I don't know if I have mentioned this before, but my full support is behind Dennis Kucinich for the Democratic presidential nomination. Make no mistakes--I'm not delusioned enough to believe he'll actually get the nomination, but he is the only candidate I support at this time, and I am planning to vote for him in the primary. I'm not a registered Democrat, but they tell me that even us Commies can vote in the primaries out here, so I'll be at my polling place next week.
I support Kucinich for fairly simple reasons: we're in nearly 100% agreement on political positions. See, maybe I have it all wrong, but I thought that was the basis I was supposed to vote on--candidates whose positions I agree with and wish to see forwarded. Am I wrong about that? Because that doesn't seem to be how other people are thinking about things. Mostly, what I see around me are people trying to figure out how to beat Bush. And don't get me wrong, I'm 100% for that. However, I don't know if I'm for that to the extent of actually being able to pull a lever in favor of John Kerry. Besides the facts that I don't like John Kerry and I don't trust John Kerry, there is the little matter of John Kerry and I disagreeing on some essential shit. Does he take a stong stance against capital punishment? No. Does he come out for same-sex marriage rights? No. Does he support single-payer health care? No. So why the hell would I support him? Better than Bush? Sure. But am I supposed to be voting for the less of two evils? Has it really come to that? Is that the best we can do? Is voting a matter of choosing the best option on the ballot, or is it a matter of choosing the option you think might have a chance of beating the worst option?
I've only voted in one presidential election so far, and I voted for a third-party candidate. And no, it wasn't the one all good Dems love to hate. It was whomever the Socialist candidate was, and no, I don't even remember who it was. I didn't like my choices, so I opted out and voted with my chosen party. I don't do that too often--I vote Democrat more often than I don't--but I don't see how much sitting back and accepting the same breed of candidate from the Dems as the Republicans offer is making a damn thing better. Sure, these old rich white guys are a little more "Liberal." They probably won't fuck things up as badly. But do I think they'll institute actual change? Real progress? Frankly, no, I don't. And I don't see how we are going to get to a place of real progress if all the supposed progressives in this country do is play defense. Yes, four more years of Bush would be a fucking nightmare. Yes, I want him out of there. But in the long run, is selling out my principles for another four or eight years of half-assed Democratic rule really going to help anything? Would it be better to let Bush get elected again, let things get four years worth of worse, and then see if people are willing to suggest and fight for real change from real candidates?
Part of the problem, I think, is the entire institution of the presidency. I'm not sure we should keep it at all. Maybe our whole government needs to be reworked into something a bit more representative and a bit less easy to buy or be born into. But where could we possibly start with that? And especially where could we start with it in a time where the best we as progressives can think to do is to try to keep our heads above water?
Don't get me wrong--come Election Day, I'll be rooting for whomever the Democratic least-of-the-evils candidate is. But I don't know if I am going to be able to vote for him.