A commenter on my previous post asked what alternative solutions do I propose (instead of voting Obama) and I responded that third party alternatives exist, as well as countless other grassroots organizations that are struggling for real change.
I find it truly objectionable when people respond that a vote for any third party candidate is a wasted vote. Why have we accepted this predicament where only two parties are representative of the broad spectrum of the American people? Isn't that the real question? We're accepting defeat when we allow the debate to be framed between these two parties. They do NOT represent all the varying views that exist.
We need to step outside the preset parameters of the Repub-Dem debate. Its not about Obama versus McCain. Its about the masses versus the elite.
Educate yourself with this debate between presidential candidates, Ralph Nader and Chuck Baldwin. Although I don't necessarily agree on all the issues with these candidates, I stand behind any and every attempt at busting the two-party mafia that runs America.
[Youtube Link]
The real shame is that most people will never watch this debate. They need 30-sec soundbites or else their ADD kicks in.
WAW
3 days ago
19 comments:
Dude, I think it is far too late in the race to decide to place your vote with a 3rd party now. The reality is mathematical, your vote on a 3rd party would most probably be a waste, whereas it may be better to vote for the lesser of the two apparant evils that are heading the race.
In the future you may push for the 3rd party or underdogs, but right now, its not likely any 3rd party will win.
Ralph Nader :
I was at my Princeton reunion the other day, and a young alumnus came up to me - he was very kind - and he said "You know, I really like what you're doing - I like what you did - but please don't run."
I said "Do you realize what you are saying?"
And he said "Yes, I said please don't run."
I said "You're telling me not to use my First Amendment rights of speech, assembly, and petition inside the electoral arena. You're telling me to shut up. Are you aware of what you're saying?"
He said "I understand, I understand, I like what you're doing, but please don't run."
So I went through and I said "Well, would you tell those voters instead of trying to determine which one was worse between the Democrats and the Whigs, the two major parties in the 19th century, and instead cut out and voted for the Liberty Party, which was the anti-slavery party - would you say to those candidates, 'Don't run'?"
And he sort of paused.
And I said "How about the people who refused to go least-worst between the Republicans and Democrats on women's suffrage? Would you tell those candidates 'don't run'? What do you say to that?"
And he paused.
And I took it up to date and I said "Would you tell Buchanan not to run?"
And he said "I understand what you are saying, but please don't run."
And I said "You know, unwittingly, you are engaging in a politically bigoted statement. Because you can oppose, and you can support, any candidates you want. But when you are saying to someone 'don't run' you are saying to someone 'do not speak, do not petition, do not assemble inside the electoral arena.'"
Now I'm saying this because I'm sure you've had these conversations with people. Look at the word spoiler. Spoiler is a contemptuous word of political bigotry. They do not accuse George W. Bush of being the spoiler in 2000, and last I heard he got more votes than I did, vis-a-vis Al Gore. It's only the independent and third parties that are called spoilers.
And think of the hubris here - these two parties have spoiled our elections, they've spoiled our government, they've spoiled our politics - and to have the temerity to say to someone who wants to reform the process that they are spoilers - they have no sense of humor - I mean, how do you satire satire?
Assalamu Alaikum.
Sorry, one more post, and I'll be quiet. :)
I think brother Naeem is just pointing out alternatives, and to "think outside the box." If you live in a "red" or "blue" state, for instance, you may want to explore voting for others. If I remember correctly, if Nader or another wins 5% of the vote, they get federal funding in the next election. It takes time to build up viable third parties, and a start has to be made somewhere...
Saif.
Assalamu Alaikum.
I started listening to the debate, and Howard Zinn is now actually voting for Nader (not Obama).
Saif,
Salaam Naeem,
Don't you think that titling your post "Open Your Eyes" implies you think that your readers' eyes are closed? That they are not giving due consideration to the alternatives before them?
So you don't want people to vote for Obama... so when they ask, "Then what?" your response is to shrug your shoulders, say "Open Your Eyes," and you offer a 3rd party candidate?
I for one will be voting for a "3rd party candidate" in a local election (gubernatorial) which I think he has no chance of winning because I am rather disgusted with his opponents. But in a presidential election when you say to vote for a third party candidate, I want to ask you why vote for someone who is just someone else, among the elite (though slightly scorned by them) who also does not represent my beliefs or ideals?
