I started this as a comment on another diary, as so many of these things begin.
The Kossack to whom I was responding made a reference to people who “won’t bother to vote” if Clinton is the candidate. This struck me as such an utterly inaccurate characterization that I was momentarily inclined to treat it as hyperbole… except that the rest of what they said was respectful and honest, so I have to assume they truly don’t understand why we are considering such a drastic measure.
And, as I began by explaining at the time, I don’t mind if you disagree with our conclusions. I fully expect that everyone who currently believes that it is treasonous will continue to think it treasonous, while those to whom it is merely the stupidest idea they’ve ever heard will continue to think it the stupidest idea they’ve ever heard. That is your right, and I will attempt to treat all commenters with kindness and courtesy, whether or not you extend the same consideration to me.
But I do mind the sheer noncomprehension I see so often about this. We can disagree, and be civil about it; but we need to understand each other in order to be one community. So I want to try to explain what some of us have in mind.
The ultimate weapon of a labor union is the strike. As a targeted weapon, it sucks. It is messy; it is impossible to aim; it does enormous collateral damage. It hurts the workers and their families, not just the company at whom it is pointed. It is, by definition, a seldom-used weapons… it can’t be used often without killing the union which calls those strikes. Their workers won’t be able to afford it; and there is always the chance that the company will just fire the lot, bring in scabs, patch it all up with the government, and they’ll be out in the cold.
So it is used very rarely. Very carefully. With the greatest reluctance, knowing that the decision means hard times ahead. And yet, sometimes, we have to use the strike anyway. Because it’s the only thing which gets a recalcitrant company to come to terms.
Chemotherapy. We’re getting better at using it in targeted ways, but it still sucks. It kills off healthy cells as well as sick ones, has horrendous side effects, and sometimes kills the patient. It is, in some ways, the labor strike of medical practice — the tool which is almost as risky to use as not to use. We select it only when critically necessary, and it is with the greatest seriousness of purpose that such decisions must be made.
But chemotherapy is also the most effective tool against cancer we know. When there is a cancer which will otherwise destroy the patient, we sometimes have no choice but to take a risk with the chemo, do our best to be as precise as we can (which isn’t very), and pray that it takes down the cancer but not the patient along with it.
Choosing to withhold one’s vote from a political party which is, by any measure, the least bad of the available options is not “not bothering.” It is taking a calculated short-term hit for a long-term goal. It is the strike of the voter — punishing the party for its refusal to negotiate, knowing that punishment will hurt us also, and that it runs a risk of hurting us far more than we could safely tolerate. But we do it when the only way to bring a stubborn party to the bargaining table is to make them realize that we CAN hurt them. Even if it also hurts us. Because having a party which believes itself safely free to ignore us and reject our values, forcing one candidate after another on us who will refuse to represent us or support our goals, is a position we simply can’t live with in the long term, and the only way to prevent it is to make them fear what we can do to their electoral chances.
Like chemo, it is a dangerous way to get rid of the cancer in the party… risky and uncomfortable and riddled with side effects; some of them horrific. It might kill us. We know this. And yet, with reluctance and great seriousness of purpose, we also know that it may be the only thing we have which stands a chance of working. We also know that if we don’t do something drastic, the corruption within the Democratic Party will kill the party — and then combine with the corruption in the Republican Party to kill the nation.
None of this is done because we “don’t bother.” It is a calculated piece of activism we resort to only out of the most dire necessity. And bluntly, it scares the hell out of us. But having a permanent choice between a party of completely crazy right wing bigots and a party of coldly self-interested corporate oligarchs — without any way to influence either to give a damn about what is right for the people of the United States — scares us far more. And that is looking increasingly like what we will get if we don’t make dire, aggressive change to the party which is ostensibly our own, but which has virtually lost sight of its progressive foundations. It is run, these days, by the plutocrats and for the plutocrats. We need to clean house, and soon.
We hope to clean house by persuading the party to accept a serious, fighting progressive as its standard-bearer, and working behind him to tear down the corrupt system. That would be the equivalent of an 11th hour negotiation breakthrough, at this point. Not ideal for anyone, but an uneasy alliance between the union and the management which allows them to move forward together.
If they won’t do that, though, a strike may be our only recourse. And far from being no bother, it’s the hardest decision most of us will ever make.