One less excuse

A little tidbit for your California friends who're trapped in the clutches of desperate fear that their vote for anyone but Barack Obama could mean the end of the world as we know it:

California Democrats and independent voters who backed Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton have gravitated in huge numbers to Sen. Barack Obama - a consolidation of support that has boosted him to a commanding 24-point lead over Republican rival John McCain in the nation's most populous state, the latest Field Poll shows.

Not that I expect it will make a difference.  I tried this argument out on a Nader-leaning friend back in 2004, but she said straight out that she was too scared to do anything but vote for Kerry—and the fact that Kerry was guaranteed to win the state no matter how she voted, which she fully accepted, didn't even come close to making a dent in that.  I had other progressive friends who weren't even willing to vote for Kucinich in the primary this year because they were worried that their one vote might hand the nomination to the greater Democratic evil.

In my wistful moments I sometimes wonder what kind of world we might have if more people were willing to act with honesty, from the heart, rather than out of fear.

Comments

[Dan Coyle]

Pat Buchanan would be president, with our luck.

[Save the Oocytes]

The Golden Rule is basically the institutionalized fear of reprisal, I think Nietzsche would contend. Action from the heart is a boot stamping on a human face forever. We can only thank beautiful Dishonesty and the state monopoly on violence that the blood running in the streets stays so low as knee-level. Damn our hearts to hell.

[Thomas Daulton]

I've argued on this site before that, despite what they say about being conflicted... they are being honest and voting from the heart. A large number of Dem faithful want exactly what they're voting for -- the same as the Republicans: let's kick the can of Change a little further down the road; just so long as I can hang onto my SUV and my cushy well-paying job as a Real Estate agent, then screw the starving foreigners who keep the system running, screw real Democracy, and screw the long-term sustainability and health of the economy. That stuff is hard and uncomfortable, and I've earned my comforts. (Chomsky: "What oppression throughout history did not seem natural and deserved to the oppressors?")

I think a lot of Democrats vote for Kerry or Obama or whomever, because they do understand what he stands for, not because they don't. Be careful when you wish for honesty.

Our job is to change attitudes.

[angryman@24:10]

...what kind of world we might have if more people were willing to act with honesty, from the heart, rather than out of fear.

Acting out of fear roots us in reality. I'm with StO -- if we acted out of honesty, god what ugly people we'd be. It's one of the first lessons we learn when being socialized.

[John Caruso]

Wow. I'm extremely surprised to be the optimist in the room, since it's usually the other way around, but so be it. If I believed things like "the Golden Rule is basically the institutionalized fear of reprisal" I'd just slit my wrists and have done with it. I think sweeping statements like that mainly speak to the world view of the person who holds them rather than giving an objective description of reality (which is unknowable, since the range of human motivations and behaviors is just too various to be boiled down to any absolutes).

My own view is that human nature contains both positive and negative traits, that each person manifests them in different measure, and that the societies we construct can encourage either of those. In the US, unfortunately, we have a society that weighs far more heavily toward the latter. Nonetheless, I think if you were to watch a self-service produce stand (something you see often in farm country) for a few hours you wouldn't find many people stealing the money or even paying for less than they take—and all without the fear of any reprisal at all. I'm not saying that's universal either, but people are often surprisingly honest and ethical when they have no external reason to be.

Thomas: Since you took my statement to be constrained to elections, let me say that though it was meant that way in part it was also intended more generally. On your point, though, I agree with you that "a large number of Dem faithful want exactly what they're voting for"; San Francisco is all but overflowing with these entitled pukes. We may disagree about how large a number that is, though (and again, since it's unknowable, I think the conclusion says more about the speaker than about the question).

But regarding "despite what they say about being conflicted": what's the purpose or benefit of lying in that situation? Pretending to be socially concerned? That's not been my experience. I know plenty of people who honestly think the Democrat of the moment is the best possible choice to lead the country, and they say so quite clearly and openly. Why assume that anyone who says they're conflicted is just a scheming dissembler? My friend, for instance, was completely honest—both about her desire not to vote for a Democrat, and the fear that made her do so anyway. And I assume what you were saying a few weeks ago about being conflicted was honest, and not just a ruse to cover up your self-interested intention to vote for Obama.

I think you may be focusing on the class of elite liberals, but though they bray the loudest they're not the majority. The Democrats get a lot of support from people who they also regularly screw, and who actually support very progressive policies (as poll after poll shows).

