the Bernie Bros? I might get annoyed by them these days, despite formerly being one too, but they got the right idea. They hold their own to account. They have ideals, they want people who represent them, and while I think they're a bit too rigid, flexible, and extreme these days, they actually will try to hold their own to account. To be honest, I do think, given the bernie bros and their extreme socialist shifts, that moderation is key here. Remember, I'm not a socialist, I'm a yang style human centered capitalist. I want UBI, universal healthcare, free college/student debt forgiveness, etc. But, each voter should probably take a handful of their top issues, and hold the party accountable to implement them. Refusing to support those who won't, and supporting those who will. Obviously we need to be flexible enough to achieve a coalition, which is why I've previously expressed willingness to work with Bernie Bros and even SJWs despite clearly not agreeing with them, but if we all can achieve some of our goals, we should be happy.
That's how the GOP is. You have a diverse spectrum of voters there, and the party manages to bring tons of people with diverse interests under their banner. Some are religious righters who obsess over SCOTUS, abortion, gay marriage, and "religious liberty." Some are alt right populists who focus on immigration and economic nationalism (and let's be honest, race, since that's a dog whistle here). Some are libertarians who are anti government social programs and taxes while being more permissive on social issues. Some are economic elites who want tax cuts and reaganomics. The republicans manage to bring together this broad coalition of different factions who all want different things and make them happy. Not every group gets everything they want, but the GOP tries. And if they don't try, they know they'll get voted out.
The democrats need to do the same. This is why I'm willing to sometimes work with those I dont see eye to eye with. I supported the Berniecrats, for example, for universal healthcare and free college/student debt forgiveness. Im not as big on job guarantees, as I'm a UBI guy, but I was willing to play ball until they started crapping on UBI and they imploded post 2020. I'm willing to work with SJWs and their weird priorities as long as they don't pee in my cornflakes, which, sadly they do in promoting their blue no matter who narratives and wrapping up the above arguments in the language of "check your privilege." But you know? These divisions don't need to happen if we can, you know, tolerate each other, and give each faction enough room to get some of what they want accomplished.
The problem is, and this is why I'm so anti vote blue no matter who, I don't feel represented by the modern democratic party at all. it feels extremely hostile to my goals, to the point, I don't care if they lose to the republicans. I support my issues, they don't support mine. Which...to go onto the next argument...
Objection #4 - Third parties are a signal to the major parties that they need to change
Remember how I mentioned way back earlier that the republican and democratic parties of the 1860s aren't the parties of today? Well, that's because they've undergone several party realignments. I've mentioned party realignments on this blog a lot. I believe we're undergoing one. I believe it started in 2016, which given previous patterns is right on schedule, and if trends hold, I believe it will continue until around 2028. At which point I would expect the next one to begin some time in the 2060s when my generation starts dying off.
But....occasionally...those old coalitions don't really represent the people. While a coalition might seem relevant at the beginning of an alignment, they lose meaning as the issues change and the demographics change through birth and death. For example, by the 1890s, the 1860s republican and democratic coalitions seemed quite irrelevant, and then we had the populist era from 1896 to 1932. And then in 1932 FDR spurred on another realignment. And then in 1968, that alignment started fracturing, and we underwent a transition period where by 1980, the reagan coalition became dominant. And now, the coalitions are changing again, with the republican and democratic coalitions experiencing a bit of a free for all atmosphere between various competing factions within the parties. Trumpism is replacing the old republican party, and the democrats aren't really changing much from the 1990s, and that being a problem. Still, we're seeing leftist factions fighting for control, and establishment factions fighting against them.
I would argue supporting the democratic coalition, regardless of who you support, is bad for the country. It stops change. It stops us from having the conversations we should be having, and could inevitably stop the changes that need to happen, from happening. When factions like the Bernie faction, or the Yang faction, or even the SJWs with their concerns about social issues, pop up, those guys have legitimate grievances about the system that aren'ty being addressed. And honestly, in these realignment periods, third parties can be outlets of dissatisfaction with the system that ultimately provoke those realignments.
