Your vote doesn't count

[marxist578]

With presidential elections, your vote doesn't count as a US citizen. The American bourgeoisie chooses who will be the next President. If you think your vote actually counts, then you need to wake up. It's so sad that 300 million Americans actually think that they live in a democracy and that their Government cares for them. End Capitalism! Socialism and Communism for our future!

[Charles Xavier]

With presidential elections, your vote doesn't count as a US citizen. The American bourgeoisie chooses who will be the next President. If you think your vote actually counts, then you need to wake up. It's so sad that 300 million Americans actually think that they live in a democracy and that their Government cares for them. End Capitalism! Socialism and Communism for our future!


Thanks I didn't know. You have quite a way with words.

[Pawn Power]

Thanks I didn't know. You have quite a way with words.

I have no problem with people being factitious but condescension is no way to welcome new members.

***

Anyway, on top of our votes not counting in a fundamental political sense they actually don't even count when they are counted, if they are, and often they aren't, since in the US system voters vote for delegates which they vote are a representative of their constituency so a president can win without getting the most votes, which they have.

[scarletghoul]

OP-
A cool post and very true, but I'm sure most of people here already agreed with you before reading this thread. It would be good to post messages like that on more moderate places on the internet
Anyway welcome to RevLeft, you will meet many like-minded people here.

[ernie]

It's so sad that 300 million Americans actually think that they live in a democracy and that their Government cares for them.
This is not true. Only about 50% of the eligible voters actually vote. A lot of those who choose not to vote do it because they know it's pointless; and the largest group of non-voters is in the working class (according to Wikipedia). I want to think that this is somehow a sign of class consciousness...perhaps it's just wishful thinking :(.

[fabiansocialist]

This is not true. Only about 50% of the eligible voters actually vote. A lot of those who choose not to vote do it because they know it's pointless; and the largest group of non-voters is in the working class (according to Wikipedia). I want to think that this is somehow a sign of class consciousness...perhaps it's just wishful thinking.

As Ken Livingstone ("Red Ken") once pointed out, if voting could make a difference, they'd have abolished the ballot box a long time ago. I refuse to vote myself -- a complete waste of time. And I can't understand how anyone can allow himself or herself to get sucked into the vortex of media-generated hysteria of any election. The choice is always been two scumbags, Tweedledum and Tweedledee, running on virtually identical "platforms."

[marxist578]

This is not true. Only about 50% of the eligible voters actually vote. A lot of those who choose not to vote do it because they know it's pointless; and the largest group of non-voters is in the working class (according to Wikipedia). I want to think that this is somehow a sign of class consciousness...perhaps it's just wishful thinking :(.

ernie: I was trying to point out that the U.S. has the biggest sheeple mentality in the world, and it is all thanks to the evil Imperialist Capitalist system of the U.S.

fabiansociliast: It's a good thing that you didn't vote, because like you said, it's just a waste of time. I'm sure the Imperialist U.S Government really likes the sheeple media, because really, they couldn't have brainwashed the people without them.

[Charles Xavier]

ernie: I was trying to point out that the U.S. has the biggest sheeple mentality in the world, and it is all thanks to the evil Imperialist Capitalist system of the U.S.

fabiansociliast: It's a good thing that you didn't vote, because like you said, it's just a waste of time. I'm sure the Imperialist U.S Government really likes the sheeple media, because really, they couldn't have brainwashed the people without them.

The media isn't sheeple the media is owned by the same people who own the banks and own the governmental players in power.

[bruce]

I doubt anyone here is going to argue that voting isn't a waste of time. Certainly with a quick thought to the basic math, it's not difficult to see your vote doesn't matter. But this isn't lost on most people. They are voting for other reasons though, mainly due to some sense of obligation or good feelings they get from it. So if someone receives satisfaction using their time to vote, they're not necessarily acting irrational or unreasonable or whatever, not anymore than I am if I decide I want to go play basketball at the park for an hour.

Someone suggested this OP would be better off on other forums, but I disagree. Telling people to *wake up* and insulting their intelligence is not an effective method of encouraging someone to consider ideas they are unfamiliar with.

[BlackCapital]

I use to think the presidents were indeed hand picked by bourgeoisie themselves, but I think that assumption is a little naive now. Of course if they get in range of the white house they are going to be thoroughly vetted by the countries owners (not its general population), therefore Democrat/Republican of course means very, very little, and are both factions of the capitalist party.

