WIP

So I realized today I am not a Democrat.    You would think I would have figured that out sometime in the last 39 years, but nope, it took me this long.  I was reading something about Senator Obama and his centrist moves now that he has the nomination and I was frothing and muttering and doing Supreme Court math.

And I realized - dude was always a centrist.  Hilary Clinton is a centrist.  Except for Dennis Kucinich, all those cats are mostly way to the right of what I think proper.   
Since I was a kid what I have been is not-Republican.  I looked over there in about 1982 and thought, I'll take the opposite of that.  But there is only so long you can define yourself negatively and the opposite of Republican is a wide open field.  One not occupied by the Democratic National Committee.

I am not a Democrat.

I've been reading a terrific blog recently:  Ta-Nehisi Coates.  The thing I like about him is that when he has gaps in his knowledge that might be influencing his thinking, his expression, he absolutely cops to it.   Which strengthens his writing, because he is thinking about what he's missing, thinking about his own bias, thinking about what there is left to ask.

Jon Carroll is another favorite of mine. His column yesterday was about the fallacy of believing in answers.

I grew up thinking that if you couldn't defend every idea you had to the death, with talking points and bluster, you should keep your mouth shut.  Better to be thought dull than ill informed.  I hate conflict and debate makes me a bit queasy.  So many people think that having their opinion respected means you are not allowed yours, not allowed yours with a big stick and a torch-carrying mob and a lot of righteous outrage.  But maybe the point is that you have your ideas and you talk about them with other people - not to win, but to learn.  I've been practicing having opinions and not feeling like that makes me a target of the mob.  It's going pretty well.

I was going to speculate about what I am, politically - socialist? anarchist? full of despair? progressive? independent? constitutional activist? constitutional purist? left-leaning liberal? crazy hippie pinko? - but I think that defeats the point.  Once I slap a label on it, am I still asking myself what I believe?  Am I still developing ideas? 

Mostly not. 

But I think leaving the definition open is very different from defining myself negatively.  Is there a political party that believes in not having an answer for everything?  That's the one I want.  The player to be named later.

Comments

[Kathleen]

Excuse me. Room A. Room B. Room C. Is that it? May I stop now? Very good plan. But...Room D. Room E. Oh, my.

[twinsetellen]

Instant runoffs, as commented above, would immediately change things. And that is why the current politicians will make it very difficult to get to instant runoffs. They would make a 3rd party viable - we could have our vote of conscience AND our vote of pragmatism.

[charli]

Sorry, for a 2nd comment, but I meant to add this before.

Actually, Clinton was more "left" than Barak on healthcare. And, even more frustrating, she fully acknowledged that the problem with her healthcare plan when Bill was president was that the plan began at the compromise position instead of insisting on healthcare for everyone from the start. (I'd heard long ago that Hillary personally agreed with national health care and thought it was really the sensible thing, but that she didn't think it would work politically.)

So, not only is Barak more conservative on this issue, but he's not even learning from the mistakes of the very recent past.

I will vote for him, but I'm worried.....

Juno, what was it that made you like Barak so much before? For ages I've been wondering what he spiked the Kool Aid with.

Thanks, as always for a great blog.

[charli]

Yep. I've been fuming about it since B. Clinton in '92 -- who was the most conservative person I'd ever voted for....

Somehow the "liberal press" has allowed the crazy right wingers to hijack not only the Republicans, but the Dems too. That's what Nader meant in his misguided and overlong campaign. We really do have him to blame for the disgrace of the US and the horrible things we've done in the world. And, yes, I worked for him many years ago.

[farm-witch]

Here, here!

People have been asking us to label ourselves for years and the most accurate that we can come up with is 'brilliantly disguised as weird but boringly mundane'. We live off-grid, and in many ways meet the stereotype that our small town has given us, 'granola'. Yet, we're farmers so we're not oober confrontational, we love wine so we're not good fundamentalist material - and we talk to sheep so short of a family set of straightjackets - we're baffled as to what our mascot or 'poster theme' would be.

Maybe....we're all generic! Just imagine a great void generic label with the fine print reading, 'not republican'.

[Carrie]

Yes, I frequently don't talk because I don't want to be shot down for not knowing everything. But I love the comment of being "Not-Republican." And I don't have any answers about political parties, except that I despair this year when I look at our two main choices. Remember when you were going to move to Canada? I hear that more and more from my friends. *sigh*

[Sylvia]

I think of you as a conscientious, observant person with a good mind and a wonderful wit.

From what I've seen, Obama is an opportunistic Marxist. Could I vote for YOU instead? Please?

The conservatives are complaining that the Republican candidate is too centrist, too.

Wishing for a time machine, a magic wand, and a representative government...

[CDR]

Don't usually post here, but had to laugh. I'm a centrist (notice the small "c"). Neither Clinton nor Obama can be considered centrists, mostly because it had nothing to do with the "center". Is Obama moving toward the "center", why yes Red Riding Hood he is. Why? Because this is his policy position? Doubtful based on his (admittedly meager) very liberal voting record. He's moving toward the center because he wants MY vote. Mine and those of my ilk. We who really don't bother to identify with an ideology. (And feel no shame.) We vote for whomever we think will get the job done. He has the Republican/Bush haters,Democrats, the majority of the ethnic vote, and the far left howlers, already. He won't get the Regan Conservatives, the righteous Right, or the far-right wing whiners, and won't bother, it's us. Me and my cronies. And he is getting the advice that talking to Glamour Magazine, and Larry King is the way into our little black non-partisan hearts. Not happenin' babe. Show us the meat.

We don't need another party. Just people who are brave enough to stop hating and start thinking for themselves.

[Dyepotgirl]

Oh Juno I'm so with you on that one! I refuse to belong to either party. I'm not a Republican and I'm not a Democrat either. When asked, I tell everyone that I'm an independent, not the party, but a independent person and thinker who gets frustrated with politicians who constantly say one thing when they really mean and then do the opposite. Just once I would like to vote for a presidential candidate that I really like, not just chose between what I think is the lesser of two evils. Sigh! As for debating, I love it. I don't love arguing, but I love debating, which is totally different to me than arguing. I find that when I discuss and debate a topic, besides learning about someone else's point of view and why they think that way, I also learn more about what I think and feel. Why I believe like I do. It clarifies and crystallizes my real thoughts and feeling about a subject. I'm not sure what I'm going to do about this election. I don't want a Republican but I'm really not keen on Obama either. It's a shame!

[k]

You forgot "populist." And my recurring vote for national anthem is...
"This land is your land, this land is my land...."
Maybe I should wait to vote for the first person with nerve enough to get up and sing that.

[Phil Boncer]

And it's never going to get a "viable third party" until lots and lots of people stop being afraid to do "little more than take their vote from their nearest Big Two candidate". One at a time, we each need to have the courage to do this, and to encourage others to do the same. It will never happen without people willing to start laying the groundwork, to have the courage to work toward the future instead of merely fearing the present.

PhilB

[Marin]

Oh, see... I read the first sentence and thought, "Huh. Who knew Juno was a respectable Republican?" I shoulda known that you may be respectable in a hundred ways but you'd probably never be Republican.

Unfortunately, anybody who votes in those grey areas does little more than take their vote from their nearest Big Two candidate.

As my brother and I often lament, "Holy f!@#!^% cats, does this country need a viable third party."

[Jenni]

Late to see your post, but it resonates with me. This may be my first presidential election where I don't vote for one of the big 2. Frankly, I am tired of politics being black and white - one choice or another, right or wrong, will work/will fail. Life is what happens in the grey/gray areas, isn't it?

[Sarahfish]

You and I struggle with some of the very same things. While the political situation in the US is very different from the one here, I still struggle to find a party I want to fully align myself with. Last election I voted NDP, mainly because I think they would be a ripping good Official Opposition party with the Liberals in power. They still need to grow before they can really run the country (in my opinion, anyway...), but they pretty much stand for what I believe in. Problem with that though is that we ended up with the Conservatives in power and now look. Ug. So what's a girl to do? Anyway, I know I still need to learn a lot. I am not big on showing my opinion off too much either, since I *know* I have a lot to learn. I suppose all that's to say I hear ya. And who knows what I would do if I were in the States?

[all]

It seems there are a lot of us out here who definitely aren't Republican, but that doesn't mean we're a Democrat. Which only points to the failure of a two-party system.

I wonder if the long tail of the internet that has been a boon for musicians and film-makers who aren't of the mainstream could help with this. I imagine it could if we could figure out how to harness it for an exchange of ideas and explorations on topic political that could lead to groups who feel affiliated forming and making serious runs for seats in government.

I've watched as sites such as DailyKos have used their massive outreach to have people across the nation support down ticket candidates in places they may never even have heard of before. The goal: get more Democrats elected. It has been wildly successful. I'd love to see a similar system worked out for a multi-party movement.

And, hey, congrats on the opening up to the world of thinking and exploring out loud. There certainly are people out there who think it's all about forcing people to see things their way, but there are plenty of us simply like to keep the questions alive and kicking. (It doesn't exempt us from becoming a little over-zealous once in awhile, but we're more likely to respond to a call back to the land of the open-minded.)

Oh, another thing that would help in this country is if we changed the way our votes counted. IN 2000, if we had been able to vote our priority - say, "Nader is my #1 choice, Gore is my #2" and the votes were counted with weight, George Bush would have been curious footnote in history because he was the son of an actual president. The "one candidate takes all my vote" approach lends itself to choosing the least evil that you think is likely to win and doesn't allow the true expression of our political desires.

[Carol]

I don't actually fit in with any party in my country. The closest party to my opinions is Libertarian. Yeah. Bet even they have some ideas I can't live with either. I hate thatvoting has turned into "what paltform is the least offensive?" As opposed to,"I can get behind that!"

[Dr.Steph]

I never thought you were a democrat either ;) As a Canadian, democratic socialist, usually voting for the New Democratic Party, I find all US politicians too far to the right for my liking. It's tough to have to decide, especially when the stakes for choosing not to choose can be very high, ie you have to live with the results even if you don't participate.

