Salon: Voting, not OWS, will Change America

[pnwmom]

http://www.salon.com/2011/10/18/voting_not_ows_will_save_america/


We think we know this story. But the truth is, we haven’t begun to absorb its full details and implications yet:

The number of voters under 24 who bothered to go to the polls in 2010 dropped by a stupefying 60 percent, and those between 24 and 29 by almost 50 percent. Altogether, the participation of young people – who had been overwhelmingly pro-Obama in 2008 – declined by 11 million votes.
Among over-65-year-olds, the core of the Tea Party movement, the voting numbers barely changed, from 17.6 million in 2008 to 17.5 million in 2010.
The African-American vote fell by 40 percent, and the Hispanic vote by almost 30 percent.
Among the mostly white voters who earn more than $200,000 per year, the turnout fell by a scant 5 percent, from 7 million to 6.5 million.
Voting by those with annual incomes under $30,000 dropped by 33 percent, more than six times the figure for the affluent.
In effect, the abstainers turned a potential Democratic landslide into a full-scale collapse – with nightmarish consequences for civil rights, for the U.S. and world economies, and for social programs that range across the board from healthcare and educational funding to employment programs, pension benefits and the sagging national infrastructure.

SNIP

These are astronomical, game-changing numbers. It makes no sense to argue that the Democratic voting collapse was a matter of demoralization. Decisions on whether to go to the polls were made by the early autumn of 2010, just 20 months into an Obama administration that had pushed through what many analysts regard as the most ambitious legislative agenda in modern U.S. history.

Half a century ago, Martin Luther King and Cesar Chavez understood that genuine change could only be achieved through long-term, patient struggle – and that the prize, in King’s famous words, was full access to the nation’s key institutions, notably the ballot box and the governing seats it fills.

The leaders and foot soldiers of the civil rights era fought with unflagging commitment, and King himself was martyred, in a two-decade campaign for the voting privileges that 2010 abstainers dismissed as unworthy of an hour’s time on a single Tuesday in November. The Wall Street demonstrators are now debating an even broader boycott of the 2012 presidential election.

SNIP

[villager]

1. Those darn kids! Just go home and vote for whoever the Democrats deign to offer you!

Quit trying to color outside the lines!

[abelenkpe]

12. Yeah cause not showing up really helped

[LadyHawkAZ]

19. Yeah, cause showing up really helped

they came out in droves in 08, and look at the wonderful results.

For voting to work, you must have 1) an informed electorate and 2) candidates that actually represent them and work for the good of the country. The U.S. has neither. Voting will continue to fail until we have both.

[pnwmom]

26. Letting the Rethugs take over will be a disaster. After the disaster of

Bush's Presidency, they were absolutely determined to prevent Obama from having any kind of success.

And everyone who didn't bother to vote in 2012 helped.

[NYC Liberal]

38. Nothing is stopping you from voting for candidates that you want.

If you refuse to vote, exactly how are you going to get these candidates?

[villager]

21. Yeah cause winning Democratic majorities really brought "change"

n/t

[abelenkpe]

30. Only had a tiny majority for a short time

no where near the majority that FDR or Johnson had and part of that majority was blue dog losers. If you don't like who's offered push for more progressive liberals to replace blue dogs and reps. But not showing up is not the answer. And yes, it did help. You think there would have been any stimulus without that tiny window of a majority?

What exactly are you advocating? How do you see the elections playing out?

[villager]

36. so.. you're saying that under the present system, voting Democratic can't bring meaningful change?

I'd agree with you there.

We need vast structural change, which the current crop of professional Democrat politicos won't/can't deliver. And as been said downthread, voting is just one small piece of changing a former/nominal democracy. Vaguely sympathetic -- yet routinely cowardly -- politicians will have to be pushed into doing the right thing.

And you don't do that by packing up and going home, the first time you're "tsk-tsk"'ed at...

[abelenkpe]

37. Pretty much.

Just thrown by the comments that seemed to be suggesting we don't vote. Gotta vote and push for massive change.

[villager]

40. Whereas I've just about lost complete faith in the Dems, I don't agree with "not voting" either

..though I suppose there are certain races where the "choice" makes really no difference at all.

But we have to put voting in its proper perspective; it's but a tiny aspect (voting for candidates who are "vetted" by virtue of not rocking the boat too much, hence their access to money and media) of the massive reforms that will be needed.

