Pragmatism versus idealism

Election day thoughts on voting for one whom I cannot endorse.


It’s almost untenable: finding myself in the position of voting for a man – Barack Obama- that I cannot endorse.

If I were listening solely to idealism, I would be casting my vote today for either Jill Stein (Green Party) or Carl ‘Rocky’ Anderson (Justice Party), because I have always felt my vote is really an extension of my values. Actually, that is true of all of us. How we vote reflects what we believe in.

As I’ve aged I have found there are basically two burning fires in my soul: an intense internal hatred of injustice and inequality, and an overwhelming desire to see development of the public trust and support for the common good. If there has been disappointment in what I’ve observed of the human condition over my lifetime, it is that far too few carry these torches.

Instead, far too many believe in the individual versus community, and are consumed with self-interest versus the greater good. Far too many worship at the alters of the market, consumerism, and capitalism versus any real religion, which, regardless of brand (Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist or other) invariably upholds shared humanist characteristics and values that may be referred to as the ‘common good.’

Moreover, far too many concentrate on what makes us different- whether that be wealth, race, gender, sexual orientation, or what side of an imaginary line on a map that we live- rather than what we share. After all, we’re all human and all inhabiting the same fragile planet. I tell myself that wealth is really more about how we think and reason, what we learn and where our values lie versus anything materialistic. I keep in mind those segments of our DNA strands which are shared by each and everyone one of us across the planet and which trace to a common heritage and geography: we’re all Black, because we’re all African. In an overtly patriarchal world, I try to remember that most of the traits we associate with godliness- love, compassion, empathy, kindness- are generally best exemplified in the feminine. I remind myself that none of us ever choose our sexual orientation. As for nationalism, I continually remind myself of Einstein’s brilliant characterization: “It’s an infantile disease- the measles of mankind.”

That said, why do candidates like Stein and Anderson appeal to me? Of all the candidates aspiring to the presidency, it’s probably because their views on a spectrum of issues- domestic and foreign policy, the economy, social issues- best represent mine. In other words, their values better align.

Unfortunately, neither Anderson nor Stein has a chance to win this election, and if I lived in a state where either Obama or Romney were slated for a solid win, I would most assuredly vote my ideals.

I live in Colorado, however, which in 2012 is an important swing-state.

Therefore, pragmatism kicks in, because- idealism or not- there are very real consequences to who wins. Rev. Ron Letnes, in his ‘Colorado Confession’ blog, laid out many:

• An Obama victory means some level of commitment to maintaining the social ‘safety nets’ of Medicare, Medicaid, and the Affordable Care Act, whereas Romney will ‘throw out’ the Affordable Care Act on day one and cut back on Medicaid and food stamps, ultimately hoping to kill these programs by shifting the financial burden to the states- who have no means by which to support them.
  
  
• An Obama victory means effort will be made to get our troops out of Afghanistan and to begin the process of trying to cut the Pentagon budget. Even though we spend nearly as much on our military as all the other nations in the world combined, Romney would increase military spending. Think about that, in light of the fact we could cut our current military spending by three-quarters and still outspend the number two nation- China- by a 2:1 ratio.
  
  
• An Obama victory means attempts to increase tax rates on the wealthiest 1-2% of Americans, with lessened tax rates for the rest. A Romney victory supposedly means decreased tax rates for all, a dubious possibility given his intent to increase military spending. Note if Romney does further decrease tax rates on the very rich, which are already historically low, it really means a further shift in the overall tax burden from the rich to the middle-class and poor.
  
  
• Obama would not privatize Social Security. Romney would.
  
  
• Obama would support the Lilly Ledbetter “Equal Pay for Equal Work” act, Planned Parenthood, and Roe v. Wade. Romney would ‘do away’ with both Planned Parenthood and Lilly-Ledbetter, and would support overturning Roe v. Wade.
  
  
• Obama wants to tax capital gains and eliminate off-shore tax shelters, whereas Romney has no desire to see loopholes in corporate tax law closed.
  
  
• Obama seeks international cooperation and partnerships whereas Romney seeks a new cold war with Russia and China and a real war with Iran. Romney’s foreign-policy advisors include John Bolton, Bill Kristol, and seven other neo-conservatives from the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), the group instrumental in setting the foreign policy of the two administrations of G.W. Bush. They are war-mongers who despise the United Nations and believe instead the U.S. should use its military for world domination.
  
  
• Moreover, Obama would like to see Citizen’s United, the Supreme Corporate decision that opened the floodgates for unlimited election spending, repealed. Romney sees no problem with unlimited corporate money in elections.

While these are positive, there are many issues where Obama’s first-term performance has been anywhere from disappointing to outright disgusting.

Human rights are first and foremost. Obama's disregard of international law in the use of drones (unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAVs) for extrajudicial killing is appalling. The Administration’s ground rules for engagement, where any male between the ages of 18 and 50 is considered a potential ‘enemy combatant,’ is simply ludicrous. Use of such technology requires good ground intelligence, something we invariably lack in the places where drones are being used in the ‘war’ on terror. Without such, it is both immoral and reprehensible to misuse technology in this fashion.