Although it is true that popular vote doesn't count (being that the electoral college votes=next president), these candidates do indeed dump millions upon millions into fueling their campaigns, so there is definitely some convincing to do. Gathering public support is no doubt important to them. What I would do to be able to see how/about what exactly these people converse with each other behind closed doors.

Just preaching to the choir though.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

You know, it's shocking how many leftists, even self-styled Marxists and so-called "anarchists", fail to realise what a sham bourgeois "democracy" is.

[GPDP]

You know, it's shocking how many leftists, even self-styled Marxists and so-called "anarchists", fail to realise what a sham bourgeois "democracy" is.

You're telling me. One of my friends identifies with anarchism, but he's convinced that the reason why conditions are so shitty for people down here, in one of the poorest counties in the US, if not the poorest, is because they don't go out and vote, and thus the government thinks "eh, these people don't give a shit, so they can go fuck themselves". So if people went out and voted, he claims, the government would take notice, and do something about the conditions here.

Of course, it's most likely the other way around - the government doesn't give a shit about the people, so the people don't give a shit about voting. Simple as that. But he stubbornly holds on to this notion.

[Shadowed Intent]

On account of being a democracy and run by the people, we are the only nation in the world that has to keep a government four years, no matter what it does.
-Will Rogers
(http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/567.html)

[fabiansocialist]

So if someone receives satisfaction using their time to vote, they're not necessarily acting irrational or unreasonable or whatever, not anymore than I am if I decide I want to go play basketball at the park for an hour.


Voting provides an oligarchic and unrepresentative system with the veneer, the patina, of legitimacy and respectability it desires. If 10% of the people voted (instead of 50%), it becomes more difficult to maintain the charade that the US is a democracy, and it becomes more transparent what a crooked, oligarchic, imperialistic, militaristic serf-driven empire it really is. Your playing basketball, on the other hand, confers no legitimacy on the evil empire.

[fabiansocialist]

You're telling me. One of my friends identifies with anarchism, but he's convinced that the reason why conditions are so shitty for people down here, in one of the poorest counties in the US, if not the poorest, is because they don't go out and vote, and thus the government thinks "eh, these people don't give a shit, so they can go fuck themselves". So if people went out and voted, he claims, the government would take notice, and do something about the conditions here.

This is hilarious.


Of course, it's most likely the other way around - the government doesn't give a shit about the people, so the people don't give a shit about voting. Simple as that. But he stubbornly holds on to this notion.

If the people voted, then the elected officials might -- just might -- build a prison to employ some of the locals as guards and wardens, or might -- just might -- build a missile factory there. But voting will not change the essential contours of the evil empire.

[Guerrilla22]

People often cite lesser evilism as a reason to vote. You gain absolutely nothing from participating in elections for political office in the US, except for helping to legitimize their system by participating in it.

[ZeroNowhere]

We seem to be forgetting that the majority of voters, these being working class, vote in capitalist puppets. Of course, this is due to cradle to grave brainwashing, or just a few silly commie lesser-evilists, but this does not in any way imply that 'your vote doesn't count', and that the bourgeoisie directly chooses the next candidate.

[Revy]

I disagree. More people should vote, for socialist alternatives. It doesn't mean we will win, but it will show our power and influence.

Furthermore, not everything is about parties, there are issues to be voted on, like ballot initiatives.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I disagree. More people should vote, for socialist alternatives. It doesn't mean we will win, but it will show our power and influence.

By losing bourgeois elections?

No, we show our "power and influence" by organising outside the facade and showing it for what it really is; a sham!


Furthermore, not everything is about parties, there are issues to be voted on, like ballot initiatives.

Which are entirely up the individual voter in question, as I remember. What business is it of the Left?

[fabiansocialist]

I disagree. More people should vote, for socialist alternatives. It doesn't mean we will win, but it will show our power and influence.


The political process is crooked, irrespective of the candidates. By the very act of voting -- regardless of whom it is for -- one is tacitly buying into the idea that the system of elections can change the status quo. And thus one is helping to legitimise the very order one wants to demolish. The electoral system is part of the very status quo it pretends to have the power to change: an inherent contradiction. Thus I knew from day one that Obama's talk of hope and change was all bull****. Real power has to be seized by violent means. Those who have real power will not willingly part with it, and will keep changing the rules to see they keep what they have.

[Charles Xavier]

By losing bourgeois elections?

No, we show our "power and influence" by organising outside the facade and showing it for what it really is; a sham!



