There have already been announcements on this blog made by a few high-profile contributors that if Hillary Rodham Clinton is the democratic nominee, then they will vote for her. End. Of. Story. Even though she has not yet announced that she is running, and even though we don't know her current positions on a lot of issues at this point (except we do know she makes big bucks speaking to the savvy psychopaths – oops, I mean business persons – on Wall Street). And yet here we are, letting her know, way in advance, that yeah, we will vote for you no matter what. Because that's how we roll, right?
Some people who comment here have expressed disdain for her, but that they will “hold their noses” and pull the lever for her anyway. Just 'cause. That's what we do, right? We are Democrats and so we will vote for whoever has the most money – i.e., the party's nominee. Even if our candidate is evil, at least he or she is our evil, and anyway, our evil is less evil than anyone the Republican party might run. That's the conventional wisdom around here, Democrats good, Republicans bad. Democrats virtuous, Republicans venal. Democrats smart, Republicans bat-shit crazy.
So we swear fealty in advance to someone who hasn't even declared that she's running. That's how the voting public gets taken for granted. That's how our party is going to continue its rightward, pro-business drift, because we've already let them know, well in advance, that we will vote for you no matter what. Even though today's Democrats are yesterday's Republicans.
Good, pragmatic democrats are going to vote for their party's candidate, right or wrong, because the alternative might be a win for the Republicans. I say “might be” because I think a lot more people would vote for a third-party candidate if they thought that a third-party candidate actually had a chance of winning. So even if a third-party candidate would be better for the country, good Democrats vote for their candidate. But guess what? There's a whole new generation out there, we like to refer to them as “young people,” who realize that the system is rigged and that what we've left them with is a system that presents us with either evil or more evil. If evil is too strong of a word, then how about dumb and dumber? Neo-liberal lite, and Neo-liberal Cheney? They are either going to sit out elections, vote for third parties, or create a separate movement that has nothing to do with this farce of a democracy in which many of us have become so invested. And maybe they have the right idea. If my party right or wrong trumps better for the earth and its inhabitants, maybe they've got the right idea.
I refuse to let ANY candidate believe that I will vote for him or her no matter what. Some competition among candidates would be healthy, let them convince us why we should vote for them. Wouldn't it be refreshing to see someone challenge the de facto candidate from the left – and maybe even win the nomination?
Many left wing types will not support a pro-corporate, pro-Wall Street, neoliberal-leaning candidate in a primary for the same reasons we supported Barack Obama and not HRC in 2008 (and look how that turned out). But even those people have said that, in the end, if she is the nominee, they will “hold their nose” and vote for the lesser of two evils. So again, there's all this bluster and all this talk about primary challenges from the left, moving the party to the left, finding candidates who walk the planks of the party and not just pay them lip service and yet, in the end, but we'll vote for a corporatist sell-out anyway. 'Cause that's what we do, that's how we roll, we're good Democrats and it's our party, right or wrong.
And if we always do what we've always done, we'll always get what we've always got.
In a perfect world, none of us would have to hold our noses when we vote. In a perfect world, our vote is our own to cast as we see fit, for the candidate we believe would be the best for our country, not the announcing two years in advance that we will happily settle for the one that is the least worst. But unfortunately, that's what we have now, as Democrats; not the best candidates, but the least-worst candidates.
History already written a few years before it occurs ensures more of the same. Is that what we really want, more of the same? Do you really want to see the 1% get even MORE money and have even MORE influence over elections? More rapacious consumption of the earth's resources at the very expense of the earth itself? Is that what you really, really want? More middle-of-the-road less evilism?
If swearing fealty to your party's candidate before even knowing who that is or what his or her policy positions belittles the notion of democracy and renders it quaint.
We are wed to our party's candidate, right or wrong. That's it. Why bother arguing at this point if all we are going to do is hold our nose and vote for whomever the democratic party leaders nominate?
Tosh, it hardly seems worth the trouble at this point.
What are your thoughts?