Vote Independent or Boycott the Elections

By Reza Fiyouzat for Information Clearing House

How long shall we allow the system to kick us in the head, take our money, insult us after taking our money, and still expect us to participate in its frauds? With every passing year, the differences between the two ruling political parties in the U.S. diminish further, and their outlook, conduct and even advertising campaigns merge so much so that their members can be mistaken one for the other.

By now it must be clear that the 'two-party' system is not only no such thing; it is corrupt to the bone.

It should be instructive to recount some major points of Obama's record, but since much of that has been done by far more qualified people, it should suffice to point to what's presented by Matt Gonzalez, in his piece, What Do They Have to Do to Lose Your Vote, in which we find all that is needed to persuade any whose illusions regarding Obama are still unshaken. If, after reading that, you still vote for Obama, then you deserve everything Obama throws at you once in office, and it is you who have no rights to complain.

Despite all that is recounted by Matt Gonzalez, and is known by the left, a good section of the American left is still agonizing over whether or not to vote for this 'lesser' evil! Some qualify this support with: "But, don't have any illusions!" Anybody who supports, even qualified twenty-fold, the notion of voting for a Democratic Party candidate, is already filled with illusions. Such recommendations coming from the 'left' are stunningly amusing if it weren't so infuriating to hear such talk always certified with tons of qualifications, which in turn make the recommendations not just absurd, but highly irresponsible.

Most progressives voting for Obama do so out of their partial blindness regarding the crimes of the American state; they see all the crimes commissioned and executed by the Republicans, but if a Democrat vote-getting team ransacked their very neighborhoods, doing drive-by's at high noon, with 'Vote Democrat' signs on their SUVs, they would most likely not see it. If a Democratic candidate is not too pretty, their answer is simple: it is a vote against Republicans. When pushed for something more positive, more substantial, lacking anything to offer, they argue that Obama-Biden ticket is less scary than McCain-Palin, and so we must make sure they get elected.

The other point they make is that a vote for Obama is a slap in the face of racism. To think that one is fighting racism while voting for a candidate that upholds every racist element of the structures of imperialism is to venture into political oblivion.

Such arguments can only come from people who do nothing whatsoever to change the really existing political life of the U.S. in between presidential elections. But, of course, every four years they must express some political recommendation of sorts, and out of desperate frustration, due to seeing the political field as only what the system presents (i.e., due to the fact that they do not act as subjective agencies), they can only decide which system-provided choice is less harmful. This is the gist of their dilemma.

So long as the left in the U.S. does not create its own independent institutions, so long as there is no institutional alternative that can channel people's grievances, and so long as there is no political party representing the working classes along a socialist outlook, the current balance of forces will continue to work increasingly against the working people and those interested in a more just society, and no matter how learned we might be, we will end up supporting the 'lesser' of the two evil parties dominating the people; in other words, supporting the imperial system.

What to do then? For starters, a good half of the eligible voters have been conducting a de facto boycott of the presidential elections, since they instinctively and correctly realize that the two ruling parties do not represent them. So, why not join them?

The only thing that can transform 'apathy' into an actual political force is to organize the non-voters, and we can only do so by addressing their (which is ours too) concerns. A boycott of the elections should be done with the purpose of announcing to the non-voting public that another way is possible, and must be sought and created to bring about political change. This other way must engage them, the non-voting population, with a strategic vision, while making a serious effort to build a real party of opposition.

This, in turn, requires a genuine opposition party-building effort. The Populists in the 19th century did not agonize over whether or not to vote for the lesser evils of their days. They built their own party. Granted, by the end of the 19th century, the Democrats had pretty much swallowed them whole, by adopting key elements of their platform reflecting their social demands, while watering them down, and blunting their force. But, the organizing spirit of the Populists is something to learn from. The lesson: Build your own party! Oppose both ruling parties consistently.

Within the context of building a real opposition party, then, a boycott as a tactical move makes political sense. It would bring coherence and political direction to the energies not wasted in the electoral fraud (yet sitting still), it potentially gives a voice to the energies not burned in the electoral game presented by the system as an opiate (to paraphrase Max Kantar). But, simply not-voting by itself (i.e., without an announced boycott) is also useless.