Which are entirely up the individual voter in question, as I remember. What business is it of the Left?

I don't know about you but I don't want to die in absolute poverty and face increased police repression. I will vote for reforms and rely on revolution.


The political process is crooked, irrespective of the candidates. By the very act of voting -- regardless of whom it is for -- one is tacitly buying into the idea that the system of elections can change the status quo. And thus one is helping to legitimise the very order one wants to demolish. The electoral system is part of the very status quo it pretends to have the power to change: an inherent contradiction. Thus I knew from day one that Obama's talk of hope and change was all bull****. Real power has to be seized by violent means. Those who have real power will not willingly part with it, and will keep changing the rules to see they keep what they have.

Didn't voting change the status quo in Ecuador, Bolivia, Venezuela and Nicaragua?

Don't get me wrong I have no illusions that bourgeioisie democracy is bourgeioisie rule. But I prefer things to be better rather than worse. I prefer a democrat to a republican, a liberal to a conservative. I have no illusions thinking they are very different but different enough to make one better than the other.

[marxist578]

Why do some people have to be haters?? Do you think I actually care what you think? No. If you think this forum is wrong for me, then too bad, because I'm going to stay. Remember, I don't care what you think :).

Anyways, to the majority of the posters who were civilized in their posts and understood what I meant, thanks!

A revolution will never be able to come through voting and elections, because like I said, your vote counts for NOTHING. The people must take action, and remove these capitalist pigs from power.

[Charles Xavier]

Why do some people have to be haters?? Do you think I actually care what you think? No. If you think this forum is wrong for me, then too bad, because I'm going to stay. Remember, I don't care what you think :).

Anyways, to the majority of the posters who were civilized in their posts and understood what I meant, thanks!

A revolution will never be able to come through voting and elections, because like I said, your vote counts for NOTHING. The people must take action, and remove these capitalist pigs from power.


Well a revolution is not one big battle with guns and bayonets, a revolution is a long series of struggle of the working class. Parliamentary struggle should not be out of the question despite its limitations.

I understand you are a very rousing speech maker, looking at how you bold your words to emphasis a point and then telling people to take action and leaving it up to them on the means.

Very convincing nonetheless, voting has brought revolutionaries and trade unionists into power in the past and in the present, we should not reject parliamentary struggle, despite its limitations, and one should not hold illusions that it will create dynamic change, especially not in the imperialist world were the top half of the labour movement is bought off from being in a labour aristocratic position.

Obama is the new salesman of US Imperialism.

[fabiansocialist]

Didn't voting change the status quo in Ecuador, Bolivia, Venezuela and Nicaragua?

In Nicaragua, insurrection led by the Sandanistas led to the toppling of the corrupt Somoza regime, which had been rigging elections for decades. As for Venezuela, the same BMWs and Porsches are still too be found in Caracas. Chavez has publicised some cosmetic measures for the poor.... Let's see if Evo Morales is any good. What happens through the electoral system is that someone -- say a Brazilian Lula -- gets elected by the popular vote as being a "progressive," or a populist -- and then shows his true colors. The electoral system is complicit in this. Lenin, Mao, and Castro didn't play by these rigged rules.

[Charles Xavier]

In Nicaragua, insurrection led by the Sandanistas led to the toppling of the corrupt Somoza regime, which had been rigging elections for decades. As for Venezuela, the same BMWs and Porsches are still too be found in Caracas. Chavez has publicised some cosmetic measures for the poor.... Let's see if Evo Morales is any good. What happens through the electoral system is that someone -- say a Brazilian Lula -- gets elected by the popular vote as being a "progressive," or a populist -- and then shows his true colors. The electoral system is complicit in this. Lenin, Mao, and Castro didn't play by these rigged rules.


You've proven my point though, these guys did create positive development for working people.


Lenin and Castro did participate in bourgeioisie elections. And Lenin and Castro post revolution continued to participate in elections.

[fabiansocialist]

Well a revolution is not one big battle with guns and bayonets, a revolution is a long series of struggle of the working class. Parliamentary struggle should not be out of the question despite its limitations.


These are pragmatic words, and ones which I can't object to: workers and peasants have to use whatever instruments they have at their disposal. But they shouldn't have false expectations about what the electoral system can deliver -- which is not much, as it's just an empty shell. Real power resides elsewhere. That's all I have to say. And I shall continue not to vote.