Moreover, as Obama is a self-professed constitutional lawyer, I am appalled at his callous disregard for habeas corpus, due process and his use of indefinite detention for ‘enemy combatants’ held at Guantanamo and in other secret military garrisons across the globe. The fact the prison at Guantanamo is still open is a travesty.

Furthermore, Obama is smart enough to know a war on terror makes no more sense than a war on drugs or, for that matter, a war on ants. Regardless if which one we’re talking about- terror, drugs, ants- there will always be some. Waging war should be saved for conflicts between nation-states, not individuals or nebulous rogue organizations. In the case of terror, the U.S. should ‘grow up’ and treat acts of terrorism as the crimes against humanity that they are, and utilize our international relations in terms of intelligence and policing to fight it- saving our military for the matters they were trained for.

Environmentally, it is likewise appalling to see this Administration’s silence on the most important issue of our time: global warming. That Obama has capitulated to American corporate interests on this matter, in defiance of nearly universal consensus in the independent science community, is beyond immoral. Millions will unjustly die, and staggering tens of trillions will be wasted as future super-storms wreak havoc on the coastal cities of the world, and as the world’s water and food supplies diminish.

Frankly, Obama hasn't been nearly as progressive as he would need in order to win my endorsement. That said, let me add this: A Romney presidency would be much worse. Romney would continue and possibly expand use of drones for extrajudicial killing. Romney will be no friend of human rights in terms of torture, indefinite detention, habeas corpus or due process. The thought of perpetual war is no problem for Romney, and as Romney has stated, “I’m not here to slow the rise of the oceans; I’m not here to heal the planet.”

In a rational world, that would be enough to disqualify one from the ballot, but, alas- America is no longer a land of the rational.

Personal integrity matters too, and I’m still stunned by the recent Chrysler episode, where a Bloomberg report two weeks past talked about how Chrysler was NOT going to export the manufacturing of Jeeps to China. However, the very next day, Romney twisted the report 180 degrees in an outright lie (“I just read where Chrysler will be manufacturing Jeeps in China”) during an Ohio stump speech designed to spread fear and misinform. Confronted with the facts, Romney’s response was to roll out a TV commercial re-emphasizing the lie. The issue was so scandalous that Ralph Gilles, the CEO at Chrysler, had to publically refute Romney’s claims.

Even more telling is this wasn’t an isolated occurrence. Far from it, Romney mis-representations, partial truths, untruths and outright lies have been documented again and again and again. If Romney has earned anything, it’s this: the guy is a world-class, Olympic-caliber lair.

Moreover, the staged Hurricane Sandy donation/relief event was telling. Spending $5,000 dollars of campaign money to buy canned goods (which the Red Cross didn't really need; what they needed was the money), which were then handed out to kids who would hand them back to you while the cameras rolled. Brilliant! What a photo-op! Might as well have been Photo-shopped. Character counts, Mitt. The problem is, you don’t have any.

Then there’s the issue of Paul Ryan, Romney’s running mate. A Romney victory would place a Tea Party Republican a heartbeat away from the most important position in the land.

That wouldn’t be quite so bad if the Tea Party platform didn’t read like a fascist manifesto. The philosophy of Ryan and his Tea Party comrades can be encapsulated as follows:

1. Overt militarization. It’s not a problem if manufacturing arms and making war takes a disproportionate share of government funding relative the domestic agenda.
   
   
2. Obsession with national security.
   
   
3. Support for immense corporate power where business and industrial aristocracy shape elections- leading to a mutually beneficial relationship between government and business.
   
   
4. Labor unions and movements must be suppressed.
   
   
5. Encourage voter suppression and other election fraud tactics designed to manipulate results.
   
   
6. Support the monopolization of mass media by corporations tightly aligned in support of the cozy business / government power structure.
   
   
7. Use religion as a political tool.
   
   
8. Hold science, enlightenment and the cultural arts in contempt.
   
   
9. Criticise international law, the United Nations, and human and civil rights.
   
   
10. Support patriarchal sexism and diminished women’s rights. Hold homosexuals in contempt.
    
    
11. Show disdain for immigrants and people of other cultures or colors.
    
    
12. Promote bellicose nationalism.

Indeed, these read like bullets from the Tea Party platform.

Oh, by the way- all twelve are defining characteristics of fascism. Every. Single. One.

And I don’t vote fascist. Not now. Not ever.


So, while it is sad to be voting for one whom I cannot endorse, the truth is- if I don’t vote pragmatically then I won’t be able to live with myself. Far more Americans- and others around the planet, too- will suffer and even die due to policy under a Romney administration than under Obama.

Only multi-national corporations really win if Romney is elected, and that's something this world can't afford.

My vote is, if you will, essentially a vote for the ‘lesser of two evils.’ Pragmatism wins this time, but I hope- someday- to again vote my ideals.