Diarist teacherken has declared that he would abstain from voting for the Democratic nominee if it is Hillary Clinton. He states that he is driven by his conscience. No doubt he is. So are we all.
In commentary, he allows that he "might" come to a different conclusion if he lived in a state where he felt his vote could affect the outcome.
"Might"?
I don't imagine Ken chose that word carelessly.
Ken isn't the first "conscientious abstainer" to hint or state outright that even if they lived in a less predictable state, they might not vote for the Democratic nominee.
Myself, I could not in that situation in good conscience entertain the idea of passively helping to elect the Republican presidential candidate.
I explained my reasoning, in a diary I called 800,000 Reasons Why You Will Vote for Hillary Clinton. (Over on MyDD, where I was "preaching" to Clinton supporters, I posted the same diary, but cast it as 800,000 Reasons Why You Will Vote for Barack Obama.) I would think the issue of poverty - which is what the "800,000" refers to - would take precedence in the conscientious decisionmaking process of a progressive Democratic voter. Under Democratic presidents, the number of people in America living below the poverty line drops over 800,000, on average, each year, while under Republican presidents, the number of people in America living below the poverty line rises over 400,000, on average, each year.
Ken says that while he believes that Clinton would be better than McCain, for him this is really no different than his belief that Nixon would be better than George W. Bush - i.e., if his vote would not make a difference in the outcome, then voting for Nixon would simply be tacit approval of Nixon.
Which is true. But the analogy is rather absurd. Nixon was a Republican. Clinton is a Democrat. Not only is she a member of the more progressive of America's two major parties, within that party she has tended to be one of its more progressive members.
So, Ken's logic eludes me.
For the sake of argument, we could pretend Clinton wasn't a pretty progressive Democrat and McCain wasn't a pretty conservative Republican. We could pretend she was just an average Democrat and he was just an average Republican. So, what's the difference between the average Democrat and the average Republican? It is simply this: when it comes to choosing between taking a more progressive position or a more conservative position on an issue or nomination, the Democrat will take the more progressive position more often than the Republican will. Not every time. But more often. It is a simple difference but, even in the course of a short number of years, it makes a huge difference. The poverty numbers illustrate this well.
To imagine that whether we elect a Democrat or a Republican president doesn't make a huge difference - to our economy, to our environment, to our civil rights, to our health and safety at home and at work - is really to ignore the last several decades in the history of our nation. (Or it is to view history from a cramped perspective, since all the items I just mentioned are felt most acutely by people at the bottom of the economic ladder.) I encourage Ken and others who would entertain the notion of not voting for the Democratic nominee to step outside of the moment. Take a longer view of history, think hard about the history of the last several decades rather than concentrating on the history of the last several weeks.
Both Clinton and Obama have disappointed me at times in this campaign by attacking each other from the right (she signalling that he would be a weak Commander-in-Chief, he signalling that mandating healthcare coverage is Big Bad Guv'mint). Neither of them has focused their rhetoric, as much as I would have liked, on tackling poverty in America and abroad. So I voted for Edwards on March 4th. We have the luxury of indulging our passions, of "sending a message," in the primaries. But the general is a whole other thing. I will certainly vote for the Democratic nominee, whoever it is, in November.
Certain things track quite predictably with which party holds the presidency. Among the many likelihoods if a Republican is elected: a significant rise in poverty in America, and the appointment of more rightwingers to the Supreme Court and the Federal bench. Alternatively, if a Democrat is elected: a significant drop in poverty, and the appointment of more progressive judges. When the simple act of voting Democratic can contribute to which of these futures we experience, I'm afraid I think it's pretty irresponsible to opt out. If your conscience is leading you down that road, I'd encourage you to question your conscience.
As George Costanza once said about the "little man" inside us who helps guide our actions: "My little man is an idiot."
All of ours are, occasionally.
Peace.