In 1860, the republicans weren't a dominant party. They were a third party. But the whigs crapped the bed so hard that they won. Why? because the two party system was failing to address slavery. It wasn't for decades. And people were wanting change for decades. You had abolitionist parties as early as the 1840s, and they recognized that the two party system wasn't doing anything. But, establishment politicians being politicians, tried navigating the issues in more subtle ways, which only led to more unhappiness and dissatisfaction until 1860 turned into a powder keg...and then in 1861 the civil war started. This led to a monumental realignment, where the whigs used to be like modern democrats, and the the democrats actually were far more trump like, to the republicans being the party of abolition of slavery and democrats being the party of the south. Then in 1896 the populist era led to another seemingly useless realignment where modern capitalism was the issue. And the republicans and democrats went back and forth arguing over minor issues, with only theodore roosevelt being willing to step up during this era and "trust bust". But...you know, the whole time, socialists and other leftists were arguing for progressive goals we now hold standard. Stuff like minimum wages, labor laws, 40 hour work week, etc. These ideas didn't come out of nowhere in 1932. They were around for decades prior, and ignored by the major parties. It was just that eventually, the system got to the point they could no longer be ignored and FDR had to implement them or face revolts.
Honestly, in voting third party now, that's what I'm trying to prevent. I've seen entire alignments in American history, where the two parties just...ignored issues. And eventually, they were forced to address these issues decades after activists were voting third party to bring attention to them. And I really don't want that happening again. But, if progressives "vote blue no matter who", and decide it's not convenient or the right time to push for these issues, that might happen. The democrats might end up being useless until like 2060 or so when the situation gets so bad we reach a legitimate crisis point and we're FORCED to. If you dont want to be voting against republicans for the rest of your life the way you have the last two cycles, I suggest you get out there and start splitting the parties now to bring them to the table to implement these issues, you know, some time this decade. It's kind of important for those of us who are young and the prospect of living in this system for the rest of our lives seems like hell on earth. In some ways, I'm willing to forgo the next few years of governance, in hope for a better long term tomorrow. Democrats want to focus on the short term, the here and now, but I'm more worried about trends over my lifetime.
Objection #5 - Both parties ARE the same
By this, I don't mean they're literally the same. I mean they're similar enough there's no meaningful difference between them. I'm gonna be honest. With democrats like Obama or Biden in charge, I just don't care if democrats win elections. I really don't. I don't see my life get better in any way. And while there is a philosophical and ideological difference that might make my life better or worse, it's all window dressing. Neither issue really sufficiently addresses the issues i care about most. I feel like Biden is just a continuation of Trump, and Trump a continuation of Obama, and Obama a continuation of Bush. I don't feel like there has been anywhere near as much of a meaningful difference between these administrations as people act like there is. It seems like R or D, life goes on. I wouldve argued one difference in 2020 was that dems respected lockdowns more, and werent as sociopathic about killing people for the economy. But now in 2022, we're entering the era of "it is what it is" with COVID. Vaccines are losing their effectiveness, and now democrats are kind of giving up and rolling over on COVID. We wouldve gotten the vaccine under Trump if he got a second term anyway. And Trump gave stimulus money too push comes to shove. Now, if the dems and republicans end up governing very similar on this issue, which should be THE defining issue between the two at the moment, and the dems adopt a "moderate republican" issue on it, why should I care about supporting them? This has been the reality of being a democrat since the 1990s by the way. Democrats always roll over, after talking a big game about how bad the republicans are, and then end up doing the same thing republicans end up doing. Clinton was the one who gutted welfare in the 1990s. Obama didnt shut down our torture and spying program. Biden is basically a republican lite on covid. Do you not understand how abandoning issues and running to the center is not a betrayal of your voter base? And do you not understand that this is why you end up losing support among your most partisan supporters at times?
Quite frankly, I can't be bothered to support the dems any more. Because I barely see any functional difference between them and the republicans. Even when neolibs give these huge lists of stuff that dems accomplish, most of it is so minor it's like, this barely affects me, if it affects me at all. The fact is, dems in the past 50 years or so have barely done anything that the people really feel and appreciate. Even when they pass something like the ACA they do it in a terrible way that ends up hurting a lot of people. For example I have a friend who was ranting about the insurance mandate was such a terrible policy for him since he couldn't afford healthcare but was fined for not getting insurance. it IS a dumb policy! But the dems will spin it to be the greatest thing since sliced bread. Sorry dems, but your mediocre accomplishments aren't worth praising. This isn't kindergarten where you're being rewarded for painting a crappy picture of a house and stick figures next to it. You have to actually try.