* * *

In lieu of a disclaimer, I must say that I respect anybody who votes for Nader or McKinney (Amee Chew makes a great case for supporting McKinney in her October 29 Counterpunch piece), as a way of registering their opposition to the 'two party' monopoly. I have argued in previous articles that, IF you think by voting you can bring change, then know that the only change worth voting for is the kind presented in the platforms of the independent candidates. Also, voting for independent candidates as a way of registering your support for people who are actually addressing our problems is a way of getting a real tally of how many people actually oppose the establishment candidates and support real change.

My argument for a boycott addresses a different sub-set of the population affected by this system, whether we vote or not. The point here is that regardless of the outcome of these elections, which is the continuation of the empire and its deep-rooted corruptions, we need to look past the elections and think how to build a long-term strategy for a real movement for fundamental change. This must include addressing those who do not vote.

People who do not vote are not participating for very good reasons. However, in the absence of a loud boycott, their non-participation gets interpreted as 'conceding' or 'apathy'. My point here is that, NO, this is not apathy. In fact it makes perfect logical sense, and it is far more honest than participating in fraudulent elections that only re-produce illusions about America, the 'world's greatest democracy'; illusions that only buttress the imperial system.

I come from the so-called Third World, in which boycotting elections is a political tool the masses, and the parties that stand with them, employ with good effect. Imran Khan's party (Insaf) in Pakistan, for example, boycotted the last elections there, and it was an organized message sent to the establishment that the rulers would not get a stamp of approval from the real opposition. This, far from re-creating 'apathy' or 'conceding' the elections, actually makes governments nervous. In Iran, for another example, you are required to take your birth certificate with you when you vote, so the authorities can stamp it, so they can see who has not participated, so they can do onto you what they will, should you have to deal with the authorities at some point.

So, boycott is actually a very powerful political tool, because it gives political voice to those who refuse to participate. Simply sitting at home and not announcing that you are boycotting is a different matter. Boycott is a political move, with a long-term vision in mind.

The American people are fed a huge lie every four years that their voices can make a difference. Really? It didn't make a jot of difference in 2006, when people, out of pure illusion, voted into the Congress a majority of Democrats with the hope that they would bring the war of occupation in Iraq to a speedy end. As George Carlin would have said, people might as well have wished on a rabbit's foot!

It didn't make any difference when a huge majority of the American people kept yelling down the jammed Congressional telephone lines, and over-stuffed Congressional email inboxes with, "Don't give my money away to those scum sucking swine!" The people's 'representatives' stole people's money anyway and handed it over to the banksters in broad daylight!

So, to repeat, what's the point of voting for establishment people? Except getting demoralized, such behavior has no other effect.

If influential people on the left, or even political parties on the left, such as the Communist Party, had spent the last thirty years of their collective lives, using their influence and authority, building truly oppositional parties, maybe for the past two presidential elections they wouldn't have to recommend voting for such a corrupt bunch of people, and instead could recommend voting for a truly oppositional party that really channeled people's grievances, with some (even if symbolic) presence in the legislature.

So, instead of wringing our hands over whether or not to vote for an evil, which is only a tiny bit less so, let us recognize the necessity of building a truly oppositional party. The first step in that direction is to either vote for independent candidates or conduct a boycott of these elections with the declaration that voting is bunk until real political alternatives representing people's needs are built. Don't waste your vote, and don't encourage the establishment bastards.

Reza Fiyouzat can be reached at: rfiyouzat@yahoo.com

A vote for either John McCain or Barack Obama is—at best—an act of criminal negligence.

by Mickey Z. for Dissident Voice

You don’t stick a knife in a man’s back nine inches, and then pull it out six inches, and say you’re making progress.