And sure, if we get somebody in with a latent visionary streak, then the necessary "street tactics" may finally embolden them to do the right thing(s). Listening to those who bankroll their campaigns certainly won't.

[the other one]

2. As long as the votes are counted

As long as there are no barriers to voting...

[MineralMan]

3. Exactly. There was a small poll of the OWS protesters earlier on,

and over 50% said they hadn't voted in 2010. I don't know if they qualified the poll for those who were of voting age in 2010, but the photos don't show a lot of kids who weren't 18 then. We MUST go to the polls in 2012. If we don't we're screwed.

[leftstreet]

4. The way America changed in 2006 & 2008?

:shrug:

[villager]

5. +1

n/t

[phantom power]

9. +1

[phantom power]

6. I think the OWS-ers have noticed something that Frank here hasn't...

We have 9.1% unemployment. We're still in at least two major wars of occupation. The PATRIOT act still obtains. The Banksters are not only still running free, but they're richer than ever. Health care is still profoundly broken, and unaffordable for a huge percentage of people.

What, exactly, did "voting" accomplish for the 99% ?

[valerief]

11. Right. Our first step should be to put hatchets to electronic voting machines.

Where's Carrie Nation when you need her?

[valerief]

7. But what will change electronic voting with proprietary software? nt

[MineralMan]

8. Well, the response to this is going just about how I figured.

Depressing, this response is. If we give up our franchise, we give it all up.

[RaleighNCDUer]

20. What franchise?

If my vote disappears into a black box, I have no franchise.

[MineralMan]

24. My vote counted. If yours didn't then that's what you should be

dealing with in your own state. Voting works on a state-by-state basis. If you live in NC, there's not much a guy from Minnesota can do about your state's voting methods. Our system in MN works fine. We make sure it stays that way.

[Enrique]

10. let me guess the author

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz? :shrug:

[HughBeaumont]

13. Yes, because, you know, that's worked out SO well thus far.

Democrats - "Well, put up with Reaganomics for just a little bit longer . . . we're really working on putting this thing to bed. We really are . . . just like these wars. You have to trust us on this . . . these peepee-heads are really hard to work with and they just won't budge!" :eyes: :eyes:

Republicans - "Fuck you. Here's a box, enjoy your new home, asshole. And your bill's due, goddamnit. Don't you have checks to write the job creators? (kicks you in the stomach) SAY THANK YOU, BITCH!!"

Libertarians - "legalizeweedendthewarsmiltonfriedmanrulesliberalssuckgetajobhippiegunsgunsronpaulpennnteller"

Independents - "Fuck it, they won't even let us on the ballot in some places. So I guess you're stuck with the knobs above. Sorry."

[dameocrat67]

14. The writer is engaging in historical revisionism

since the mess was caused by nostrings bailouts that happened when the democrats controlled both houses and the presidency.

[Fire Walk With Me]

15. Here's a little quote to counter that:

"What we need right now is a clear message to the people of this country. This message must be read in every newspaper, heard on every radio, seen on every television. This message must resound throughout the entire Interlink! I want this country to realize that we stand on the edge of oblivion. I want every man, woman and child to understand how close we are to chaos. I want everyone to remember WHY THEY NEED US!" -V for Vendetta

[sam11111]

16. boycott? stupid. like the british suffragettes who poured glue into mailboxes

Source: a readers digest history book.

Some tactics are just stupid.

[Speck Tater]

17. That's what the people who own the electronic "ballot boxes" want everyone to believe. nt

[canoeist52]

18. so...we can't have both??

whenever someone poses either A or B, red flags should go up.

[Robb]

23. And we have a winner.

A boat without a paddle is as useless as a paddle without a boat.

We are entitled to the streets and the ballot box.

[Capitalocracy]

22. Left-leaning people are trained not to vote

by politicians who constantly betray them in favor of their campaign contributors. People whose beliefs are convenient for the capital-holders who fund campaigns, however, are always rewarded for their votes... not through policies that actually help them in any way, but through pandering and confirmation and reinforcement of their ideology.

And as has already been pointed out upthread, change has to come from both. Voting is just the smallest part of participation in democracy.

