I have faithfully voted in every election I could for more than fifty years. And I have always disparaged those who have taken the position, why vote? It is true that we always have to vote for some Hobson's choice, the presumed best of two bad choices, but I have gone along and voted nonetheless. We ordinary citizens don't really have much to do with which candidates are selected, we just get to choose between them, whoever they are. Recent developments are causing me to think that perhaps there really is no point in voting.
In the last election, 2006, we voted overwhelmingly for Democrats, believing that if they could get elected they would do something to change things, like bring an end to this horrible, stupid, unnecessary war that is bleeding our army and our treasury. Having flirted with a non-binding resolution that was little more than busy-work, they now claim to be passing a bill that would bring our troops home (well, not all of the troops) soon (well, not too soon), if, of course Bush doesn't veto it (which he has already threatened to do). Along the way they added even more billions to Bush's request for more money for Afghanistan and Iraq. Some big accomplishment. Way to go Democrats!
What is worse, a majority of American voters appear to be in favor of impeachment for Bush/Cheney. The case for impeachment is absolutely sound and there is no reason it should not happen. After all, lying to Congress and the people to lead us into an illegal, unconstitutional, immoral, and unnecessary "war" is in and of itself cause for impeachment. Then add to that torture, war profiteering, illegal spying, targeting civilians, hiding prisoners from the Red Cross, renditions, using illegal weapons, and etc., etc., it would seem impeachment would certainly be justified (and would also help to bring an end to this unconsionable "war"). Democrats have taken impeachment "off the table." So much for our voting for Democrats. Why should we believe that even if Democrats win in 2008 they will do any better? All of the Democratic candidates are little better than warmongers. Hillary, of course, is the most blatant warmonger. But Obama, who was against the war, has not indicated he is prepared to end it. Edwards believes the most important thing that must be done is to keep Iran from having a nuclear bomb. The only one with any genuine interest in getting us out quickly and establishing some kind of peace in the world is Dennis Kucinich (who, you say?). The sad fact is, as many have said for years, is that there is no substantial difference between the two parties. They both get their funding from the same sources and still dance to the tunes of the enormous corporations that run the world. Hillary gets a fund raiser from Murdoch. Obama gets money from Exxon and the nuclear industry. Edwards (I think) gets his support from lawyers. And so it goes. The more things change the more they stay the same.
It's not as if voting for Republicans is a choice. There is no viable third party and probably never will be, given the nature of things. So, I ask you, why vote? Give me a candidate who is absolutely committed to ending this madness and one who is not uncritically in support of Israeli apartheid and I will happily, gladly, enthusiastically vote. Can there be such a candidate? I doubt it.
Saturday, March 10, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Where did you find out that Obama had received Exxon money? I heard that he was asking for small donations.
Post a Comment