As I grow older I see that it's one thing to say that you support a three (or more) party system and it is another thing to actually support by voting for that system. As an educated American citizen who understands exactly what went into giving me the opportunity to vote, I take that right quite seriously. If I look on the candidates with educated eyes and I find that the one I agree with the most, the one who best represents the America that I believe in, just happens to be a candidate outside the spectrum of having a logical chance of winning, that should not define my decision.
This is currently a situation that I am facing. I…am not a fan of Mitt Romney. I'm sure the Governor is a nice man and I'm sure that somewhere within his own deluded mind he actually believes some of the things he says, but I know I sure don't. He is the ultimate politician, and I do mean ultimate in the negative. He will do and say anything in any given situation. His opinion changes quicker than the winds in April and his little "47% of Americans" spiel, yeah, in that case I believe that he does believe in what he is saying. That's scary. Someone who will do or say anything that makes his base happy. His Conservative base. This isn't to say that I think Conservatives are wrong, in fact I am a fiscal Conservative. I just can't stand the Conservatives who are in power, because in fact, they aren't actually Conservatives. But this is besides the point. The point is the man who could be elected President will have the nuclear codes at his disposal, his decisions on the Supreme Court Nominations will could sway Roe v Wade, DOMA, Anti-Piracy laws, and the Patriot act (Not saying Obama is any better on the Patriot act, believe me). His Conservative agenda scares me and the worst part is that through his half truths, his lies, and his inability to make any decisions that stay the same or are understandable (don't get me started on five point plans) I haven't a clue who is the real Mitt Romney. Here's a quick example:
---------------------------------
June 28th, 2012: The Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision upholds the majority of Obamacare saying that its requirement that most Americans obtain insurance or pay a penalty was authorized by Congress's power to levy taxes. (NY Times)
Romney's Response:
"What the court did not do on its last day in session, I will do on my first day if elected president of the United States. And that is I will act to repeal Obamacare. Obamacare was bad policy yesterday. It's bad policy today. Obamacare was bad law yesterday. It's bad law today."
Two Problems: One, he goes on to say what he will keep of Obamacare and by this time the majority of people are listening to why he is right and Obama is wrong, and he basically decides to keep…every major part of Obama's Healthcare Package. But of course he will change the name. For full text of his response see here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20120628/us-romney-health-care-text/
Problem Number Two: The list of things that Romney has promised to do on his "first day in office" is staggering. Here are a few. These come…from his own ads.
“Day One, President Romney announces deficit reductions, ending the Obama era of big government, helping secure our kids’ futures.” (By the way, the President can't actually announce deficit reductions. He has to go through Congress to even propose them.)
“President Romney stands up to China and demands they play by the rules. President Romney begins repealing job-killing regulations that are costing the economy billions.”
So it looks like he has a busy day one.
---------------------------------
So that's how I feel about Mitt Romney. But how do I feel about the President? Not fantastic. Yes I do agree with the majority of his policies and I am thankful that a President finally supports gay marriage, but let's look at a few issues. (Not as long as Romney, but important.)
- Habeas Corpus no longer exists in this country. Much like Bush before him, Obama signed away a part of our Constitution. "a right to be released from imprisonment after an unlawful arrest." In our day and age, something that is both incredibly necessary and important in a free state. Our Constitution states, "Our right of habeas corpus is innate in order to maintain a free society." But to be fair to the President, this isn't unprecedented. FDR did it, Lincoln did it, Bush did it, Clinton even partially did it in '96 with Antiterrorism and Death Penalty Act. But it is something that I have a problem with. FDR created War Internment Camps for the Japanese. Even our heroes make mistakes. (Yes, it is debatable whether these were mistakes or not).
- Guantanamo Bay is still open. The Patriot Act is still in effect.