[Douglas Carpenter]

25. what would bring REAL change - if there was an economic collapse & our candidate won with a clear

mandate and had strong majorities in both houses of Congress with a clear unmistakable message of changes! Imagine all that could be accomplished then!! The Wall Street special interest groups, the insurance companies - the banks - no one would be able to stop it!!

[dameocrat67]

29. There will be pie in the sky when I die! n/t

n/t

[deutsey]

27. It's damned if we do, damned if we don't

I thought we're supposed to make elected officials do the right thing (ala FDR) by our activism and movements.

Yet we're scolded as naive or "professional leftists" or whatever when we try to do just that.

:eyes:

[Luminous Animal]

28. Perhaps if the Democratic leadership would pause a moment from navel gaziing,

they could apply their brainy think tanks into figuring out why youth stayed home in 2010 instead of the usual boring whining.

And siimply exhorting "Vote Democrat" over and over and over and over again is not an exciting or inspirational campaign.

[deacon]

31. Nonsense. This movement will prove if there is a Sleeping Giant or not. n/t

[DirkGently]

32. Funny, because while voting's important, ALL major change has come through activism.

OWS and other activism has the potential to define what we're voting FOR & what those elected will DO.

Voting's important, no question. But it doesn't in itself change anything. Not when every candidate in every party feels comfortable that they can campaign with private, corporate funds exclusively.

LBJ famously supposedly told Martin Luther King to "make him" pass the Civil Rights Act. Make him, because just "doing the right thing" doesn't carry enough weight with political leaders. Their first priority is getting elected, and then getting elected again. In the absence of public pressure, only the expedient and the profitable occurs.

It's nice that people want to focus on political parties and campaigns. It's part of the equation. It cannot be forgotten. But it hasn't been enough, not by a long shot, and it's not going to be for the foreseeable future.

Voting's great. Everyone vote. The rest of the time should be spent making it clear what we expect those votes to mean above and beyond whatever individuals make it to office. Getting a particular person elected is only part of a means to an end, and elections will need to adjust to accomodate activism, not the other way around.

[frazzled]

33. I agree, but OWS does not seem to be about the political system really

It's trying to call attention to a basic truth that most all of us, even many regular people on the right, share: that the global financial institutions and corporations have simply become too powerful.

That said, the author is correct. But remember that the OWS began as a core of self-identified "anarchists." They don't believe in government. A lot of young people there, who were probably pre-pubescent in 2000 and don't remember the effects of the whole Nader/Green fiasco, have reprised the nonsensical idea that "Democrats and Republicans are just the same thing," that it doesn't matter.

This is where I part company with the core of OWS (not the larger movement it has become, or the general premise about the 99%, but with the core ideology). There has never been a modern society that has succeeded without a government, there has never been a successful "anarchic" movement (no, Barcelona in the 30s was not it), and there IS a real and quantifiable difference between Republican and Democratic policies and principles, no matter how many individual instances of agreement on this or that law that passed you can find.

Politics does matter in the end. Saying it doesn't is what has made it possible for even Mitt Romney to pat OWS on the back with a conciliatory "You can understand why they're angry." Hello. If Mitt Romney gets elected you're REALLY going to have something to be angry about, because there will be no Consumer Protection Agency, no Dodd-Frank, no attempts (even if failed) to put in place policies that help to close the income gap. There will be no expansion of Pell Grants, no help for government workers or auto workers, no repeal of DOMA, no nothing.

It's frustrating to see this all happening again. I thought people had learned a lesson. I don't think this applies to everyone at OWS, but certainly the movement sprang out of this kind of youthful naivete.

[War Horse]

34. One thing I don't get

Why not vote for the option that's closest to your world view/the lesser evil/whatever

AND

support the sorely needed OWS

AND

work to support actual progressive candidates?

What good does promoting voter apathy bring about?

I'm sorry, but this whole "the system must collapse before people know what's good for them" sentiment is not something I can get behind.

[Matariki]

35. Perhaps Obama should had made some better choices in his selection of advisors

Then maybe "the number of voters under 24 who bothered to go to the polls in 2010" WOULDN'T have dropped off by 60%.

Just saying.

[Bandit]

39. Just think, if we had 60 Democratic Senators and a Super Majority in the House, what we could get do

D'Oh.... It seems we had that very thing only a couple of years ago and what did we accomplish? Squat.....