I get the sense that there are a lot of people who would prefer to just sleep through the election this cycle.
When he ran for President, it was easy for Obama to brand himself as some great new thing that would sweep through the halls of Washington and change all the political realities. People wanted to believe that government could get better, though they didn't really understand what the problems were. He wanted to win, so he promised change. He knew if he were too specific it would limit his appeal, so in the posters he frequently used a single word at a time. "Hope." "Change."
This allowed people to fill in the blanks, assuming that he would fix whatever bothered them the most. He was of course, not able to fundamentally change politics, and he had no magical ability to change the minds of Republicans who entered office
uninterested in compromise. People who worked hard for his election feel disillusioned.
On the other hand, we have the returning candidate of Mitt Romney, a man whose been running for office so long, the smile on his face has grown indistinct and amorphous. It seems more like a picture painted on a canvas then a reflection of any real emotion. In fact, I don't think I've ever seen the real Mitt Romney, and I probably never will.
Today's Republicans are zealots, who frequently think compromise is a pretty stupid idea. This makes Mitt Romney a poor candidate for them, because he hasn't merely compromised a great deal, he has repeatedly changed his position again and again, and lies without compunction or hesitation about what his positions were in the past. Even when he knows someone is digitally recording what he's saying, he doesn't seem to care.
I think my favorite was when he talked about saving the automobile industry, when I remember watching video of him saying that we should let the auto companies fail. Most people assume politicians are dishonest, but he takes it to a whole new level.
At times like this, people frequently start talking about the selection of lesser evils, or worse yet they talk about the inevitable third party candidate. The reason people talk like this is bcause a lot of people don't understand what an American election really is.
Many Americans view it as some sort of choice between good and evil; that view is popular with the tea party these days. Others view it as a way to show people whose side they are on, sort of like choosing a football team.
In our elections, we are given two candidates, and we may choose one of them. That person in theory represents us, but he's going to do an awful lot without ever checking with us. This is the reality.
It is highly unlikely that either candidate will view all of the issues the same you do. It will probably never happen, and you aren't going to know the details of most of the compromises they make. But if you were in his position, you'd be making compromises too, because the system is based on that concept. They would be different compromises in all likelihood, but you would still have to make them.
Elections have consequences. If you stay home and don't vote, then you've avoided membership in a team that you dislike, but whoever wins will effect the world nonetheless.
Over the last thirty years, we have seen a steady erosion of the American dream. It started before the real estate crisis and it continues to this day as more and more money is being held by a tiny minority of society. A few priviliged individuals live well on interest while the middle class increasingly is denied the ability to own a home, or possibly even save for their retirement.
Worse still, the Republicans are a group which appears to be highly motivated by bloodlust. Mitt Romney may not seem like someone inclined to go start a war, but neither did Bush Jr. And as much as Romney is inclined to change his mind on things, how hard would it be for people in his party to sway him to go invade Iran the next time there is an incident between them and Israel?
We are responsible, not just for the things we do, but the things we choose not to do.
People who voted for Ralph Nader over Gore, watched a period that saw the deaths of not merely of more than 4000 Americans, but a great many Iraqi's. By the end of the conflict, it's estimated that a million died, and millions more became refugees as they abandoned their country for lives elsewhere filled with persecution. Today, Iraq is a troubled place still, though those who claimed to care about the place enough to invade it no longer bother to watch. We are now a country that considers the question of whether or not it is acceptable to torture a helpless prisoner a debatable point. That too, is a legacy of that war.
Everyone who threw their vote to someone who couldn't win, even though they never would have voted for Bush himself directly, carry a little of the responsibility for what happened in Iraq. Those who sleep through the election, or choose to make a statement with their vote rather than a decision, will carry a little piece of the responsibility for what the next President does as well.
Barack Obama will not go as far as I would like, and I suspect that no candidate I could have gotten would go after Wall Street. There is no doubt in my mind, however, that electing Romney will make things even worse. And after Iraq, I worry every time I find out that a Republican might be allowed control of the nuclear arsenal.
Republicans are very tolerant of mistakes that end in death, and today Republicans consider starting a war to be evidence of greatness. Romney might think a successful invasion could earn him another term.
Sadly, in today's America he could be right.