Especially when there are other candidates who at the very least claim to sympathize those ideals, and quite frankly are more likely to be able to act on those sympathies?
Hmm. I see your point. I also agree with the first commenters view.
this is a very delicate topic.
haha maybe i should run and make the third party popular, u guys cud vote for me.
=]. haha.
-The Muslim Kid-
I don't think people want to perpetuate two horse races when it comes to elections, rather they are just trying to be pragmatic. They are looking at the probabilities and making a decision to try and push for the most achievable lesser of the two evils.
The process itself is fundamentally flawed since it is dependent on money and media.
However on a smaller scale at a local level, it would be much easier to break the mould.
AA-
@Anon, I agree, if your scope is limited to this election race. However, our focus must be long term. Educating the people on the injustices of the undemocratic system cannot stop after November 4.
Its not about winning or losing. Its about standing for your principles, even if you're the only one.
@Saif, "Howard Zinn is now actually voting for Nader (not Obama)."
Hmmm...that's very interesting. Where did you hear that? In his latest interview with Real News Network, he had fallen into the 'pragmatic' school of Obama being the lesser of two evils...nice to know that he may have 'opened his eyes' :-)
AA-
@Amy, "So you don't want people to vote for Obama... so when they ask, "Then what?" your response is to shrug your shoulders, say "Open Your Eyes," and you offer a 3rd party candidate?"
Partially. More importantly, I advocate joining any grassroots organization that is intent on changing the current system of governance - even if it means putting aside some of your beliefs.
I would hope that Muslims would spearhead such orgs, but in reality, many are too afraid to stand up in the post 9-11 atmosphere.
"I want to ask you why vote for someone who is just someone else, among the elite (though slightly scorned by them) who also does not represent my beliefs or ideals?"
Good point Amy. The intent behind such a move would be to introduce *real* change to the system - that voters are not accepting the two-party fraud anymore.
I still beleive that true change comes from *outside* the system, NOT from within (contrary to your comment in another post). The Prophet (saw) was a perfect example of that...
"and quite frankly are more likely to be able to act on those sympathies?"
Really? And which of your sympathies are you so sure that Obama will act upon?
@verbalizations, "They are looking at the probabilities and making a decision to try and push for the most achievable lesser of the two evils."
That's not pragmatic - that's defeatist. That's unprincipled. I wrote about that attitude in my previous post and my next post will address it some more...
"The process itself is fundamentally flawed since it is dependent on money and media."
Exactly.
Until the US changes from a presidential system to a parliamentary system, any third-party vote is wasted. That's how the game is rigged.
JDSg has a very important point.
Change from outside
==
coup?
AA-
@JDsg, "That's how the game is rigged."
I'm glad you used the word rigged cause the current 2-party electoral system reminds me of the rigged games at the carnivals - where no one ever wins.
The real losers are those who keep throwing their money at the games, hoping they'll one day get the ring around the bottle or knock down the cans.
@Amy, not a coup sis. Just a good 'ol fundamental revolution. ;-)
With everyone posing alternatives, I go back to your original post about the the prophet's (PBUH) solution. What made it so different than the options and choices that are being discussed in this blog is that it was viable. What viable alternatives are being offered here? Perhaps on the local level, that is a viable solution but on the national stage? Appears as if you are advocating the role of the ostrich.
AA- Anon,
Not sure what you're getting at.
"What viable alternatives are being offered here?"
What's not viable with working at the grassroots level? What's not viable in educating the masses? What's not viable in opening people's eyes on who is really running the system?
Why is it not viable to call a spade a spade and expose the fraud behind the democracy of the US?
Why is it not viable to call out unjust American policies (both foreign and domestic) and demand a real change?
Again, I'm not clear what you're alluding to...
"Perhaps on the local level, that is a viable solution but on the national stage?"
Like the bumper sticker, 'Think Globally, Act Locally'
BismillahirRahmanirRahim
Salamu'alaykum,
In the end the reality is the system is broken. Voting for a third party which has been unable to raise the funds or demonstrate the poll numbers, is a complete waste. They have been unable to even gather a respectable minority.
