The Dashed Election Guide
Cousin Lemuel writes from Ontario(where he had to cope with the Great Blackout out east: we note in passing the counter-intuitive reports that say Toronto had more serious looting problems than did New York City), and where an election is likely to be "called" soon (rather than recalled). He writes of his own election blues dilemmas. His list is as follows:
I'm tired of investing hope and washing out.
I'm not sure about any of "my' candidates. Will they act like I want them to act, on the outside chance they are elected?
Or will they find a "higher calling" a more "strategic analysis"?
My time is more precious to me and I don't feel like wasting it.
What better use of time than a democratic struggle?
Yes, if the candidate is trustworthy and simpatico.
Once I'm there (in the campaign) auto-pilot will take over. I will be campaign-man and do my duty.
I'm not sure I like that any more.
All good points. Then he asks us for advice. We are not used to being asked for advice. Usually we are given it. "Love it or leave it," is a frequent example. However, we will hazard the following Point of View (which is not Advice, mind.)
Radical though we may be according to prevailing standards, such as they are, we tend to adhere to the only and oft-repeated pronouncements of Grandma, which were two:
"You live long enough, you see everything."
"We do the best we can."
We tend to feel that pretty much sums up life, the universe and everything.
Applied to elections, it results in this philosophy: what you're doing basically is hiring somebody. You have to hire somebody, you've got a limited number of probably limited quality job candidates, and you have to choose one.
So you choose the best available for the job. If you're not confident they'll do the job the way you would like---and in politics, that's pretty much a given---then we tend to fall back on the Hippocratic Oath test: which is likely to do the least harm. (Could be we'd also call it the Democratic Oath.) This alone made us staunch supporters of Al Gore in the last U.S. presidential bash. It was in many ways the reason we don't regret voting for Clinton twice: he did some good, he did some unforgivably bad, but basically he did a lot less harm than his immediate predecessor did, and his opponents would.
This by the way is our "general election" philosophy. Not necessarily our nominating or primary election approach. Right now the U.S. is poised to begin primary elections for president, and there's six or eight Democratic candidates vying for the eventual party nomination: to be one of the two major party candidates. We believe this is where a thousand flowers should be blooming, and a vigorous debate should ensue. Many people are choosing sides now, and although we have our eye on a couple of the candidates, we're not choosing yet. We haven't heard the debate. So far the debate has made health care a major issue---one candidate went out on a limb with an ambitious plan, it got a lot of voter interest and response, and so the other candidates had to come up with their own plans. This is how the process should work.
The candidates state their positions. They influence each other. We see who seems to have the goods in terms of smarts, ability to communicate, and smell. Do they smell trustworthy, resourceful, etc.? How electable are they? Some people make their choice on this basis very early. Things change too much and too fast for that, we believe. Of course, if some absolute pig is gaining momentum and emerging as a preemptive front-runner, then strategies change.
Here in the U.S., the issues that we will be looking at in judging presidential candidates will be: health care, campaign finance and global heating. Of course we'll be checking out positions on Iraq, foreign policy in general, other domestic issues, but assuming the candidates in our running are all for quieting the current imperialist warmongering (time for that advice again, eh?) we see these as the most important long-term issues. A comprehensive single-payer health insurance is the most desperately needed economic and social change, cutting across class lines from upper middle to the bottom. Elections are always going to be less than completely meaningful as long as candidates and officeholders can be bought. Global heating is the most important factor for the next generation and the ones following. Already we're seeing effects that may well be charged to global heating, including as many as 10,000 deaths in France from a heat wave and drought. If the number proves out, and the science suggests culpability, it could well be that the climate crisis has already killed more people than 9/11.
The contemporary voter may often be all too easily hoodwinked by image, but there's some sense in the instinct to elect people who can communicate. Only the ability to communicate can leverage enough power to overcome inertia, not to mention the very monied interests. It's chaos theory come to politics, the way a little can go a long way.
So charisma can be a plus, however dangerous it also can be. The point perhaps is to look at it objectively. Not only am I swayed, but are these positions solid, grounded in fact and analysis and good purpose, and are others swayed? Then maybe you've got a candidate.
When a candidate gets elected, they have to go do the job. It is a job like any other: you have to do it every day, but there are still only 24 hours in that day, and you are still only a human being. At this point, a candidate's self-knowledge can be important. How aware are they of their motivations, of their situation? Clinton may not have been completely clear on his motives, but he usually understood his political situation. JFK may not have been particularly astute psychologically, but he had a sense of irony, and that's almost as good. He almost always knew the score.
As voters and citizens, we tend to project a lot on our leaders. We see the flaws in them we'd rather not look at in ourselves. We don't give them the benefit of the doubt that we certainly give ourselves. Few officeholders have much power. Sometimes the ones who seem to be "getting something done" are getting it done because the monied interests want it done, and they're on the payroll already. So a little patience in general, but keep after them on issues. The citizen's responsibility does not end with the vote.
So that's the Voting Guide. Working on a campaign is a more stringent commitment, but if it helps get issues debated, that alone may be worth it. If your candidate gets elected, you might get easier access for your views. And the great thing about hiring somebody for public office is that you can help fire them at the end of their term without getting sued.