[angryman@24:10]

...I'd just slit my wrists and have done with it...

John, don't take it wrong, but that type of attitude is somewhat American -- if I can't have it my way, I'd just as soon extinguish myself because any other existence is immoral, unfounded or untrue.

It's sort of a juvenile view that I see from my kids and doesn't take into effect the people around the world that have to live a cruel objective reality (one that is imposed on them), and they do it with dignity.

My point is that to go forward and cooperate with others, we have to be willing to compromise some things in our own objective realities.

Note: I do make a distinction between slitting my own wrists if I can't get my way, and slitting their wrists.

[John Caruso]

angryman: No offense—mainly confusion, since your take on what I said is pretty far from what I meant. At the least, "having my way" doesn't enter into it at all.

It's sort of a juvenile view that I see from my kids and doesn't take into effect the people around the world that have to live a cruel objective reality (one that is imposed on them), and they do it with dignity.

But the irony is that (in my experience) those people are far more generous in their assessments of human nature than so many of the pampered westerners who are directly or indirectly responsible for their suffering. So I'd invert what you're saying: what I find juvenile, or really just painfully self-involved, is our willingness to view reality through such a bleak prism when we lead such easy lives compared to the vast majority of humanity. Palestinians in Hebron or women in the Congo would no doubt love to have the luxury of nattering on about vague existential suffering, instead of the actual, genuine suffering they get to endure every day. And I don't mean to exempt myself from this at all, by the way.

[angryman@24:10]

...Palestinians in Hebron or women in the Congo would no doubt love to have the luxury of nattering on about vague existential suffering,...

If they had that luxury, would they be better off, and would we be better off? We, the human race I mean, not we the Americans.

The first half of my life was bleak indeed -- I could have been competitive with the Congolese or Palestinians -- in just about every aspect imaginable. So I think it gives me some insight into living the life of poverty, as opposed to touristing the experience as often western liberals do. Incidentally, even though I was a part of the third world, I feel no animosity toward socialism, or communism in my personal experience, although I have cause to if I followed US standards and motivations for animosity.

My assessment overall is that I would be happier (if that really mattered at all to anyone other than me), if I had less, and understood that less is better because it keeps one grounded away from the meaningless nattering you mention (i.e. this here post).

[John Caruso]

If they had that luxury, would they be better off, and would we be better off? We, the human race I mean, not we the Americans.

I suppose my belief (or hope) is that if they had that luxury they'd be less likely to exercise it as much as we so often do. The point (here) being that privilege doesn't bring out the best in people, since it makes it much easier to take what you have for granted.

[Thomas Daulton]

Thanks for injecting some optimism... Yeah, I was focusing exclusively on the Presidential election, and that's why I posted such a pessimistic response...! Perhaps that explains the other pessimistic comments too! This is shaping up to be a very depressing election. Now that I step back and breathe a bit, and interpret your comment in a larger sense, I'm more inclined to agree. If people acted out of the heart with honesty in their everyday lives more, I suspect a lot of our political problems might disappear. Not all, of course.

We disagree on the percentage of Democrats who vote cynically. It might not be a majority. I'm basing my comments on the electioneering for Nader that I did during the 2000 election, when I took a tally. Easily 92% of my supposed Leftist friends, plus about 100.00% of the Dems who discussed the matter with me at the Green Party registration booth, responded with the stereotypical party position: no matter how good the issues he stands for, Ralph is Evil because he wants to hurt the Democrats, and that's all I need to know.

I have to admit I grew up solidly middle-class, unlike 'angryman', so most of my friends are middle to upper-middle class, probably could be considered "elitist Dems". I (and my friends) are falling from the heights of the middle class rather than clawing our way upwards.

Anyway. My comment about people "saying they're conflicted" when they're not, would be limited to the percentage of Dems noted above, who vote cynically -- not all of them. Which percentage, as you point out, is not defined. Perhaps I should also clarify: what I meant was, the Dems in my experience, were not conflicted about the specific issues they said they were conflicted over. I say this because nearly 100% of the time, their objections to Ralph on any single given issue would always shift and change when you got down to brass tacks, and they'd always change in a very consistent manner.

