I can’t believe that I am about to vote in a presidential
election for the very first time in my life and honestly, I’m not really all
that excited about it. Yeah, democratic participation is great and I like
voicing my opinions via ballot box, but I can’t seem to shake this feeling of
resigned pessimism.
After watching the fraudulent unfolding of the 2000 election
from the sidelines as a curious but contently ignorant seventh grader, I
decided to take a more active role in 2004 and campaigned for the Democratic
Party. At the time, I had the moral dilemma of supporting a party that stood in
contrast to many personal beliefs, but justified it by focusing on the need for
any type of political change away from those first four years of the Bush
administration. Imagine the horrible feeling of a high school junior after he
reluctantly campaigned for a candidate he didn’t truly want who ended up losing
anyway.
It was in that moment that I formed the belief that the next
four years in our country were doomed, but would hopefully result in a public
so discontent with recent politics that it would clamor for a new wave of
change to sweep over American society. Although public opinion of the current
administration, the Iraq War and the president are at an all-time low, the
overall sense of creating profound change in our country is not apparent in the
2008 presidential hopefuls.
From the point of view of running a nation, most
presidential candidates are still relatively inexperienced, which leaves them
no option but to dumb down their policies and filibuster in hopes of being
elected. It is ironic that the only candidates on both sides of the political
spectrum who are unrelenting in sticking to their beliefs are those who
honestly have no hope of even making it past the primaries. The sad state of
our current two-party political system leaves the prospects of the 2008
election much more nerve-wracking and worrisome than I could have ever
imagined.
The way I see it, the 2008 presidential election leaves me
with three choices of action, all of which frustrate me to no end: I can “throw
away my vote” on a fantastic liberal candidate who has less chance of winning
than Stephen Colbert, I can go against everything that I stand for by voting
Republican or I can sell my soul by voting for one of the leading Democratic
candidates.
A few months ago I had the opportunity to hear Democratic
presidential hopeful Dennis Kucinich speak at a small event hosted by a UCSD
professor. There, a small group heard the representative from Ohio give an
impassioned speech detailing his views on the necessity of complete political
change, and the truth that he is the only candidate advocating such a necessary
transformation in American society. Hearing Kucinich attack the war, HMOs,
anti-labor laws and restrictions on public education inspired me to want to
vote for him, but it also depressed me, knowing that he was only this
generation’s Ralph Nader — a man with great intentions and heart, but no chance
of ever winning the White House.
Is it that candidates like Mr. Kucinich, Cynthia McKinney
and Leonard Peltier are simply morally superior to their opposition, believing in
policies that are more genuine and more beneficial to society? Or is it that
their inherent role as the underdog gives them an unobstructed opportunity to
voice their opinions? If Barack Obama were the little guy of the Democratic
Party, would he stop contradicting himself on issues of foreign policy? Would
he have been more anti-war from the get-go of his political career? Why is it
that in order to have any hope of political success, a candidate must abandon
the majority of his or her core beliefs? Sadly, for any of the honest feelings
lurking deep down inside all presidential candidates, the static two-party
system that America has adopted allows for no wiggle room or distinctiveness,
and politicians are forced to either meander along party lines or lose.
Fortunately, as a liberal citizen of California I am allowed
to play a card that my fellow progressives in other parts of the country
cannot: I can use the racist Electoral College system to my advantage. Under
our current system, which was originally implemented to appease the
slave-owning Southern states, my vote does not matter. Instead, all that
matters is the way the majority of my state votes. This means that we
blue-staters can safely assume our electoral votes will all go to the Dems,
giving us full license to vote for whomever we please. This strategy eases our
conscience without changing the election.
But voting in this manner feels like a concession, and will
anger many people, reviving the popular chant of “a vote for Nader is a vote
for Bush.” That’s bullshit.
While our administration is currently forcing democracy on
countries all around the world, it is unbelievably hypocritical for our own
citizens to be denied that same democracy. To me, democracy means a government
that serves the people, not the other way around. Forcing people to capitulate
their vote only proves that our government and current political systems are
the true bosses of the American public.
So to hell with how we’re “supposed to vote”! Don’t think
about any outcome of your vote beyond the immediate tally for your candidate.
Vote for whichever politician appeals the most to you, regardless of party
affiliation, race, gender or predicted chance of victory. This is America, and
we are a proud, stubborn and passionate country, so let your voice ring loud
and hold your head up high on that glorious march to the ballot box, where your
vote will be a perfect reflection of nothing but yourself and all that you
stand for.