Skip to main content

View Diary: The Ethic of (Ir)Responsibility (238 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Disagree, very much so. (none)
    No, that is not right.  Look at it this way.  Are the people who voted for Pat Buchanan (on purpose) responsible for the Bush being elected?  No, because they didn't vote for him.  I really don't like that somehow because I didn't vote for Gore it suddenly makes me culpable, even in the slightest, for Bush ending up winning the election.   I spent many hours working for the Nader campaign in 2000, and a ton of time working on the Dean campaign often outdoors and freezing my ass off, and this same argument seems to keep coming up that because the things that I really, really, really believe in aren't "electable" I should go with something else that is.  Well, apparently Bush is electable too, sort of, so how am I supposed to tell the difference between them?  Just because there seems to be a connection between the democratic party platform and the green party platform doesn't mean that since the democratic party is so much larger and richer that it's a green's responsibility to vote democratic.

    My point continues to be that only the people to blame are the people who voted for Bush and in this case, the people who thought up the electoral college.  Not only is it counterproductive to snipe at us weasely (that wasn't very nice) Greens and attempt to assign blame to us for voting for Nader, I don't understand how voting for Gore or Kerry but sitting on your ass during the campaign absolves one of the responsibility for Bush being president.  It's not my fault!  I protested the Kyoto withdrawal, I protested the Patriot Act, I protested against the WTO and I protested the invasion of Iraq, and now if I don't vote for Kerry, I'll somehow be responsible if Bush gets elected again?

    Explain this too me better, because I've never been able to find a long term relationship, okay?

    Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil. Plato

    by Bokonon on Fri Feb 27, 2004 at 05:43:39 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Paradigm shift needed (none)
      I really think you're not listening. You haven't heard what we're arguing.

      You're still going on like we're accusing Greens of being the only ones with responsibility. NO ONE is claiming this. We are claiming that lots of people are responsible, in different ways, for the result.

      You also seem to think that simply because you didn't want Bush in office and worked hard to promote issues antithetical to his candidacy that you cannot be a responsible party to the result.

      Gore is responsible for not being a better campaigner...even though he wanted to be a good enough campaigner to win and tried as best he could at the time, given his beliefs.

      Republican voters are responsible for choosing the greater evil....even though they didn't believe they were doing this, and were working for the greater good in their eyes.

      Green voters (in two states) are responsible for choosing a candidate who they knew couldn't win, and having the greater evil enter office as a result...even though they worked hard and wanted a just ecotopia.

      Voter for every single third party are responsible despite their intentions and whether they worked hard, because if they had done otherwise (in critical states) the greater evil would have lost.

      People who didn't vote are responsible for not preventing the greater evil from occuring.

      The one thing I agree about is this: it's a shame that Nader voters keep getting singled out for blame. There are all kinds of groups, especially nonvoters who would have gone for Gore, that should be getting more attention.

      It is an interesting phenomenon: why do many ask themselves "how can we entice nonvoters to vote?" and try to use the honey, yet some of those same people go right to the vinegar when it comes to Nader voters by telling them that they're misguided, destructive, etc.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site