Voter Disobedience: Solidarity and Disloyalty

The government itself, which is only the mode which the people have chosen to execute their will, is equally liable to be abused and perverted before the people can act through it. -- Henry David Thoreau, Civil Disobedience

There are three facts we should keep in mind these last few days before the election.

1. It's highly likely that a majority of the eligible voters will not vote.
2. Many polls show that the percentage of undecided likely voters is greater than the percentage of Nader voters, even in key states.
3. Given the way the polls have shifted over the past two months, a good chunk of Bush's current support is "soft" at least in the sense that those folks would consider voting for Gore.

From this we can tentatively conclude that it's not clear that Nader's a spoiler. It's complicated. For example, it's very difficult to figure out how many folks are turned off of Gore by Nader's rhetoric and, as a result, will vote for Bush. But now if we follow the anti-spoiler rhetoric, we dare not critique Gore at all.

Furthermore, we can tenatively (and tendentiously) conclude that the massive assault on Nader by those I have called the Loyal Liberals, even if it were to succeed in driving Nader from the race, may end up severely damaging the progressive causes we all ostensibly cherish, and yet be insufficent to ensure a Gore win. Causation in politics is as tricky as causation in the stock market. It's very easy to come up with scapegoats, but a lot harder for most people to take responsibility.

(Remember there's more at stake than the White House. The Democrats have a fairly good chance of taking back the House which would make an enormous difference. Arguably, Nader voters are more likely to vote for Democrats in Congressional races, especially if enticed. Gore, on the other hand, has been keeping Clinton from campaigning not just for himself but for Congressional seats. Seems like Gore may be a spoiler there.)

I raise these facts and conclusions to emphasize that Nader vs. Gore is not, and should not be, an easy decision for progressives. I have read thoughtful articles detailing how Gore would be better than Bush, and, more persuasively, how Bush would be dreadfully harmful. I've written about my multiple layers of loathing for Bush which point up not just my principled desired to see him go down in flames, but also my deeply personal desire to see him crushed. I strongly empathize with those who feel they must cast an effective vote against Bush, which makes me hope all the more that Gore wins if only so that they will not have wasted their vote.

But why do I hesitate? Why do I write in articles in support of Nader? Why do I seriously consider donating more money to Nader's campaign?

Witness the present [Iraqi] war, the work of comparatively a few individuals using the standing government as their tool; for, in the outset, the people would not have consented to this measure.

While I think Thoreau strongly underestimated the power of racism, jingoism, and sheer apathy in the people, his point is well taken (even if shifted from the Mexican war to the siege of Iraq). For me it keeps coming back to Iraq, Kosovo, Colombia, East Timor, and Rwanda. I can't see how Bush could be worse. Ok, maybe I can -- after all, grotesque evil usually can be multiplied easily. But that doesn't mitigate the evil already done by Clinton/Gore and intended by Gore/Lieberman. If my hands are supposed to be dirtied by Bush's actions if I vote for Nader, what about the Iraqi blood Gore spills?

To some degree, in certain circumstances, action, inaction, and the side effects of one's action or inaction are morally equivalent. At least, this is a crucial presupposition of the "A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush." line. But only on certain moral views does the fact that my vote can't make Nader win mean that I am responsible for Bush's (if he wins) actions. If I throw in my active support for Gore, I seem not only to permit his actions, but to embrace and endorse them.

How does it become a man to behave toward this American government to-day? I answer, that he cannot without disgrace be associated with it. I cannot for an instant recognize the political organization as my government which is the slave's government also.

One out of seven African-American men are disenfranchised, primarily as a result of the war on drugs. That is, 1.4 million Black men are legally barred from voting. With the use of prison labor on the rise, it's notable that nearly 50% of the prison population is black. This is just one part of the woe the War on Drugs has brought us. It's a disaster for millions at home and abroad. It's been used to narrow everyone's civil and political rights, but its most harmful aspects are clearly targeted against Blacks and other domestic minorities, not to mention Colombians. Neither Clinton nor Gore have shown the slightest inclination to even mitigate the War. Instead, it's been their avowed policy to escalate it -- indeed, I'm chilled thinking back to Clinton's promise to put 100,000 police officers on the streets and what it has come to mean.