Objection #6 - Voting is a statement of who I am and what I stand for
In terms of moral responsibility, I actually see things the opposite of how the vote blue no matter whoers see them. While they see me supporting their specific candidate as a moral obligation, I see myself as morally responsible for who I DO vote for. In other words, not only am I not morally responsible, in my mind, of voting for a candidate I hate, I'm morally responsible for voting for who I do. If I voted for Hillary, I would say I'm morally responsible for Hillary's presidency. Because I actively contributed to it by saying "that's my choice." But what do you do if you hate both candidates? You vote for neither. You either stay home, which means you don't get your voice heard at all, or you vote for a candidate who does express your views. Hawkins, Stein, neither particularly were perfect matches for my views, but I would say I agreed with them far more than I did Biden or Hillary. And while I do despise Trump and have next to nothing in common with them, I don't feel morally responsible for either. Thrusting two bad choices on me and saying I have to support one or the other, when I don't identify with neither, is dirty. And I feel no desire to saying that I contributed to either winning, so I say no. I vote for the candidate who actually represents what I do want. Because voting is, for me, about sending a message, about sending signals and messages that the person I vote for...that's what I want. If I vote for Hillary, knowing she's going to ignore me. I feel responsible for contributing to that. And I want nothing to do with either Trump or Hillary, so I abstain.
Objection #7 - Is a vote for a third party a vote for Trump in the first place?
No. This entire argument is based on the subject of opportunity costs. Say Hillary has 10000 votes and Trump has 10000 votes. Who wins? Well, congress decides. But...if I vote for Jill Stein...and no one else did, she gets...1 vote. And Hillary has 10000 votes, and Trump has 10000 votes. What happens if I didn't vote at all? Hillary would have 10000 votes, and Trump has 10000 votes. You see? That's the point, I'M NOT CONTRIBUTING TO THE OUTCOME. While I could vote for Hillary and give her 10001 votes, causing her to win, I already explained the very obvious problems with morally requiring that, and how it is an abdication of our duties as citizens to hold our elected politicians accountable, and how it's a gateway to oligarchy and authoritarianism, etc. But, one thing we can also see....if I vote for Stein....does Trump automatically win? NO! They both tie. What would cause Trump to win? SOMEONE VOTING FOR TRUMP! And let's face it, I would NEVER support Trump. My whole point is I'm not obligated to help either of you, and by refusing to participate, I am NOT voting for either. I'm simply not voting in a way that you recognize as legitimate. At the end of the day, I'm not a republican or democrat. I'm on "team me." There is no I in team, but there is an M and an E. I don't have a moral duty to ACTIVELY HELP you. That's what we're discussing. I am not in any way contributing to Trump's vote total in not supporting you. You're just salty I'm not contributing to YOU vote total by not actively helping.
Rather than shaming me for what my vote "could have been" if I didn't support you, maybe you should shame those 10000 people who ACTIVELY SUPPORTED TRUMP. You have every right to be mad at them. Or do you? To some extent, didn't you fail to win them over either? And while I admit you won't WANT to appeal to the politics those guys LIKE, well, let's face it, you might've been able to win over a few people if you did actually run your campaign differently. Maybe 10000R 10000D could turn into 9500R 10500D if only you cared enough about economic policy, for example?It could happen, given how narrow the margins were.
Objection #8 - Addressing the "vote your conscience in the primaries" argument
I didn't mention this in the above argument, but I sometimes see VBNMWers push the idea that the time to make our voice heard is the primaries. Well, here's the thing. The dems game the primaries. in 2016 there was active collusion between the media and the democratic party, as documented by those leaks the Russians did that we're supposed to forget about because the ones who leaked them were Russians. Even if they didn't release those hacks, the collusion was obvious. The entire process was designed to manufacture consent for Hillary. The entire narrative at the time was "you're free to vote for whomever you want, but Hillary is gonna win, so you better support the eventual nominee." And then in 2020, we went over how there was collusion behind the scenes between the Jim Clyburn endorsement in south carolina and all of those sketchy calls Obama made encouraging people to drop out and support Biden. I mean, yeah, they put their finger on the scale. And I'm going to be honest. If they can't have a fair process and keep designing the system with the intent of getting a certain outcome, I can't be bothered to support the eventual nominee when foisted on me. If the system is corrupt and rigged, I might as well not participate.
