[Read the first part (about the Republicans) of this political analysis.]
(Swans - September 24, 2012) Gerald Spezio sent me a note asking: "In abject powerlessness and despair, am I supposed to vote for Obama because Romney is a worse moron-monster-murderer?"
Gerald also pointed to a recent article by Tom Wright about Wright's deep frustration with the morally bankrupt attitude of Democratic Party members who continue supporting heinous Obama administration policies.
This is from the Center for Constitutional Rights:
"When a 16-year-old boy who has never been charged with a crime nor ever alleged to have committed a violent act is blown to pieces by U.S. missiles, alarm bells should go off," said CCR Senior Staff Attorney Pardiss Kebriaei. "The U.S. program of sending drones into countries in and against which it is not at war and eliminating so-called enemies on the basis of executive memos and conference calls is illegal, out of control, and must end."
Call me old-fashioned, but I think that all Democrats should be able to agree on that. Which in a sane country would raise the question of whether Obama should be impeached, rather than re-elected. But we live in this country, don't we? And in this country, earnest, liberal-minded people feel they must concentrate on stopping Mitt Romney, or there will soon be public beheadings of Planned Parenthood workers, and all that. What I am wondering is this: is there no limit beyond which Democrats will not support Obama? Beyond which they just have to say, "Not with my vote-Not in my name?"
No, there is no limit.
Voting is irrelevant. People vote for the images they want to have of themselves that they see reflected by those they vote for. People vote their self-images.
Black people (with very few exceptions) will vote for Obama because he is black (at least 50%), regardless of what he does or how Obama administration policies affect blacks as a national group. Republican voters (white males, who will also direct their wives' votes) will vote for any white man, no matter how stupid, over any black man, no matter how capable, even if the white man's policies are clearly detrimental to the country (or state) as a whole (e.g., George W. Bush, Arnold Schwarzenegger, hence Mitt Romney!). It's about who they are, not what they will do.
Secondly, "all" voters vote against something rather than for it. The Obama voters are voting against Mitt's American Taliban Republican Crusade, whose members are in turn voting against the Black and Colored-Foreign Tide of the type that swept away the paradise of Apartheid South Africa and the Dixie of pre-Voting Rights Act days.
Thirdly, voting is irrelevant unless you follow the Citizens United vote auction procedure: outbid your competitors for the votes that actually count. There is no such thing as a free lunch, and there is no such thing as a free vote. Sure, you have a right to vote, but you gotta pay for it. Whining, moaning and bitching about it are free, but pointless. Now drink your coffee.
By the way, it does happen to be the case that Romney and Ryan are monstrously worse moronic murderers-to-be than Obama and his co-managers. Weak populations on the fringes of concern of imperial policy will be the ones to actually see any difference between an Obama or Romney administration, with Romney's being relatively worse for them. Your second-class (perhaps steerage-class) free vote can affect that situation a little bit -- this is the Molly Ivins view on voting. Objectively, a second Obama administration is likely to be a smidgen better for the down-and-outers than a Romney one.
In terms of running the Empire, Romney is definitely more likely to crash it just as George W. Bush did, and Obama is definitely more likely to steer it more skillfully so that imperial goals are met with less damage to imperial structures and alliances. However, committed anti-imperialists (or Marxists) would then find this good reason to hope for a Romney administration along the lines of "things getting worse is good" for the prospects of the outbreak of the anti-capitalist (socialist) revolution. Obama, like Franklin D. Roosevelt (but more cravenly), is trying to save capitalism. But a fully ideological Marxist revolutionary doesn't care how many people suffer because of the degradation of Empire and the outbreak of revolution, so long as it leads to the ideologically desired result: the utter collapse of capitalism and the triumph of socialism.
So, with Obama you'll get clearly better management of the hateful Empire with slightly better treatment of the down-and-outers, while with Romney you'll get the comfort politics of white supremacy along with clumsy, even disastrous management of the Empire, which will be dismissed from public view by magical thinking and denial, and you'll get a slightly better chance for the collapse of the Empire and the outbreak of the revolution. Less blood and stronger Empire versus more blood and weaker Empire: take your pick.
No blood and no Empire is not an allowed choice. That is why you can vote.
If you find Manuel García's article and the work of the Swans collective
valuable, please consider
Feel free to insert a link to this work on your Web site or to disseminate its URL on your favorite lists, quoting the first paragraph or providing a summary. However, DO NOT steal, scavenge, or repost this work on the Web or any electronic media. Inlining, mirroring, and framing are expressly prohibited. Pulp re-publishing is welcome -- please contact the publisher. This material is copyrighted, © Manuel García, Jr. 2012. All rights reserved.
Have your say
Do you wish to share your opinion? We invite your comments. E-mail the Editor. Please include your full name, address and phone number (the city, state/country where you reside is paramount information). When/if we publish your opinion we will only include your name, city, state, and country.
About the Author
Manuel García, Jr. on Swans. He is a native of the upper upper west side barrio of the 1950s near Riverside Park in Manhattan, New York City, and a graduate engineering physicist who specialized in the physics of fluids and electricity. He retired from a 29 year career as an experimental physicist with the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, the first fifteen years of which were spent in underground nuclear testing. An avid reader with a taste for classics, and interested in the physics of nature and how natural phenomena can impact human activity, he has long been interested in non-fiction writing with a problem-solving purpose. García loves music and studies it, and his non-technical thinking is heavily influenced by Buddhist and Jungian ideas. A father of both grown children and a school-age daughter, today García occupies himself primarily with managing his household and his young daughter's many educational activities. García's political writings are left wing and, along with his essays on science-and-society, they have appeared in a number of smaller Internet magazines since 2003, including Swans. Please visit his personal Blog at manuelgarciajr.wordpress.com. (back)
3. "Shields and Brooks on Gov. Christie's Message of Sacrifice, Ryan's Earnestness," PBS NewsHour, 29 August 2012. (back)