For example, they'd say, "We don't trust Ralph on gay rights, he's barely said anything about gays during his entire 35-year career." I'd respond, "OK, he hasn't said much in the past, but look at his campaign platform right now. It says he supports total equity of civil marriage for gays, in all respects, period. Al Gore, by contrast, won't make such a strong statement. Al Gore's platform says he is personally opposed to gay marriage but wants to legislate all the 1000 different marriage rights for civil partners one at a time. Which of those sounds better for gays?" My Dem friends would always, always reply, "OK, well, maybe Ralph has the better platform, but it's easy for him to say that because he's never going to be elected in a million years. And even if he is, he'll never be able to pass that through Congress. We need somebody who is electable and can actually negotiate and pass things through Congress, even if it's one tiny step at a time."

After hearing this refrain over and over again -- "OK Ralph has the better platform but we need to be elected first, we need political power FIRST" -- the lesson I took away was that, at least for the Dems among my sample, gaining power trumped pretty much any individual issue. So when they said they were concerned or conflicted about this or that political stance, they were lying -- even lying to themselves -- the bottom line was, it was all about gaining and keeping power for the Party. For themselves.

Which is pretty much the definition of an Imperialist, isn't it? Which is why I didn't hesitate to link them with the Imperialist attitude, of screw-the-rest-of-the-world just so long as I keep my comforts.

[John Caruso]

...for the Dems among my sample, gaining power trumped pretty much any individual issue. So when they said they were concerned or conflicted about this or that political stance, they were lying -- even lying to themselves -- the bottom line was, it was all about gaining and keeping power for the Party. For themselves.

I saw the same things you're talking about, but it leads me to a different conclusion. It's not that these people only want to keep power for the Party or for themselves; rather, they've given in to fear and to the inevitability of the two-party system, and so they set about justifying (to themselves and others) their capitulation to "realism". So instead of recognizing that Nader would have the same stance on those issues regardless of his standing in the polls, they rationalize their support of (say) Gore by pretending that he would adopt similar stances if he were free to speak openly, but he can't because it would somehow alienate the mythical moderates who decide the election. They pretend (against all evidence) that their chosen Democrat secretly agrees with them—as you say, lying to themselves. People say this straight out about Obama these days.

So I don't think this self-deception is rooted in a desire to accrue more power, but in a need to rationalize their acquiescence to the belief that the only route to change is through the Democrats. As I've said before, we're wired to rationalize our allegiance to my team, no matter who my team may be or the reasons that they're my team at this moment.

Again, I'm assuming we're talking about earnest liberals and progressives here, not the get-the-hell-away-from-my-Lexus liberals who sneer at populism and are happy with inequality as long as they're on top.

[Save the Oocytes]

Sorry for the negativity...

[Thomas Daulton]

It may very well be that my sample was spiked with an atypical amount of the latter type of liberals... certainly none of them own Lexuses, so they fail the test of outward appearances. But a _lot_ of my Democratic friends, especially during the 1990's-2000, eschewed the term "liberal", sneered at populism, and inequality seemed pretty far down on their list of priorities. I think I commented on this blog before, that they are "fans of both Friedmans". When I said that, I mentioned that they were strongly downplaying their neo-liberal tendencies during recent years, because those policy positions have been so badly besmirched by the Dubya.

Still I'd describe them as Middle-Class. I'm happy to hear the number of "earnest" liberal and progressive Democrats among the population, reaches higher than I thought. On the other hand, the "ceiling" of elitism may be lower than you estimate, when even the middle class sneer at populism... Isn't that one of Umberto Eco's criteria for fascism? When even those who aren't extraordinarily successful in society, adopt a tendency to denigrate and look down on those lower than them.

[John Caruso]

StO: Not at all, I thought it was an interesting perspective—just so over the top that I also thought (or perhaps hoped, for your sake) it was (at least partially) tongue in cheek.

Thomas: Who knows what the percentages are? I'm not even sure we'd disagree in our guesses, actually. All I'm saying is that there's some non-trivially large segment of the population that believes fervently in progressive ideals, but lacks the courage to act on it at election time. And as I say, polls routinely show that progressive ideals are widely held (e.g. my mother, who generally votes Republican, is more like a socialist based on her actual professed beliefs)...so given the chance I think a progressive candidate could easily carry the day, if people could or would step out of the two-party mindset.

[Save the Oocytes]

I got an idea and I ran with it.

And for all time, the percentage of Democrats who vote their beliefs is precisely 38.7%. I'm glad to be able to lay this issue to rest.

[John Caruso]

You mean "action from the heart is a boot stamping on a human face forever" wasn't 100% serious? I'm shocked and appalled.

[Save the Oocytes]

Mmm, 38.8%. And I got to quote Orwell.