[marxist578]

Well a revolution is not one big battle with guns and bayonets, a revolution is a long series of struggle of the working class. Parliamentary struggle should not be out of the question despite its limitations.

I understand you are a very rousing speech maker, looking at how you bold your words to emphasis a point and then telling people to take action and leaving it up to them on the means.

Very convincing nonetheless, voting has brought revolutionaries and trade unionists into power in the past and in the present, we should not reject parliamentary struggle, despite its limitations, and one should not hold illusions that it will create dynamic change, especially not in the imperialist world were the top half of the labour movement is bought off from being in a labour aristocratic position.

Obama is the new salesman of US Imperialism.

I agree with some of what you said, but I only bolded my words simply to make a point. Of course I have to leave it up to them on the means. What am I going to do, go tell all the capitalist sheeple that we must fight our evil, imperialist oppressors? Since you like to criticize, I'll let you go do that.

Obama has mentioned he is going to completely disarm the United States. How could he be the next salesman of US Imperialism if he is going to disarm the US of it's nukes, missile defense systems, cut billions of dollars in military spending, and pull out of Iraq? Everyone knows the war in Iraq is all for oil.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Why do some people have to be haters?? Do you think I actually care what you think? No. If you think this forum is wrong for me, then too bad, because I'm going to stay. Remember, I don't care what you think :).

That's the spirit!

[Revy]

You can't start a revolution with your tiny guerrilla army. I think the eccentric Symbionese Liberation Army tried that and failed miserably. No, real revolutionaries understand the role that elections and politics plays in society and why it is necessary and important for socialists to put themselves forward in that context, to raise socialist consciousness and thus kickstart a real revolution.

[bruce]

Voting provides an oligarchic and unrepresentative system with the veneer, the patina, of legitimacy and respectability it desires. If 10% of the people voted (instead of 50%), it becomes more difficult to maintain the charade that the US is a democracy, and it becomes more transparent what a crooked, oligarchic, imperialistic, militaristic serf-driven empire it really is. Your playing basketball, on the other hand, confers no legitimacy on the evil empire.

I agree.

I was only attempting to empathize with the viewpoint of others who have not been exposed to the ideas we are familiar with. If the goal is to convince people not to vote, jumping in with both feet into a moral argument is usually a non-starter. Without an understanding of the premises underlying the present 'democracy', all the usual arguments that are obvious to us will fall on deaf ears, or worse, strengthen their current beliefs cuz all this talk of 'imperialism' or 'corporatism' sounds crazy.

Small steps IMO

[lombas]

It is a sad fact that ruling elites decide major trendsettings and have the resources to make people follow them. This is, of course, why dictatorship of the proletariat is such a realistic term for what is necessary to break all ties with bourgeois class-oriented elitism.

[Charles Xavier]

I agree with some of what you said, but I only bolded my words simply to make a point. Of course I have to leave it up to them on the means. What am I going to do, go tell all the capitalist sheeple that we must fight our evil, imperialist oppressors? Since you like to criticize, I'll let you go do that.

Obama has mentioned he is going to completely disarm the United States. How could he be the next salesman of US Imperialism if he is going to disarm the US of it's nukes, missile defense systems, cut billions of dollars in military spending, and pull out of Iraq? Everyone knows the war in Iraq is all for oil.


And Obama is a liar and has appointed Zionists and Imperialist War Mongers the right-wing of his party into his cabinet. Will Obama get out of Iraq? Well not according to recent recantations from the election.

[xtremerebel]

And Obama is a liar and has appointed Zionists and Imperialist War Mongers the right-wing of his party into his cabinet. Will Obama get out of Iraq? Well not according to recent recantations from the election.

I was looking through the archives in the politics section and saw this.

Just to update, the U.S. has now pulled out of Iraqi cities and urban areas, and have handed that portion over to the Iraqi security forces. They call on the U.S. when they need to though, and the U.S. still patrols the borders and mountainous areas of Iraq. They are expected to leave in around 2011.

That being said, we all know that companies such as Haliburton profited big time off of Iraqi oil fields. If Obama is indeed a zionist war mongerer, then don't you think he would still be in Iraq? Or is this simply a political move for something bigger in Iraq?

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

You're telling me. One of my friends identifies with anarchism, but he's convinced that the reason why conditions are so shitty for people down here, in one of the poorest counties in the US, if not the poorest, is because they don't go out and vote, and thus the government thinks "eh, these people don't give a shit, so they can go fuck themselves". So if people went out and voted, he claims, the government would take notice, and do something about the conditions here.