– Malcolm X

Another Election Day approaches and I’m reminded of something the late Pakistani dissident, Eqbal Ahmad said about Noam Chomsky in the book, Confronting Empire (2000): “He (Chomsky) has never wavered. He has never fallen into the trap of saying, ‘Clinton will do better.’ Or ‘Nixon was bad but Carter at least had a human rights presidency.’ There is a consistency of substance, of posture, of outlook in his work.”

But along came 2004…when Chomsky said stuff like this: “Anyone who says ‘I don’t care if Bush gets elected’ is basically telling poor and working people in the country, ‘I don’t care if your lives are destroyed’.” And like this: “Despite the limited differences [between Bush and Kerry] both domestically and internationally, there are differences. In a system of immense power, small differences can translate into large outcomes.”

Standing alongside Chomsky was Howard Zinn, saying stuff like this: “Kerry, if he will stop being cautious, can create an excitement that will carry him into the White House and, more important, change the course of the nation.”

Fast forward to 2008 and Chomsky sez: “I would suggest voting against McCain, which means voting for Obama without illusions.” And once again, Howard Zinn is in agreement: “Even though Obama does not represent any fundamental change, he creates an opening for a possibility of change.” (Two word rejoinder: Bill Clinton)

This strategy of choosing an alleged “lesser evil” because he/she might be influenced by some mythical “popular movement” would be naïve if put forth by a high school student. Professors Chomsky and Zinn know better. If it’s incremental change they want, why not encourage their many readers to vote for Ralph Nader or Cynthia McKinney? The classic (read: absurd) reply to that question is: “Because Nader or McKinney can’t win.”

Of course they can’t win if everyone who claims to agree with them inexplicably votes for Obama instead. Paging Alice: You’re wanted down the goddamned rabbit hole.

Another possible answer as to why folks like Chomsky and Zinn don’t aggressively and tirelessly stump for Nader or McKinney is this: 2004 proved that the high profile Left is essentially impotent and borderline irrelevant. Chomsky and Zinn were joined in the vocal, visible, and vile Anybody-But-Bush ranks by “stars” like Michael Moore, Susan Sarandon, Medea Benjamin, Sean Penn, Barbra Streisand, Manning Marable, Naomi Klien, Phil Donahue, Barbara Ehrenreich, Martin Sheen, Bruce Springsteen, Eddie Vedder, Cornel West, etc. etc. and John Kerry still lost.

News flash: The “poor and working people in the country” that Chomsky mentions above are paying ZERO attention to him or anyone like him…and that’s a much bigger issue than which millionaire war criminal gets to play figurehead for the empire over the next four years.

Zinn talks about Obama and the “possibility of change.” It seems odd to be asking this of an octogenarian but: Exactly how much time do you think we have?

Every twenty-four hours, thirteen million tons toxic chemicals are released across the globe; 200,000 acres of rainforest are destroyed; more than one hundred plant or animal species go extinct; and 45,000 humans (mostly children) starve to death. Each day, 29,158 children under the age of five die from mostly preventable causes.

As Gandhi once asked: “What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?”

I promise you this: The human beings (and all living things) that come after us won’t care whether we voted for Obama or McCain in 2008…if they have no clean air to breathe, no clean water to use, and are stuck on a toxic, uninhabitable planet. They’d probably just want to ask us this: Why did you stand by and let everything be consumed or poisoned or destroyed?

Conclusion: A vote for either John McCain or Barack Obama is—at best—an act of criminal negligence.

Mickey Z. is the author of the recently released Bizarro novel, CPR for Dummies, and can be found on the Web at MickeyZ.net

Interviews of Pat Buchanan and Cynthia McKinney on Al Jazeera

Great stuff indeed; Pat Buchanan and Cynthia McKinney interviewed by Riz Khan:

Part 1



Part 2:



Small note: I had no idea Buchanan liked Palin. The thought struck me as so obscenely stupid that I almost decided not to post the first part of the interview with him. But then I still decided to post it. For all his wrongs, Buchanan is at least a real old style conservative, not the Neocon breed now running the GOP. And then, I don't like censorship anyway - so I left both parts.

