David Swanson writes:

Submitted by davidswanson on Fri, 2006-05-05 02:16. Impeachment
By David Swanson

Those who favor impeachment but wet themselves in fear when big scary Republicans walk by never cease to amaze with their creative ideas of what to fear from pursuing what they want to pursue: impeachment. Here’s an LA City Beat article that’s afraid of Cheney (yeah, yeah, that’s an old stand by) but also afraid that focusing on Bush would help Republicans who are distancing themselves from him. Now that’s creative defeatism! We’ve lowered Bush’s credibility and popularity so far that his own loyal court jesters are looking for palace exits, and therefore we should shut up because we’re actually benefitting his court? Amazing.

And I respond:

submitted by Anonymous on Fri, 2006-05-05 07:23.
Sure, David. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. The last I checked, you were advocating replacing the republicans with the democrats,(I would hope you’d acknowledge Ron Paul should be left off that hook) instead of real change.

You need to face up to the fact that there are not merely more serious issues in play here than usual, but more fundamental ones as well. Issues that transcend politics; issues of character, scruples and verasity.

Issues that can never be resolved effectively until it is acknowledged
that the facade of two distinct political partys is as a Shroud of Turin over the elephant in the living room.

Clearly, what we really see is two competing factions of the one-and-the-same criminal gang, colluding to appear as ideological adversaries.

This is particularly clear from the Libertarian perspective, as we question the validity of government involvment in matters with regards to which the Rep/Dems merely haggle over procedure, taking said involvement as the given.

While you may not agree with our limited government credo, surely you can understand how it gives us an acuity for discerning the underlying sameness and collusions of the Rep/Dems.

Libertarians, and I’m sure all third partys and their supporters frequently agonize over “wasted vote syndrome”.

While the phenomenon may be real, it’s false premises need to be exploded in the minds of the voting public, if we are to overcome it, and subvert the Rep/Dem monopoly.

“Wasted Vote Syndrome”, as you know, is the fear that in voting for a third candidate, say in a three way race with two candidates from the Rep/Dem factions, the vote is “wasted”, because it might prevent the lesser of two evils from prevailing over the greater.

But this is a false fear for two reasons, one practical, the other categorical.

In the practical realm, each voter needs to realize that in any major election, it is statistically impossible for their one vote to determine the victor. Any voter can confirm this for themselves by looking back on their own voting experiences.

Just ask yourself,”Would an election in which I voted for either a Republican or a Democrat ever have produced a different victor had I either voted for the other of the two, or abstained?”

No doubt, there must be some cases, but their paucity only serves to prove rather than disprove my point; remember, we’re discussing statistical probabilities, the only class of facts we can use for rationally assessing the most likely result of a process.

Categorically, one must understand precisely what one is engaged in when one votes, and more critically, what one is NOT engaged in. What one is not engaged in is a competitive process.

This would probably come as a surprise to most voters, but the fact is, one’s place in the dymanics of an election process as a voter is akin to a juror in a court trial and in no meaningful way to a contestant in any competition.

The competitive aspects of the process are exclusively the perview of the candidates and their active supporters, as they compete for the vote of each individual. It is clearly then, a bogus strategy to attempt to account for what one believes the majority of the voters will do in deciding for whom to vote. However accurate the information we may obtain to that regard, it is not a valid basis for our individual decision-making.

What we, as voters ARE engaged in is the expression of a conscientious statement as to which candidate we find best suited for the office in contention.

We each individually make a DECISION as to who most deserves our vote, this is the only meaning our vote can acrue, regardless of what we may choose to believe to the contrary. Any illusions we may harbor not withstanding, we cannot vote against a candidate, nor can we vote for a third candidate in hopes of contributing to the failure of the first without contributing to the success the the second. It is critical that the nature of the act of voting be thus clearly comprehended.

Again, refer back to statistical probabilities; your one vote is too unlikely to provide a determining margin to serve as a basis for rational decision making. This is due to the intrinsic nature of the act, id est, it is moral statement, not point registered in competition. This holds forth whether you accept it as such or not; this is why concerns about election results are not pertinent our individual decision-making.

It is a manifestation of the abstract nature of causation, it being founded in, and deriviative of, the intrinsic nature of the respective partys to the dynamic observed.

Additionally, a helpful point of clarification is the distinction between the DECISION-MAKING we each engage in when choosing who to endorse with our one vote on the one hand, and the DETERMINATION that is arrived at by the cumulative tabulation of the results of these individually-arrived-at decisions.

By bearing that distinction in mind, one can more easily discern the nature and parameters of our place as a voter in the election process, and in so doing, arrive at more clear-minded, rational, and most importantly, conscientiously satisfying decisions.

“We need more Libertarians in office.”—David Cobb, 2004 Green Party presidential candidate

—The Bikemessenger