Weak unelectable candidates like this are weeded out in the two party system early on. With third parties they find a way to get their name on the ballot, but its just as pointless.
Frankly, the entire system is pointless. Its far better to deal with the hand we are dealt and follow the Sunnah in these matters.
Medinah was built on the sweat and blood of believers with the Prophet (S) as their leader.
What leaders like Shaykh Abdul Kerim are doing today to build communities of believers goes much further than anything a vote in national politics can accomplish in changing the lives of everyday Muslims.
Salaams dear Brother Naeem,
I understand your perspective: I voted for Nader myself in the 2000 Presidential campaign and Gonzalez in the 2003 SF mayoral race.
The former was a mistake that has haunted me over the last 8 horrifying years. Would Gore in office have invaded Afghanistan? Most likely.
Would he have invaded Iraq? Most unlikely.
So is there a "lesser of two evils"? Absolutely.
More important, however, are two points:
I respect Nader's lifetime commitment to being a citizen advocate. And I would never stand in the way of his 1st Amendment rights to run as he sees fit.
But I think Nader himself hit it on the nail here: "between the Democrats and the Whigs, the two major parties in the 19th century, and instead cut out and voted for the Liberty Party, which was the anti-slavery party"
In a system currently favoring two incumbent parties, the independents, Greens, Peace party etc., all have to make a concerted effort to build a **grassroots** movement. All viable, credible movements - whether religious or political - begin at the grassroots, NOT at the highest office in the land.
Matt Gonzalez ran for the Green Party and had he been elected here in my city of San Francisco, it would have made him the first Green mayor of a major American city. He ran a great, lean campaign and came very close to winning against the heavily-funded Democratic candidate.
But after he lost, his high profile campaign wasn't built upon and there were no real contenders in the next SF mayoral elections, to the extent that the Democratic incumbent didn't even bother to campaign.
What I'm saying is, the Liberty Party, the anti-slavery party that Nader mentioned, may have been a minority but it had the trust of the people who elected it to go and represent them in some of the highest offices in the nation. And, the party understood that even a minority is necessary to build alliances and defeat - or pass - legislation and that gave them power at a vital time.
Building a viable movement takes decades. But when the Green (or any other) Party is able to point to city councilors, mayors and Congresspeople who are doing good work across the nation, they will be able to run a campaign built not just on the rhetoric or values of one Presidential candidate, but on the trust and support of the people and the record of its officers.
Thank you for bringing up this important topic.
Warmly,
Baraka
AA- Yursil and Baraka,
Thank you for your comments. Although you both are saying different things, I tend to agree with both of you.
I agree, Yursil, that the system is broken. I agree that returning to the Sunnah is always the perfect way. But I find your approach of choosing to abstain from any political commitment to also be ineffective. The Prophet (saw) struggled to change the system from the ground up. He got involved in the greater community. I can't speak to your activities, but many Sufis I know choose to stay out of politics. Is that what you're suggesting?
Baraka, great points on the grassroots methodology of introducing. I couldn't agree more. I just disagree on the stop-gap solution of voting for the lesser of two evils in the meantime...
BismillahirRahmanirRahim
Salamu'alaykum
two quotes:
--
But I find your approach of choosing to abstain from any political commitment to also be ineffective
--
The Prophet (saw) struggled to change the system from the ground up. He got involved in the greater community.
--
I love when you talk straight, so lets talk straight :)
What does changing the system from the ground up mean? What does 'getting involved in the greater community' mean to you in application to today?
The Prophet (S) didn't get 'involved' in any greater community. He (S) built a new community and invited people to join him.
Did he compromise a single Islamic principle? Ever?
I think you don't know what you are talking about when it comes to 'my approach' as it doesn't involve abstaining.
I think you are speaking from a misinformed viewpoint about the Sufi ways. The sufi way is the Prophet's (S) way, as explained by his inheritors. I don't think it gets any better than that when it comes to a balanced approach.
So 'my way' involves taking guidance from the spiritual inheritors of the Prophet (S).
The Islamic way teaches us how to deal with communities and people around us, with guidance and consultation from those who are in authority.
That means the reaction to each situation for each time is therefore dynamic and living.
It is not fixed in 'do-not-pariticpate' mode.
Nor is it fixed in 'lose your soul for power' mode.
.
Post a Comment