I have written in the past that to choose the lesser of two evils is still to choose evil. Sometimes the choice, in sorrow, to make such a choice. Sometimes however to make such a choice is too violative of all that one holds dear.
Once before in a presidential election I found myself confronting such a choice. The situation was somewhat different than it is now. But my choice then was, in sorrow, not to cast a vote for president.
I have, in sorrow, come to the conclusion that should Hillary Clinton be the Democratic nominee, I will not cast a vote for president. I live in Virginia, which she has no realistic chance of carrying, so perhaps it takes little courage for me to make that decision, should it be necessary. But given that I am politically active, that I teach government to adolescents, that I encourage them to participate, it is truly in sorrow that I find I must make this decision.
I will try to explain, if you care to keep reading, why I have made this decision.
Once in my adult life I did not cast a vote for president, because I felt that there was no candidate whom I could legitimize by my vote. It was 1984. The Democratic candidate was Walter Mondale. I lived in Pennsylvania, in theory a state that would be competitive, although by six weeks before the election it was clear to me that Reagan would win comfortably and would also carry PA, so perhaps my abstention did not seem of importance. I would not vote for Reagan, and with all I knew about Mondale I could not bring myself to offer a vote on his behalf. It was not just that I had earlier supported another Democrat, Fritz Hollings, but that for me to vote for Mondale would mean that I violated my own conscience, that a vote for someone I viewed as manipulative, willing to twist things for his own benefit, who had a history of self-aggrandizement at the expense of what was best for the people of the nation he purported to serve was further than I could in conscience go.
Perhaps it was that I remembered the role Mondale played at the 1964 Democratic national convention on behalf of Hubert Humphrey, who had been tasked by LBJ to get the Mississippi Freedom Democrats not to insist on a floor fight, which they might well have won. Perhaps it was because of my own involvement in Civil Rights the previous year that I viewed that as a betrayal of Humphrey's legacy, perhaps it was that I felt Johnson would win so comfortably anyhow that this was a time that political capital could be spent on something important, such as equality of political participation. There was more, but Mondale had never apologized for that, nor had the great civil libertarian Joe Rauh, who was also part of the effort. And that opened my eyes to something I have never forgotten - that sometimes people one might otherwise admire are so committed by personally loyalty or some other reason not as easily identifiable that they take actions that seem in contradiction to the thrust of the public lives which led one to admire them in the first place.
I began this political campaign as neutral, wanting to take my time to evaluate many things. When my friend Tom Vilsack came out against reauthorization of No Child Left Behind, I cam out and endorsed him - here, in an environment which had a great deal of hostility towards him because of his leadership of the DLC. I always knew he was a long shot, but because of the one issue I felt he was entitled to some visible support. One clear sign of his weakness as a candidate, beyond the inability to raise enough money to be competitive, was that I was perhaps his most visible supporter in the blogosphere, and I am simply not that important, influential, or even visible.
Because of a long-time relationship, going back to his wife's sharing a cubicle with Hillary Rodham at the House Judiciary Committee, Tom decided to support Clinton. He took a lot of grief, especially here, for that decision. I attempted to explain why he made that choice. Some accused Clinton of buying him by offering to pay off his debts. I reminded some making those accusations that as Deaniacs they had not raised similar objections when Howard Dean put Carol Mosely Braun on his payroll.
I thought I would remain neutral. The first chink in that position came when Clinton argued against college students whose families lived in other states, particularly Illinois, participating in the Iowa caucuses, even though it was legal for them to do so. I had this discussion offline with Vilsack, who complained that the caucus was supposed to be a party building exercise. I reminded him that come November those very same students might well want to vote in Iowa, where their votes could return the state to the Democratic column, and given that Illinois was heavily Democratic in its orientation their votes would not be missed. Tom's response was that what was happening is that instead of being a caucus, the increased turnout was making Iowa into a primary election, in all but name.
I repeated that last communication from Vilsack because of what I heard this week. After all the complaints about caucuses by the Clintons, the former president told people in Wyoming they needed to increase the turnout and turn it into an election. In other words, the approach now is precisely what Clinton's most prominent Iowa supporter objected to at the beginning of the year. I think that is hypocrisy, or selective ethics, or inconsistency - whatever it is, it is bothersome. But by itself it would not be enough for my sorrow, and thus my decision.
I had previously watched as the campaign developed, for quite some time. I chose to remain neutral, because many of the candidates were acceptable to me, and had I ranked them the only two who would have stood out early were Edwards and Dodd, with a group behind them of Biden, Obama and Clinton. I wanted to be able to offer my analysis, especially on educational policy, without being accused of writing what I did because of whom I favored or disfavored. If I praised or criticized, on education or other issues, I wanted my words to be read as independent of support.
