Howard Zinn in his latest musings at the Progressive, calls our current national dialog about candidates election madness and argues that we have elevated the role of elections and their importance way beyond tangibility and reason. He never suggests we shouldn't vote for purity reasons and admits there is always one candidate who is better than another.
Those who are interested can read the entire article here.
He chides progressives and leftists with this observation,
The very people who should know better, having criticized the hold of the media on the national mind, find themselves transfixed by the press, glued to the television set, as the candidates preen and smile and bring forth a shower of clichés with a solemnity appropriate for epic poetry.
He finds it curious and maddening that we invest so much personal energy into personal and passionate cheering for our chosen candidates when voting is simply one link in the chain of forming a democracy that actually works in the interest of ordinary Americans. We are seduced by this process. We personalize the process. We are sucked in to a silly parade that costs much and gives little. Americans give their time, attention, and many a great deal of effort and get junky toys from the parade participants instead of substantive results.
His stance is one of abrupt and cohesive dismissal.
I’m talking about a sense of proportion that gets lost in the election madness. Would I support one candidate against another? Yes, for two minutes—the amount of time it takes to pull the lever down in the voting booth.
Zinn considers neither candidate representing the Democratic party to be an agent of broad based change. In his words:they offer no radical change from the status quo. Many Americans don't want that. In that respect, Zinn is assuming perhaps erroneously that Americans do want radical action when what many want is a nicer status quo. Perhaps what Americans want is to simply "keep their stuff" not give up much, and to continue on. The problem is of course that many Americans don't have much "stuff to keep" these days, they aren't living in giant steroid homes and sending their kids expensive schools. They are treading water: there weren't enough lifeboats because they trusted the vampire elites when they were assured there was plenty to go around.
After all, as we keep getting told:we are not in a recession. Things are just a little slow. Consumers are just hesitant, not desperate yet.
According to this USA Today article,more and more Americans are using credit cards for every day expenses. I realize USA Today barely qualifies as a newspaper but they do a semi credible job of pointing out the obvious on occasion.
Zinn's agreement is simple: everyday activism, agitation, demonstration, community involvement, individual and group action on behalf of making the radical change that he sees as necessary in order to have a responsive and compassionate democracy is far more important than any election. Now clearly, we all clearly understand what a Republican President will deliver us: more war, suburbs of tent cities, worse health care than we have today ( personal choices/free market solutions ) and woes that will surely break the patience, character resolve, and spirit of those among us who are already struggling.
He ultimately suggests that even FDR might not have made the bold changes that he did freely and voluntarily had a national crisis economic destitution and rebellion not forced him to do so.
Are we there yet?
He ends with this thought:
Historically, government, whether in the hands of Republicans or Democrats, conservatives or liberals, has failed its responsibilities, until forced to by direct action: sit-ins and Freedom Rides for the rights of black people, strikes and boycotts for the rights of workers, mutinies and desertions of soldiers in order to stop a war.
I confess that I am candidate agnostic which makes it easy for me to agree with Zinn's message. I think he fails to take into account that many are passionate for their candidate, or ultimately will be for the candidate that is chosen, and also engage in the very activities that he believes are necessary to make governments responsive. It is clear to many that a Democratic victory ( and we can't assume that is a given) is not the end of a struggle but simply the gateway to another one.
And will the victor listen? Or will progressive agendas be molded into corporatist ones that bear no resemblance to the change that is needed?