Question...

[malthaussen]

46. But is a vote a moral statement?

Therein lies a difficulty, as I see it. Although as I have stated many times in other threads, damage control has no romance, is it not prudent to remember that, while voting for the lesser of evils is certainly voting for evil, it is also voting for lesser? The idealist cries, No, No!, the realist says "where there's life, there's hope." (And after all, Mr Obama ran on a platform of Hope. Mrs Clinton, more cynical, runs on a platform of "I'm better than the alternative.&quot

Now, why one who is granted little, if any, status in "the country," and whose ancestors suffered and died at the hands of an uncaring class, should particularly care about what happens to "the country" is problematic, except of course, that they are part of that selfsame country. (It says here) And Mr Trump has already promised that pogroms will start for Muslims (however much we may trust anything he says). We may be facing a situation in which the old "First they came for the Jews" story applies. (Or, that might just be a way to manipulate the voters, again, into voting the status quo) It may well be that 2016 is a time when the lesser of evils really is preferable, even to an idealist, because the alternative is worse than ever before. Personally, I consider the assignment of "blame" to be bootless (and hence its denial). I am responsible only to myself, and whatever happens has exactly as much to do with me as any other stiff on the street. But I am responsible for my own conduct. Someone hits me, I hit them back: that they hit me does not absolve me of responsibility for striking them, their conduct should not and does not dictate my own. I daresay, I might have a different opinion if I were hit more often.

In any event, it is not for me (nor anyone else) to tell you (nor anyone else) how to think nor how to act. Speaking personally, for me discussion is discussion, to weigh reasons for actions and thoughts, and not to advocate for this or that (generally speaking, of course. I'm perfectly happy to recommend a scotch or a book, but I would hardly suggest you are wrong to choose differently). I have neither standing nor privilege to offer rebuke, nor to claim expectation. (Well, perhaps expectation of civility, so far as I use others with civility, and being realistic about the fact that sometimes passion gives tongue) There's an interesting little nuance here, since it is perfectly possible to consider that someone is wrong, without therefore concluding that they have no right to be wrong. It is a nuance, I fear, that is often forgotten. And it can lead to all sorts of unpleasantness and complexity.

-- Mal