A commenter in another thread -- let's call him Muiops -- recently quoted, with apparent approval, his local representative in Congress, who had voted against the condemnation of the Goldstone Report -- which passed the people's House, incidentally, by 344-36. This Mr Smith Goes To Washington boldly uttered the following fightin' words:
"Israel is a strong and resilient democracy, and successfully investigating this episode could only make it stronger."Now the humor in this is that any reasonable person would see it as grovelling obsequiousness to Israel, not to mention bare-faced mendacity: Israel, a democracy?! For Muiops, however, it's apparently something to be pleased about and shows his local Dembro in a good light.
I read it differently, of course. The fact that feeble yesbutnik gestures like this are the best the Democrats can do seems to me ample justification for concluding that they're utterly worthless.
Perhaps even more to the point, one is personally disgraced by any kind of apologetics for these handwringing hypocrites, no matter how qualified and faint.
The concept of "chump change" needs to be invoked here. The difference that the Democrats offer from the Republicans -- granting, arguendo, that it's non-zero, a point which is far from self-evident -- is still so derisory that one shouldn't lower oneself enough to evaluate it, much less accept it in exchange for anything, even a vote.
Human action shouldn't be about the instrumental calculus all the time. There's such a thing as self-respect too.
And yes, as Chomsky says, a vote is easy and cost-free, but for me at least it's not entirely an arms-length thing. To vote for a villain is to touch pitch, and to touch pitch, we're told on good authority, is to be defiled.
One may have to endure some degree of defilement to live in the world at all, but if you're going to defile yourself, do it in aid of something substantial.
Comments (8)
Very well said. And I get to vote to decriminalize cannabis.
Posted by Solar Hero | October 26, 2010 3:58 PM
Posted on October 26, 2010 15:58
Chump Change You Can Believe In.(tm)
Posted by Billy O'Connor | October 26, 2010 4:07 PM
Posted on October 26, 2010 16:07
Solar Hero writes on 10.26.10 at 15:58:
Very well said. And I get to vote to decriminalize cannabis...
...and Obummer's Justice Department gets to ignore your vote and bust your ass anyway.
There, fixed it for you.
You're welcome.
Posted by Mike Flugennock | October 26, 2010 7:00 PM
Posted on October 26, 2010 19:00
But Solar -- that's just one of those wild 'n' crazy California ballot initatives, right? You don't need to register your cannabiphile views through the mediation of some tawdry Democrat. You can just pull the doobie lever and walk out of the voting booth with your dignity intact.
Somebody needs to give some real thought to the implications of this California referendum thing. Does it actually make the state ungovernable? If so, I'm for it.
Posted by MJS | October 26, 2010 10:27 PM
Posted on October 26, 2010 22:27
There is a strong argument to be made that Dems are worse than Pubs, because when Dems are in power, their evil doing faces no real opposition.
Also, even if voting for Dems DID make a marginal positive difference, it still shouldn't be done, because it is taken as consent. But a nation of people voting for a pol they despise slightly less isn't consent. It's bullied acquiescence.
Posted by epppie | October 27, 2010 2:16 PM
Posted on October 27, 2010 14:16
Well, when one weighs the tiny bit of good the Democrat oligarchs do against the vast pit of bloody evil that comprises the rest of their...hey look, a wheat penny!
Posted by AlanSmithee | October 28, 2010 11:24 AM
Posted on October 28, 2010 11:24
MJS (lets call him Mock Mood):
You are way off about those congress-words regarding Israel. I found them obnoxious and included them to show that the perceived difference was minimal but not infinitesimal. Cutting them out would have been creative editing to improve the image of the unsatisfactory creature.
The D-weaselworder DID vote against the Goldstone condemnation in the House.
Posted by No Comment | November 4, 2010 2:01 PM
Posted on November 4, 2010 14:01
"the perceived difference was minimal but not infinitesimal" is an error.
Please correct to: "the perceived difference is infinitesimal but not zero." No and yes are, after all, not the same.
Where among existing parties is one to find an actual candidate that meets with your approval? Individual voting in a democracy can be based on narrow or wide conceptions of self interest. But what could one say about a voter that votes against his perception of self interest? How does not voting advance any cause? The non-voting 'voter' is not voting 'none of the above', he is only confirming his irrelevance to a well established system that can easily run off the rails, and often does, with great destruction visited on vast numbers here and everywhere.
I say vote or run for office yourself.
BTW, Mock, have you recently had your urine tested? Or are you the testing officer at your place of employment? You seem to be up on the arcana of that niche career field.
Posted by No Comment | November 4, 2010 10:27 PM
Posted on November 4, 2010 22:27