At times during the campaign there were things about each candidate that bothered me. I criticized Edwards for what I viewed as grandstanding on contributions from Federal lobbyists in his remarks at Yearly Kos, noting that as he had expressed it perhaps he should return my $100 contribution. I do not have to agree with all a candidate says in order to support them. But at some point a threshold is reach which makes support impossible, not if one is able to maintain a sense of personal integrity. Before Iowa I reached that point with Clinton, at least as far as the primaries. The attitude towards the young people had been key - after all, I teach government because I want the young people for whom I am responsible to feel that their participation can make a difference. And as one who is a Democratic post 1964 (Civil Rights Act) and 1965 (Voting Rights Act) it is more than a little objectionable to me that anyone seeking a Democratic nomination would attempt to dissuade or suppress anyone's vote. When I also looked at the tactics of many in Clinton's campaign, whether Billy Shaheen or Robert Johnson or Mark Penn (in his case twice in one minute raising the issue of cocaine) I decided that I could not in conscience reward Clinton by a vote in the primary, although at that point I was still willing to support her should she achieve the nomination.
I have gone from Vilsack to neutral to Edwards to Obama. I will not repeat all the reasons why. When I finally settled on Obama after the effective withdrawal of Edwards, that was an affirmation of Obama, and not an unwillingness to support Clinton in a general, only the impossibility of supporting her in the primary.
The Virginia primary is now almost a month past. And what I have seen from the Clinton campaign in the past weeks has increased my discomfort and unease. Others have written about the details,far more lucidly than can I.
A political candidate is ultimately responsible for the campaign actions done on his or her behalf. If one acquiesces, remains silent, gives winks and nods, one is accepting or even encouraging actions that should be beyond the pale. If one rationalizes that what the Republicans would do would be even worse, then one is participating in the kind of degradation of the political process that has so turned off so many Americans. This election cycle offers a real chance to change our politics for the better, and perhaps rescue this nation from its current downward spiral into political apathy. That should concern all who seek something better.
Two images were a part of my thinking this week. Both come from decades back, and have been essential parts of my memory since. One is a cartoon from the late Walt Kelly, of Pogo looking out at the devastation of the swamp and saying "We have met the enemy, and he is us." The other is of the American field grade officer in Vietnam saying that in order to save the village we had to destroy it.
We began this campaign season with enthusiasm and hope. Many Americans were drawn to the Democratic party as one of hope, of the possibility for something different. To be sure, some were dissuaded by the lack of meaningful action in the Congress to end the war and the other depredations of this administration. Still, for more than a year it has been clear that the enthusiasm this season was on the Democratic side - it was visible in new registrations, in money contributed, in the size of crowd, and as the primary season began in participation in primaries and caucuses. We could look at the Republican field of all white men and a Democratic field that included white men, a woman, an Hispanic, and a Black. On their side the candidates had to maneuver so that the did not antangonize A Republican base which still supported the President. As a result we heard candidates urging doubling of Guantanamo, how tough they were on terrorists, or being willing to bomb, bomb, bomb Iran. No one on the Democratic side was arguing in a similar fashion.
And now? I think some actions place a candidate beyond the pale. I recognize that for each of us we will draw the line differently. In sorrow I have reached a point where I cannot support Hillary Clinton. Her willingness to accept a campaign that uses half-truths and in some cases outright dishonesty is not what I am willing to accept in our leadership. I cannot reward in any fashion a candidate who is willing to denigrate a Democratic opponent and imply that he is not ready to be president. In light of a statement only a week before that she was honored to be on the same stage as him, I can only look at THAT statement in light of the later statement, and read it as an attempt to manipulate people in order to gain a political advantage.
If she does not believe he is qualified to be commander in chief, she should have the courage to say so to his face. And it is shameful what we have seen, including the remarks from General Clark in recent days which you can read for yourself.
If we cannot as Democrats learn to compete with one another without seeking to destroy our primary opponents for our own temporary advantage, we are no better than the Republicans whose leadership we seek to replace And we may find that an increasing number of the American people will begin to agree with Ralph Nader that there is not a dime's worth of difference between the two parties.
Please note - I fully acknowledge that on many stated policy issues any Democrat is superior than any Republican. But stating policy in an attempt to win votes is insufficient. How one campaigns is a clear indication of how one will govern. And a campaign that does not at every moment seek to broaden the Democratic electorate will also not help Democrats down ballot to achieve success in what COULD be a transformational election.