Bonus - The origin of the "but the court" argument
I want to offer the origin of the "but the court" argument that encouraged me to write this entire mess. I became interested in Sanders in 2014 when I was looking into potential 2016 candidates. I was frustrated with the economy, and was looking for the next FDR. Someone who would support a "new new deal", which I envisioned as UBI, M4A, and free college. Sanders stood out because while UBI was still too new to the conversation to be taken seriously, the two latter policies were supported by Sanders, but not by Hillary.
I remember watching CNN on Christmas Eve in 2014, and they were talking about Hillary and fluffing her up for a 2016 run. I wanted to hear about Sanders. Well, when someone mentioned that in 2016 we might see a challenge to clinton from the left, all of the sudden they had to "go to commercial" while suspiciously changing the subject and then talked about something else like NORAD tracking Santa. It was suspicious to me, and an encapsulation of what was to come.
Whenever Sanders supporters mentioned Sanders, we were told, well, you gotta understand, Sanders can't win, he's too far left, it's not pragmatic. But, you gotta support the nominee whoever they will be. But it's gonna be Hillary. Basically saying, "Hillary's gonna win, get used to it, you better support us or else." Well, I wasn't really keen on this. I was a new democrat, and I came over during the 2012 election cycle, and remembering how the tea party functioned...that wasn't how we did things on the republican side. No. We foguht it out and let the best person win. And while we had no obligation to support the nominee (I threatened to vote Libertarian a lot in 2008), we eventually fell in line. But it was more cordial, and informal, and nothing was forced. on this side, I felt like I was being told "this was how it is, and you gotta get used to it." uh, no, sorry, i didnt grow a brain and a spine and leave the GOP just to bow to the dems.
Well...in March 2015, give or take, Allen Clifton of the website "forward progressives" wrote an article about how we all had to get behind the nominee because of the supreme court. Basically, they were holding the court hostage, telling us we had to fall in line or these old justices are gonna die and the republicans are gonna win. And quite frankly, I just don't value the court enough to do that. The court is the weakest branch of government, it has the most narrow powers, and while it can make a difference in some cases, most cases aren't decided in a 5-4 landmark way, so I wasn't really that interested in falling in line for the court's sake.
Well...Scalia died, Obama failed to replace him. Kennedy Retired. And then RBG died. And now the dems love to lay the blame at our feet. Well, as far as I'm concerned, this is an ongoing grudge I have with the establishment dems, and quite frankly, I take no responsibility. If democrats want to win my vote, they can support my policies, otherwise I'm not holding them accountable and the system falls apart like it's been doing. I do not negotiate with terrorists, and despite what they say, no, I did not support Trump. I refused to support either, because I hate both. See the above arguments.
I would've loved to post the forward progressive article that was the source of this talking point, but sadly, the site was taken down in 2016, and I'm having trouble finding it using waybackmachine. But, anyone who is curious can look for it.
Conclusion: If you think I'm morally required to vote blue, you can screw off
I'm all out of civility and good will with vote blue no matter whoers. It's why I wrote this. I have zero desire to have this debate with these guys ever again, so I wrote this extremely long and thorough article to debunk their arguments. If you personally, want to vote for the democrat as a lesser evil, I will not stop you. I believe a vote is a person's expression of will in a democratic society, and while I don't see a lesser evil vote as the best use of a vote, you're free to do so. But, you don't get to tell me what to do and impose a positive duty on me, when it goes against every fiber of my being. I'm here to advocate for UBI, M4A, and my anti work views, as well as some other priorities I support. And I will vote along those lines. If you fail to support such policies, that's on you, and I won't vote for you. And if you think I should vote for someone who I dislike, to avoid someone else who I dislike, I'm all out of civility at this point, screw off. That's all I'm gonna say.
No comments:
Post a Comment