So is there a difference between Obama and McCain? A guide for non-Americans

The readers of my blog know that I see no substantial difference between Obama and McCain, I have said so many times. The choice between these two is about as meaningful as the choice between the SA and the SS in Nazi Germany or between the Trotskysts and the Stalinists in the Soviet Union. In the context of the USA, I like the following metaphor: the choice between the two Presidential candidates is akin to the choice between (Kosher) Pepsi and (Kosher) Coke when what one really wants to choose is a bottle of good French wine. As the "kosher" label on these two soda-candidates indicates, both have been vetted by the Israel Lobby and both are puppets of the same Neocon puppeteers. To repeat, there is no *substantial* difference between these two puppets and the outcome of the next election will decide exactly nothing in terms of the future of the USA.

But difference do not need to be substantial, there are other, often salient differences which should not be overlooked: style, appeal, etc. And here, in the realm of non-substantial differences, Obama and McCain are dramatically different.

First, there is the personal stuff. Obama has undeniable charm, he has brains, he actually understands most of the issues he discusses and, at times, one can even get the feeling that Obama might have some actual beliefs or values. In contrast, McCain is a drooling idiot, clearly as senile as Reagan was in his late years, McCain has absolutely no idea what he is talking about, and his "personal charm" is one micron think: underneath the nasty nature of McCain's character is obvious. This is why Obama and McCain appeal to very different types of people.

Obama "sells" himself under the "change" slogan and most people voting for him are sick and tired of Dubya and what he has done to the USA. They want a different course for the USA and Obama dangles this hope in front of them: put me in power and I will stop this insanity.

McCain, on the other hand, offers what many have called "Dubya on steroids" - more of the same, only much more of it. Some say that where Dubya was a hollow man, McCain is an evil one. I agree. The reason why most non-Americans are absolutely baffled by the fact that, at least judging by the polls, McCain is trailing Obama by only a couple of points is that they fail to understand a simple truth: McCain appeals to the worst and the most barbarically stupid and ugly Americans out there.

Who are the McCain voters? They are a toxic mix of rednecks, trailer-trash, TV-watching ignoramuses mixed with Bible-thumping Evangelicals, "Dispensationalists", Southern Baptists, inbred hicks, mixed in with the rich guys who made a killing during the Dubya years, mixed in with NRA-types, flag waving militarists, good ole nigger-hating racists and, last but not least, most of the left side of the Bell Curve of American IQ: the amazing variety of morons populating the USA. Truly, the McCain voters are the worst of the worst, not only because they are so gloriously stupid, but because McCain appeals to their worst, most evil character traits.

Yeah, I know - Obama voters are naive as hell, they are kidding themselves, they believe in the constant stream of propaganda the idiot box is spewing at them. Obama voters sometime are ideological Party automatons which would vote for *any* Democrat (even a SOB like Liebermann); others will vote for him only because of the color of his skin. All this is true, but the contrast with the McCain voters could still not be greater.

To sum it up, while Obama voters are gullible McCain voters are evil to the core. Let me repeat this here: Obama voters will mostly vote for Obama because what they think is the good things they see in him. McCain voters will vote for him because of the evil the see in him.

McCain voters want to kill them AYE-rabs and "win" the war in Iraq, they want to teach them Russians and Chinese a lesson about how America is great, they want to kick the "Latinos" back across the Rio Grande, they want guns to shoot at any terrorist who might show up in their trailer park, they want to get cheap gas into their SUVs and fuck up any raghead who dares to mess with the US of A. Either that, or they want to keep the millions of dollars they made during Dubya's reign. Both of these groups have the same message to the rest of the world: fuck the UN! fuck the Eurotrash! fuck all them foreigners who dare to bash America the Greatest! America: love it or leave it! These colors don't run! Support our troops! Nuke all the al-Qaeda bases in Iran and Russia!!!

A good way to visualize these guys is to think of Neanderthal on his Harley-Davidson bike with a US flag and a KIA-MIA flag flapping behind his back, or a pimply nerd in a suit and tie on the way to a to a 'mega-church' meeting, or a lawyer or banker with a huge house (usually of breathtaking bad taste) on a lakeside or oceanfront. Sure - these are all very different creatures, but McCain unites them all in one all-encompassing promise of more violence, more boots, more guns, more uniforms, more wars and more money.