- The Republican Congress. They have continued to block the majority of Obama's plans. For the same reasons that people are arguing against my support of Stein, wouldn't a Republican actually get things done, even if we don't like what they are doing? (This is more of a hypothetical Devil's Advocate)
- Gasoline continues to grow. A Democrat in the Giffords campaign once said to me, "Who wins the Presidency doesn't really matter. You know the only time I really see the effects of the President is at the Pump."
- Obama needs to stop sidestepping the facts on Libya. And why oh why are we always involved in the Middle East with no positive outcomes, when situations like Darfur are occurring and then we say that nothing can be done unless the UN gets involved.
And there are many more. I still don't agree with the bailout, I do think the President is using a lot of wasteful spending, and I would love to see the Fighter that I voted for. I have seen that man four times in four years. Obamacare, announcing his support of Gay Marriage, the convention speech, and the last debate. This last one is actually more than superficially important. Harry Reid is a pushover and a terrible egotist. The Democrats need people in power who have real backbone. I hope that Obama has that backbone. Because overall I fear he fails in the Jimmy Carter category. Too nice to be President.
But what does this have to do with Jill Stein. Well here is where I agree with her. Science, the Environment, Social Issues, Healthcare, Marijuana, Peace, Foreign Policy, Gay Marriage, Immigration, Global Warming, Gun Control, the Patriot Act. Pretty much…I agree with Jill Stein.
But she won't win. Therefore: Conundrum
Is it wrong to support a candidate when they can't win, in an election where one of the major parties have a candidate who in your opinion could ruin your nation? My friends would argue yes. If you live in a swing state. And they have. And I do. Here are a few comments:
"Make a statement for the Green Party only if you do not live in a swing state…which btw, you do…your vote counts BIG TIME."
"You do the right thing for you in the short term, but the wrong thing for others in the long term."
"Third Party votes helped get Bush elected."
"Don't do it. Write her a letter of support and make the vote count."
"If Stein was so committed to her ideas why didn't she run as a Democrat…Vote rationally, Obama is the only choice."
In a time when so many Americans vote based on a single issue at best or gossip, innuendo, and looks at worst, it would be wrong and hypocritical of me to make a decision based entirely on who can "win." There is moral high ground. If, in the end, I decide to vote for President Obama then I will be deciding that based on an educated opinion of the future of this country, but if I decide to vote for Jill Stein, then so be it. The same holds true. And if anyone dares to tell me that my vote, in that case, "doesn't matter," then they have no idea how much I value voting, and they don't know who I am.
And it pisses me off. Obviously. This is more than just a debate over your own morals vs the logical choice. It goes into the real problem with voting in this country. The idea that I am "Wasting my vote" is so horrifically wrong. The idea that it is right to make a statement, but only if you don't live in a swing state, is bogus to me. If there isn't something to lose then hey, it isn't a statement. If I was voting in California and I voted for Stein, that would be a vote, not a statement, because as so many of my friends say, "it doesn't matter." But it does. And I am not trying to make a statement by possibly voting for Stein. Well I guess I am, but not for Jill Stein, but for voting in general. Too many people believe that Obama is a Muslim (And if he is, who cares), too many people vote for the good looking one, or the charismatic one. People are stupid. To quote from Men in Black, "The person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals." I am making an educated decision based entirely on the issues. Isn't that what we were born to do in this country. Or do we agree with pack mentality and go with the more logical choice. I do not believe that my friends are wrong for supporting Obama. I do believe that they are wrong for attempting to tell me that I should change my mind and as one put it, "Stop acting like a child." Yeah, that's not what I am doing. But it is what they are doing.
I will be casting my vote in a few days. I haven't decided who I will vote for. I know it won't be for Mitt Romney or Gary Johnson, who I recently met. In the end it will come down to a choice between Jill Stein and President Obama. But for me it is no longer a choice between logic and morality. It is a choice between two sets of ideas, opinions, beliefs, and issues. It is a decision between two candidates. And I will make a choice between the two of them.
(My first post is quite long. The rest will, I promise, be shorter.)
-"Always Believe"
Grant Freeman
No comments:
Post a Comment