This is personal statement. No one else has read it. My wife is out of town, and will neither read nor recommend it. Were she to read it, she might disagree on some details, but she is so angry at the Clinton campaign right now that she might well append comments with language and expressions far stronger than those I am using.
And I realize that in posting this I may sunder some friendships. There will be those who accuse me of various transgressions.
I have to live with my conscience. For months I have at times sought to put the best case on things that bothered others. No longer.
Let me be blunt. As I look at the campaign run by Hillary Clinton, not just the words and actions of her surrogates and employees, but her own words and actions, I have regrettably come to the conclusion that based on that campaign, and in light of that campaign her record as a Senator, that she is morally unfit to be President of the United States. Thus I cannot and will not support her, should she achieve the nomination of the Democratic party.
Because, IN SORROW, I have come to this conclusion, for the duration of this election season I am likely to write about things others than the presidential contest, I will not be completely silent. I will comment on stories and diaries by others. I will devote my own efforts to things like house and senate races, or policy matters like education.
IN SORROW. At some point I may have to explain to my students why I have made this decision. At least two of my current students read all of my diaries, and are likely to ask me about it in class. I will be challenged on the apparent contradiction between this decision and my pointing out to them that if one does not participate in a political contest then one acquiesces in the outcome. It is a sign of my sorrow that I being to see on too many things that matter to me insufficient difference between Hillary Clinton and John McCain to be able to justify voting for one or against the other.
It did not have to come to this. Clinton could have run a very different campaign, even when she was behind. There were legitimate issues that could be raised, questions with which to challenge Obama. It is not merely the issues, it is the manner in which the challenges have been done. She - and her campaign - have chosen the path on which they now tread. There are consequences for each decision we make. There will be consequences for the one I make in this diary - I may lose friendships, and I will certainly not be offered any position in a Clinton campaign or administration. The possible loss of friendships will sadden me.
The consequences for Clinton may be far greater. I know I am not alone in coming to the decision about which I have written. Some have reached that point in the midst of great anger. I have not. My decision is the result of wrestling with many things, over several weeks.
I accept that have you read this far you may seek to dissuade me. Please do not waste your time. I also accept that many of you may strongly disagree with me. That does not from my end mean that we cannot maintain friendships, nor work together on other issues. Some few may wish to use my words as some kind of bloody banner. I also ask that you refrain from that. This is a personal statement. I recognize that it may have some influence on others. That is unavoidable. But my intent is one of announcement and explanation, not of persuasion.
I reiterate several key things that motivate me, not merely in politics, but in life as a whole.
we have to learn to disagree without being disagreeable.
Reasonable people can disagree on things of great importance without either necessarily being venal or mean-spirited.
Choosing the lesser of two evils is still to choose evil, and one must be willing to recognize that when making the choice.
Often we have no choice but the lesser of two evils.
All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to remain silent in its presence.
There are some actions and words that cannot be excused, and must be challenged, lest we abandon our own sense of morality and rightness.
Here's what makes this in sorrow. The key words that have guided me for much of my life, increasingly so in the year since I officially joined the Religious Society of Friends, are those of George Fox, to walk gladly across the earth answering that of God in every person we encounter. Right now there is no gladness in what I have just done, only sorrow.
Peace.
UPDATE I find I have to keep pointing out the same fact, so let me do it here in the diary. I live in Virginia. My vote might make a difference in an Obama - McCain race, in which the state is competitive. Were Clinton competitive in Virginia, it would mean that she is going to win well over 300 electoral votes and be elected. Similarly, if I lived in NY, my vote would also be irrelevant to the outcome, because if McCain had any chance of winning that state it would mean he was winning going away. Thus my decision to vote or not vote in the presidential contest has no bearing on who appoints Supreme Court Justices, or what tax policy we have, or how long we stay in Iraq. Living in a state that would not be competitive in a Clinton-McCain race, I interpret my vote as either offering my approval of one candidate, or my strong disapproval of the other. I certainly have strong disapproval of McCain. As my friend Mark Kleiman has noted, someone who can tolerate torture, as McCain did by opposing the provision binding the CIA to the Army manual, does not really meet what I would consider the threshold for commander-in-chief: to me torture is non-negotiable. If my vote then represents the possibility of affirming the other candidate, I cannot in good conscience affirm Clinton.
I think Richard Nixon was an immoral man. I think he did this nation much damage. I think he would be considered a better president than, say, James Buchanan, or George W. Bush. But knowing what I know about the presidencies of both men, I would not vote for either, unless truly believed my vote would make a difference in the outcome. Absent that, my vote represents a moral choice - to give it to a candidate is to morally affirm that candidacy. I cannot do so with Hillary Clinton.
Again, peace.