Of course, it's most likely the other way around - the government doesn't give a shit about the people, so the people don't give a shit about voting. Simple as that. But he stubbornly holds on to this notion.

I agree with him in a sense. Many people simply don't view the government as something that can help them, instead it's a far away entity that never changes and which they have no control over. But seriously, at a very local level, it wouldn't be completely implausible to shake things up.

Usually its the right that elects radicals at the local level however. When I was living in Dallas, the suburb of Farmers Branch elected some crazy ass anti-immigrant type who promised to run every illegal out of their homes. Naturally all the Hispanics, by and large, documented or not, relocated immediately because of the racist hysteria and the city's economy has gone to the shitter. But it can be done, is my point.

Will it really change anything? Probably not, but I for one would love to be the campaign manager of a "Freak Power" run.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Oh, and another thing. TheHumanCondition has a point, the SLA failed miserably. I believe it makes sense to at least attempt to create an electoral party, based on grass roots economic alternatives to the capitalist system (yeah we'd all love a national party to sweep us off our feet but let's be realistic). And lets say this party gains somewhat.

Why not wait until that avenue is closed and people realize exactly who they're confronting before attempting to overthwrow the system via Revolution? If the people, and that is of course a general term, can't get past what the talking heads on their TV tell them, how can one expect a popular revolutionary movement of real significance to emerge? They may think its a sham, why not force the issue and make the ruling classes end the illusion and show us it's a load of bull?

And I understand several groups are attempting what I have suggested, but is there a true alternative available during the largest capitalist crisis in decades?

[theusedfire5]

You can't start a revolution with your tiny guerrilla army. I think the eccentric Symbionese Liberation Army tried that and failed miserably. No, real revolutionaries understand the role that elections and politics plays in society and why it is necessary and important for socialists to put themselves forward in that context, to raise socialist consciousness and thus kickstart a real revolution.

"I began revolution with 82 men. If I had to do it again, I do it with 10 or 15 and absolute faith. It does not matter how small you are if you have faith and plan of action". - Fidel Castro


Just saying that I have learned people tend to follow what's already there. They wait until something better comes along, then they join that crowd. The majority usually runs along the sheep metaphor, Which leads me to this quote:

"The revolution is not an apple that falls when it is ripe. You have to make it fall". - Ernesto Che Guevara


All it takes is timing, planning, and essentially popular views.

[Sam_b]

Was it really necessary to resurrect a thread that hasn't been posted in for almost a year?

[Tyrlop]

wake up! as it was said before.

[theusedfire5]

Was it really necessary to resurrect a thread that hasn't been posted in for almost a year?

It doesn't make a difference :thumbdown:

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Was it really necessary to resurrect a thread that hasn't been posted in for almost a year?

Was this post necessary, in the slightest?

Ideas and material, if found to be valuable to some, don't have an expiration date. Please delete your post and allow the discussion to go forth uninhibited.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

No single American citizen actaully 'votes' for the President.

The President is elected if he gets a majority of state votes. States have a single elector, who decides who the state will vote for. Precedent dictates that he always sides with the voting majority, however in theory this does not have to be the case.

Google 'Rogue Elector' for an interesting story.

[xtremerebel]

Was this post necessary, in the slightest?

Ideas and material, if found to be valuable to some, don't have an expiration date. Please delete your post and allow the discussion to go forth uninhibited.

I agree too. If it's valuable, practical, and can be put to use, it does not have an expiration date. Perhaps his post can stay but I think he would contribute greatly to this thread if he stayed on the subject at hand.

All the best

==============

Anyways, as we saw with the 2000 and 2004 elections, those elections were pretty fucked. I think Bush won in 2000 because of his cousin being the governor of the state of florida, and in 2004 because of massive errors and outages in the voting machines in the democratic states. But then again, bureaucrats, lobbyists and large corporations have a big part in influencing elections in the states, and we known bush and his daddy were quite into big business, especially with oil.

[xtremerebel]

No single American citizen actaully 'votes' for the President.

The President is elected if he gets a majority of state votes. States have a single elector, who decides who the state will vote for. Precedent dictates that he always sides with the voting majority, however in theory this does not have to be the case.

Google 'Rogue Elector' for an interesting story.

True, of course. But when the people call the U.S. a democracy, it actually isn't. It's a republic or can be called a democratic republic at best. But the people do get to choose the senators and congress, however much of a difference that makes (it usually doesn't).