Does all this matter? Yes and no. No matter who gets elected, the Neocons and the Zionist Lobby will remain in power. Yes, I know the old "Anglo" guard (Rockfeller, Brezinsky & Co.) is pushing the Obama candidacy while the Neocons and the Israel Lobby (Liebermann, Giuliani & Co.) seem to be uniformly backing McCain, and there is some truth to this, but you can be sure that the ZioCon Puppet Masters have already made plans for the (still likely) victory of Obama and that, should he be elected, he will be as obedient to them as Bill Clinton was.

It is very important to stress here that there is a "Third America" out there. Its the America of Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, Pat Buchanan, Cynthia McKinney and, even more so, of the millions who disillusioned Americans from all walks of life who will simply not vote at all. I actually feel that they are the real majority in this country, the political system has simply totally excluded them from any form of representation. This "Third America" does not agree on everything, in fact, they disagree on many important issues, but they agree on a basic set of fundamental principles: they want the USA to be a *normal* country (and not an Empire), they want the USA to be a *republic* and not some bizarre "Fascist Plutocracy", they think that the national interests of the USA are more important than the ones of Israel, they think that wars should be fought only to repel an aggressor and that the USA has no business ruling the entire planet (something which even most Democrats and prospective Obama voters do *not* understand or agree with).

So here is what will happen in November: the worst of the worst will vote for McCain and the naive but generally well-meaning folks will vote Obama. Those who understand the system (be it on a gut-level or analytically) will either vote for Nader or simply say away from this entire circus.

See, the *real* function of the Presidential elections in the USA is *not* to bring the Executive Power in sync with the popular will. The real purpose is to offer a spectacle, a "secular liturgy" if you wish, whose main purpose in to instill a sense of relevance, of legitimacy of the system, into the American public. If for a full year the corporate media bombards the population with debates, polls, talkshows, reports and all sorts of dramatic (if irrelevant) scandals about the candidates this just must be an important event, no?! Actually not. It exactly that: a media-event with absolutely no relevance or purpose other than to numb out an already totally stupidified public.

So how should we, foreigners, look at this amazing "secular liturgy?

Here is my advice to my fellow "aliens" (this is how they call us in the USA). Set aside all other considerations and just remember these basic pointers:

a) if you hate the USA - hope for a McCain victory as he will run the US Empire into the ground even faster than Obama ever will.

b) if you love the USA - hope for an Obama victory: while Obama voters are naive, they are ashamed and disturbed by the burning hatred with which most countries now see the USA and they want to change that. Obama voters do want to be part of Planet Earth and they do sincerely care about the rest of the world (McCain voter don't give a damn and if you oppose them they will "motherfucking nuke you!" to teach you a lesson).

c) and if you love Americans, but hate what the USA has become - then reach out to the "Third America", show it your support and understanding. Never let the "Obama illusion" hide the existence of these millions of "other Americans" who suffer deeply from what is being done to their country and how are forced into a type of internal exile (just like real Russian patriots during the Soviet era).

As for my American readers, I can only urge you *not* to vote for any of the two clowns running for the two factions of the War Party. If you believe that the system can be changed from within, if you have any hope at all, then vote for Nader or McKinney (Ron Paul is not running anymore). And if you think (like I do) that the system is non-reformable, that it is a charade, that is is an integral part of the problem - then stay away from this "secular liturgy" and go and read Alexander Solzhenitsyn's brilliant and still highly relevant piece Live not by the Lie (and remember that the Soviet system was brought down exactly as predicted by Solzhenitsyn).

But whatever you do, do not vote for the presumed "lesser evil". Vote your conscience or don't vote at all.

The Saker

Joint press conference by Ron Paul, Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader

Tired of listening to the two factions (the Republicrats and Demoblicans) of the War Party?

Then listen to the voices of the *real* American opposition: