Yes, me. And others like me.
The vast majority of voters in America are simply not going to put in the required effort to educate themselves where each candidate stands on the myriad issues.
Just not gonna do it.
And that is why leaving the vote to numskulls like myself is the greatest of travesties.
The masses are so easily swayed. Votes can be manipulated, bought, or simply cast in outright ignorance.
And even those who put a semblance of effort in understanding the differences between the candidates, they are influenced by the all-powerful media which frames the discussion of the issues and the candidates (see how they're hamstringing the Kucinich campaign by excluding him from the debates).
Look at the two frontrunners in the Democratic party, Obama and Clinton. Most will agree that a vote for Clinton is a vote for the status quo. But few will admit the same of Obama.
A cursory look at his platform shows that he is a man of the establishment, for the establishment, with nary a chance of rocking the boat (h/t to gess).
Obama's team of advisors are a bunch of recycled politicians from Clinton's presidency. And one doesn't raise as much campaign funds as Obama ($80M as of last September) without serving the interests of some powerful lobbying groups in Washington. And a closer look at his foreign policy shows many similarities to that of Mitt Romney's.
I'm afraid that many Muslims will get lulled into voting for him, in the same manner that they voted for Bush 8 years ago. The man is charismatic, saying all the right things, and is promising change, yet has accomplished very little on the political scene (domestically and especially internationally).
And then there are those who are advocating voting for these Obama/Clinton based on their racial and gender minority status. (Many voted with that same spirit in the past two elections - voting for the candidate from the mentally handicapped minority group - and look where that got us?...OK, that was cheesy - couldn't help myself)
But to even suggest that a leader be elected based on gender or race is extremely ignorant. But I'm sure most votes will be cast with that being the major factor.
How pathetic.
And don't even get me started on the change-resistant nature of the two-party system. What a joke!
Let me be clear that I'm not against representational governance. I'm just fed up with all this hoopla about western-style democracy being the greatest thing since sliced bread. Lets acknowledge the absurdity of the claim that democracy is the height of man's political evolution.
WAW
2 days ago
17 comments:
Word up, bro... That's probably like the first blog of yours that I have to agree with you 100%!
Naeem, don't hate, appreciate! You're just mad that a black man might be President before a nice Pakastani guy! LOL! :-)
~Sahra
Naeem,
That's an excellent analysis of the situation but what suggestions or ideas do you have to change or improve the situation and address these problems. Can you do anything more that just writing a blog about the issues. If you have no solutions to offer, then what's wrong with calling you a raving lunatic. You should use your time a bit more constructively by working on solutions.
;)
As-Salaamu 'alaikum,
I have always seen another problem with imposing democracy in the Muslim world, namely that there has always been a compromise in the western parliamentary system. In the UK, we have a parliament in which the person who gets the most votes in any constituency gets the seat, which means that a party can theoretically get 30% of the votes across the country and not get a single seat, or get 40% or less throughout the country but win an absolute majority in Parliament based on being the biggest single group. In Germany, they have proportional representation, which has led to a small third party holding the balance of power. The upshot is that western democracy delivers minority rule for decades on end.
That's a compromise the west has been willing to make; imposed in another setting, it could cause riots or civil war, particularly when the parties are ethnically-based and the system has been designed to favour one group or another.
BismillaharRahmanirRahim
as-salaamu 'alaikum. brnaeem, you are on the money IMHO. Today's Democracy spiel is a merely a well designed for a more complex elitist republic or perhaps something that is beyond our current naming conventions.
-Saifuddin
woops bad English minutes before fajr... but you get the point. LOL!
AA-
@Junaid, "That's probably like the first blog of yours that I have to agree with you 100%!"
Gee thanks for that reality check. And here I am thinking I'm making great strides in my intellectual development. ;-)
@Sahra, HAHA...good one. But I'm not really worried, cause a nice Pakistani dude will be president long before any Somali sister. :-)
@Arif, good one.
AA- Yusuf,
"That's a compromise the west has been willing to make; imposed in another setting, it could cause riots or civil war, particularly when the parties are ethnically-based and the system has been designed to favour one group or another.”
Good points Yusuf. I agree that there are compromises built-in to the western democratic system, specifically designed to prevent any drastic change (read revolution).
That’s fine (and to be fair, all systems will have compromises and limitations – none are perfect), but my rant was about how the pro-democracy supporters are touting the mere act of casting a vote as being the single greatest act of human liberation.
In fact, I don’t even believe that having a say in choosing one’s leadership is so important to most people (witness the mass disillusionment on election days) – the more critical factor is does the leadership listen to its people once in power and does it struggle to provide basic justice.
How they get to power is less important than what they do with that power once they get it.
"How they get to power is less important than what they do with that power once they get it."
The "how" - if done properly and fairly - I believe will hold the representative more accountable as long as a sound checks and balances system (one that the US 'says' it has but we can see what they really have) and will result in a positive "do with that power once they get it". In other words, I don't think your statement is entirely sound. If a system of accountability is established in which candidates must live up to what they say they will do ( or at least attempt to do), I think the entire political arena may better itself and lead to a more viable style of democracy.
Whatever the case, Obama is far better that Bush. At this sad place in post-modernism, humanity - and especially Muslims globally - need an Anti-war president (or at least one that is not as reactionary as Bush). Yes it sucks - but not as much as Bush vacuums! Good points though!
Salaam Naeem...
Some of us are doing our homework on political candidates, okay? The idea that people are voting along gender or racial lines is totally stupid, and only applies I think to a lot of old white men--voting for other old white men. Among Democrats, women are voting for Obama (instead of Clinton), and blacks are voting for Clinton (instead of Obama) so the whole voting by race or gender is just a very ignorant perception about what is really going on.
Saying that Obama would be as bad as Bush is not true. The way Obama looks at foreign policy is fundamentally different than how Bush does. And what should be of a major concern for American voters this election (and which surprising isn't, I'm sad to say) is human rights. The way Obama looks at civil rights is not the same way Bush looks at them.
As someone who has seen Obama debate in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, you can tell that he actually cares what he is talking about, and what the outcome is. On the other hand, Bush really didn't know much about foreign policy before entering the office and as that became increasingly important in his presidency he had to rely on his vice president and secretary of defense who unfortunately have taken this country (and the world) down a very dark road. And he has also practically stolen basic rights of Americans, and with the free permission of Congress to do so. Obama doesn't come from a background that ties him to the political sphere. You're right that like other politicians he is beholden to the lobbyists, but his outlook on the world from the seat of the president would be fundamentally different than Bush's, and that makes a different.
All that aside, the candidate that Muslims really ought to focus on for the remainder of the presidential primary season is none other than Ron Paul.
AA- Abu Layth,
I appreciate your comments.
"The "how" - if done properly and fairly - I believe will hold the representative more accountable as long as a sound checks and balances system"
But aren't the two exclusive? Meaning, 'how' a leader gets appointed/elected is separate from the system of accountability.
"If a system of accountability is established in which candidates must live up to what they say they will do ( or at least attempt to do), I think the entire political arena may better itself and lead to a more viable style of democracy."
I completely agree with your statement - accountability is essential. However, my contention was with the method of electing the leader.
I'm not sold on the democratic process as espoused by the west (one person, one vote). I care less HOW the leader gets into power - could be an appointment by a Loya Jirga (as seen in Afghanistan) comprised of tribal elders or it could be a military coup (as bad as Musharraf has been, he has actually brought more good to Pakistan than his two democratically elected predecessors - Bhutto/Sharif) or it could be a Communist-style leader like Castro - I care more about the actions and results of the leadership.
AA- Amy,
'Some of us are doing our homework on political candidates, okay?'
So nice to see you back, guns blazing and all. :-)
'so the whole voting by race or gender is just a very ignorant perception about what is really going on.'
What are you basing this on? I was going by famed feminist Gloria Steinem's recent NY Op-Ed piece on the need for all feminists to vote for Clinton.
I also read this in a recent CNN piece:
'"Obama's lead over Clinton among black men is more than 50 points, and among black women, once a Clinton stronghold, Obama has an 11 point advantage," said CNN polling director Keating Holland.'
I agree that *educated* voters will vote based on more substantial issue, but c'mon, be serious - how many educated voters are really out there?
This piece does a nice job of breaking up the different black voting blocs. I took note of these camps:
- The "I'm Voting For Obama Because He's Black" camp
- The "I'm Not Voting For Obama Because He's An Oreo" camp
- The "I'm Not Voting For Hillary Because She's White"
I agree with your assessment of Obama being a more serious politician than Bush ever was.
My point in comparing them wasn't in their political outlooks. It was more in the way that each of them is being looked at as the Muslim savior. Bush was seen in that same light eight years ago and I fear Muslims have similarly high expectations of Obama this go around.
I hope I'm wrong.
Amy, one more thing. Maybe you need to take a break from your elite, college-educated buddies and come down from your ivory tower and hang out with morons like me. :-P
That's where you'll see how the people on the street vote...hehe.
Seriously sis, how many people do you know (besides yourself) who have actually watched a Foreign Relations Committee hearing?
Only a minority watch CNN, so how many do you think tune into CSPAN?!
Ron Paul as Sister Amy said. Spread the word Naeem.
Naeem,
I've tried to follow exit polls to see the race/gender vote, and I really think when the South Carolina democrat primary is going to roll around it'll prove me right. You see, there are a lot more black voters in South Carolina than Iowa and New Hampshire and Wyoming and Nevada COMBINED!! And so far, they seem really reluctant (based on polls of course) to swing towards Obama, especially based on gender.
I'm not so far away, in NC, where there is also a larger population of African Americans than in those other states, and generally there is a lot of skepticism around here that a black man could actually win the presidency.
On the other hand, I think it should be obvious to people (though it's not) that Hillary Clinton is such a polarizing force that she would really just energize Republicans against the Democratic party, while Obama actually gives them more trust in that party. He's a good rhetorician.
The rhetoric on the Republican side is so hate-filled though, that it's really frustrating to watch. The more I see, the more I would hate to see any of them become president (excluding Ron Paul, of course!!) Then I remember I'm moving to Saudia inshaaAllah and it doesn't seem so bad... lol!
But you make a good point... that I can't really think of anyone else who watches CSPAN. Or CSPAN2 (which is where I think I first saw him actually.) :-( What's wrong with this country!?
On the other hand, for people who are too busy at 11pm to watch CSPAN debates, there is always Foreign Affairs which has published an essay from all the major (and possibly minor) candidates on foreign policy, over the last several months.
AA- Arif,
"Ron Paul as Sister Amy said. Spread the word Naeem."
Ron Paul proves my point about how crooked US democracy is - the man has a snowball's chance in hell, and that's because of the two-party system combined with the overpowering effect of the media.
So, a vote for Ron Paul would be as good as wasting your vote or not voting at all...
Yo, voting is a waste of time. It's all the same. Candidate A or B it's all image no substance.
The people with real power are th ones who own this country.
They get to offer you what flavor of crap you want. Vanilla or chocolate? Be careful though. They are artificially flavored.
Just stay home on election day.
Post a Comment