David Atkins is right, I think, about there being significant differences between the parties having to do with their roles in the class war, though of course not only that.
But he writes at Hullabaloo,
"Even if the choices aren't necessarily between good and evil, non-participation in the process is inexcusable when it's so abundantly clear which side is the far greater evil."
Though I expect I will vote this fall for Obama if I vote at all, I must demur.
And I would have had to do so even in Germany in 1932 when it was the Nazis, the Communists, and the Social Democrats competing for power.
The reason is that, after all, I control only one vote, my own, and no other.
I don’t even influence other votes in any degree.
If I went into a coma in October and came out of it in December the outcome of the election would not be different for any federal, state, or local office.
Things would be otherwise if I could sway, say, hundreds of thousands of votes in a lightly populated swing state.
But I can't.
In fact, Atkins knows that is very likely true of all his readers.
But even if Atkins, like me, can’t personally sway hundreds of thousands of votes in lightly populated swing states, it is likely the major liberal blogs taken together may very well be able to do that.
No conspiracy is necessary, though there probably is one in the sense that all the major players are openly agreed in a common effort.
And that is an effort of propaganda to goad the mass of their readership and anyone else they may somehow influence into showing up and voting for the Democrats.
And an integral part of that propaganda is endless repetition that the outcome depends on each of us doing his part, that we are each responsible, that every vote is crucial, etc.
Right alongside the annoyingly stupid saw that no one who does not vote is entitled to complain of an adverse outcome.
Still, I am open to the suggestion to make voting mandatory.
Do we dare?
No comments:
Post a Comment