[Steve_j]

With presidential elections, your vote doesn't count

Yes it does!!!!!!!

Have your say in who you want to exploit you!

Vote 1 ~Steve J for president!

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

True, of course. But when the people call the U.S. a democracy, it actually isn't. It's a republic or can be called a democratic republic at best. But the people do get to choose the senators and congress, however much of a difference that makes (it usually doesn't).

The simple thing we should remember is thus:

The US Constitution was enacted in the late 18th century. That was before the origination even of Marxism. We can all agree that this was not a time even of the capitalist quasi-democracy of one vote every several years for who you would like to exploit you.

No, this was a time where democracy equated to virtually nil in politics.

When you think how entrenched the Constitution is in US political life, understand that the US has barely moved on from this time. It is somewhat shocking really.

[La Comédie Noire]

Speaking as a U.S. Citizen:

Actually, the bourgeoisie use a number of tactics to influence politicians. Sometimes they contribute to one candidate, other times they contribute to both candidates, and then sometimes they wait and see who wins before contributing. But there are times where vested interests will intervene in the electoral process to make certain the sure bet wins out, as was the case in the 2000 presidential election.

That's why appeals to "lesser evilism" are, as already stated, a bad tactic. Think of the presidency like any other job under capitalism, despite how "nice" the person is or what their intentions are they still have to carry out the boss' orders.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Speaking as a U.S. Citizen:

Actually, the bourgeoisie use a number of tactics to influence politicians. Sometimes they contribute to one candidate, other times they contribute to both candidates, and then sometimes they wait and see who wins before contributing. But there are times where vested interests will intervene in the electoral process to make certain the sure bet wins out, as was the case in the 2000 presidential election.

That's why appeals to "lesser evilism" are, as already stated, a bad tactic. Think of the presidency like any other job under capitalism, despite how "nice" the person is or what their intentions are they still have to carry out the boss' orders.

Though I agree with your assessment regarding the the current state of mainstream American politics, I don't believe this should preclude a party to attempt and use the electoral system, at least on the local level. Yes, Brian Moore (or whoever) running for Prez isn't goinhg to change much. But on a local level in any area that has been severely hit by capitalisms excesses an attempt to build an alternative could be successful. Will these efforts be opposed? Certainly, but even if they only gain some popularity that would be some of a leftist message escaping outwards into the general consciousness.

Needless to say, I have been quite let down by the response of the Left to the economic crisis. It appears to me that the only force uniting, radicalizing, and politicizing during the entire downturn has been the right (or, as chegitz guevara refers to them, the tea-baggers). Like it or not (obviously the latter), this movement has gained noteriety and certainly found a demographic which avidly supports and joins them. It's like the anti-taxes, anti-black, anti-immigrant, and anti-government loonies were all able to hijack the right's shock at losing with a GOP "moderate" to a black guy.

Granted, that may be the problem with the left, to much faith in that man. However, a day will come when a mobilization can occur and I believe the electoral route, even at the smallest level (school board, for example), could be a viable path. For revolution? No, but certainly for making gains on the left.

Anyways, can we at least agree that voting on issues instead of people is at least warranted? Consider, for example, the gay rights legislation that often comes to a popular vote. Is it a good thing to see many turn out for that (and there have been vast gains, if not yet success, on that front).

[La Comédie Noire]

I agree totally, there is nothing wrong with voting and pushing for civil emancipation and the left's response to the economic crisis has been varied at best and conflicting at worst. But this is because we are actually thinking about it in detail.


All the "mature democracies" are moving to the right, why?

The right offers a deceivingly simple paradigm to the economic crisis and its criticism of how policy makers have handled it, namely "Big Government." Conservatives in America like to walk around with the masks of the Republican Party circa 1796 denouncing social policy on the one hand and supporting wealthfare on the other hand. When its convenient they will invoke the slogan of "States' Rights" and when they need "big government" aka decelerations of war, nationalization of failing industries, and anti abortion measures, they will assure us its necessary.

The tea baggers are nothing more, but corporate money mobilizing popular support for a decline in living standards. They are using historical illusion and popular mythology, such as the "founding fathers", to sugar the pill.

I think one of our goals as leftists is to be a constant voice of doubt, saying over and over again "Its a lie!" Beyond that, I don't know what we could do, corporate money is hard to compete with and even when its used in the interests of the public, such as Acorn, its dropped before the election banners are even taken down.