Even my chosen politicians don't do what I would like for the most part. I figure it has a lot to do with the system itself rather than their convictions (at least that makes me feel better). I have learned to separate how I vote with what I think. I only vote occasionally, but I think all the time ;) and I can do things about what I think beyond the ballot box.

Which also means I can move about amongst the various labels...

[Susan]

I've never thought that either/any (other than those that subscribe to Sharia law) political party even remotely suggests that it alone holds all the answers. And I think answers are just as valid as questions. Many questions do have valid, true and indeed even absolute answers. Many do not.

I don't agree with all of the positions of leaders of my political party either, but I think that I am closest in my own values to that party (not necessarily any particular candidate) than any other, so I define myself not by the party per se, but by the persuasion. In other words, I am a Republican, but I don't really identify with any Republicans who receive the lion's share of quotes in the media. I prefer to define myself as a conservative, which stays closer to the actual values by which I try to live my life - not the candidates who represent (or are supposed to represent) the people who think and live similarly.

Interesting post. Thought-provoking.

[Lucy]

Though in another part of the world entirely, our thinking is much aligned.

It is difficult to subscribe, completely, to the entire set of rules offered by just one group.

Is this the curse/saving grace of Gen X, I wonder?

[Philip Boncer]

donna lee wrote: "Maybe a good write in candidate? It would feel like throwing away a vote but maybe it would salve my conscience." I believe that voting your actual conscience is not only NOT "throwing away your vote", it the ONLY way NOT to "throw away your vote". The best hope for ever getting this system back into the hands of the people is for those people to vote for and support the candidates they actually want, and not settle for the usual calculated-to-be-just-a-tiny-bit-less-terrible-and-corrupt-than-the-other candidate. So write someone in, or even better find a third-party candidate you actually can stand behind in good conscience (and at this point I don't care who it is -- Libertarian Party, Socialist Party, Constitution Party, American Communist Party, Ice Cream and Pony Party, whatever) and join the push to make it possible for alternatives to the Big Two to have a fair chance.

PhilB

[Tana]

I loved this part:
"I was going to speculate about what I am, politically - socialist? anarchist? full of despair? progressive? independent? constitutional activist? constitutional purist? left-leaning liberal? crazy hippie pinko? - but I think that defeats the point. Once I slap a label on it, am I still asking myself what I believe? Am I still developing ideas?"

Exactly.
Thank you for sharing this - it resonates with me very strongly.

[donna lee]

This year I am in a true quandry. As November approaches I still have no idea whom I will vote for. There is no question that I will vote but who gets my vote? As all of the candidates that I thought were the most thoughtful and had the best ideas dropped out, it has become more and more difficult to make a decision. Maybe a good write in candidate? It would feel like throwing away a vote but maybe it would salve my conscience. I've never felt this undecided before and I must say it's interesting because the people around me are all trying to make me see that their way is the right and only way.

[charli]

Yep! That's right. And, even worse, "The Mistake" that Clinton said she learned from her failed compromise health plan when she was in the White House. Well, good ole Obama IS MAKING THE EXACT SAME MISTAKE. Which means, his health plan is much more favorable to the fat cat pharms and docs and whoever else it is that benefits, than Hilary Clinton's was. I must admit through the very long primary I was wondering how Barak got so many people to drink the Kool-Aid.

It makes me feel so much better to see you think so too. (I had the advantage of seeing it sooner because I was immersed in politics for many years.)

[MARDEL]

I think I have always known I wasn't a Democrat or a Republican but for a long time I claimed allegiance to the Democrats just to avoid argument because generally I avoid confrontation. However the Democrats have finally pushed me away. It seemed quite sad, and telling, that the only candidate in the Democratic primary that I could begin to agree with was Kucinich, and he didn't stand a chance. The Democrats and Republics seem to spend more time and energy talking up how they are not the other, rather than saying anything interesting. Kind of like the pot calling the kettle black.

As to what I am, well there is far too much emphasis on labels, perhaps because t hey allow us to not think too much.

Keep writing. I love reading your posts.

[Phil Boncer]

Baraka wrote: "I would have voted for a Ron Paul/Kucinich ticket without hesitation regardless of which of them led the slate"

+1 to that. I'm closer to Ron than Dennis personally, but I respect Dennis and would have voted for him.

Baraka wrote: "And most importantly, to scrutinize carefully the supporters of any candidate or ballot measure. That alone will tell you a lot about whether you should or shouldn't support it."

I think that's a factor, but not most important at all. I find that often good candidates or measures get supported by some people I otherwise disagree with. Or another way to look at it is that no person is ALL bad, thus any "bad" person will still have good qualities and support some good thing, thus most good things will have some "bad" supporters. I think it is far more critical to look directly at the actual candidate or measure and what the effects of that will be. I once read a quote I quite liked (and have forgotten who said it initially): "An idea is not responsible for the people who believe in it."

And, while it is important and responsible to pay attention to politics, it is much better for you if it doesn't take over your brain entirely -- that way leads to bitterness.

"We ought to hear at least one little song every day, read a good poem, see a first-rate painting, and if possible speak a few sensible words."
~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

PhilB