Is it possible to vote against the War on Drugs? If I vote for Gore or Bush, I vote directly for the War on Drugs. At least with a vote for Nader I register opposition to this monstrosity. Perhaps this particular act of opposition is feeble, but it is all I have to offer in these circumstances.

But Paley appears never to have contemplated those cases to which the rule of expediency does not apply, in which a people as well as an individual, must do justice, cost what it may. If I have unjustly wrested a plank from a drowning man, I must restore it to him though I drown myself. This, according to Paley, would be inconvenient. But he that would save his life, in such a case, would lose it. This people must cease to hold slaves, and to make war on Mexico, though it cost them their existence as a people.

Does the rule of expediency apply in this election? And, even more difficult to answer, does it apply to those who would suffer the most or the soonest under Bush? After all, this isn't just an election year, but a year which saw the rise of a fairly active protest movement. There is more at stake than the presidency and what the next president will do. It's an open question whether tactical electorial calculation merely at the command of an evil (even if "lesser") is compatible with active work for social justice. Remember that it was the grassroots activist movement, acting on many fronts, not JFK, that brought about the end of Jim Crow.

I hear of a convention to be held at Baltimore, or elsewhere, for the selection of a candidate for the Presidency, made up chiefly of editors, and men who are politicians by profession; but I think, what is it to any independent, intelligent, and respectable man what decision they may come to? Shall we not have the advantage of this wisdom and honesty, nevertheless? Can we not count upon some independent votes? Are there not many individuals in the country who do not attend conventions? But no: I find that the respectable man, so called, has immediately drifted from his position, and despairs of his country, when his country has more reasons to despair of him. He forthwith adopts one of the candidates thus selected as the only available one, thus proving that he is himself available for any purposes of the demagogue.

Can a vote for the lesser evil be an independent vote? It does seem clear that, in some sense, it could be a morally motivated vote. If all options lead to evil, one should strive to minimize that evil. But what happens when one option is to aim for a positive good? Is failure to achieve that good the same as choosing the greater evil? If it were my vote, and my vote alone, that would determine the defeat of Bush (but not the success of Nader), then the proper action would be clear. Of us all, Nader is the only one even close to being in that position. Some have argued that since Nader could prevent Bush from winning by withdrawing (though this is not certain at all) he obviously should make the right decision. If he doesn't, well, the argument goes, then he doesn't deserve the progressive vote.

But, if Nader does yield to the Loyal Liberal power structure, it's hard to see how he could count as an independent voice. And, arguably, we need an effective, independent voice, indeed, we need many of them. We perhaps need that more than we need a president somewhat if less evil than Bush. The anti-Nader campaign has as a side effect -- and as an explicit consequence! -- the continued consolidation of power and narrowing of the permissible bounds of debate. It enshrines the "men in Baltimore"; we can choose anyone we like so long as it's one of the choices they permit us. Given their track record, our future choices are likely to be between even greater evils.

It is not a man's duty, as a matter of course, to devote himself to the eradication of any, even to most enormous, wrong; he may still properly have other concerns to engage him; but it is his duty, at least, to wash his hands of it, and, if he gives it no thought longer, not to give it practically his support. If I devote myself to other pursuits and contemplations, I must first see, at least, that I do not pursue them sitting upon another man's shoulders. I must get off him first, that he may pursue his contemplations too.

Here Thoreau and I part ways (well, in other places too). I think it is our duty to oppose evil, certainly when we easily can, and often even when it takes all that we can do. But there has to be a path between good intentions and cynicism where some failures to avoid every evil aren't used to demonize and demoralize. Must we scourge voters for their disobedience to the status quo or, for that matter, their attempts to minimize evil? There is a great difference between someone who votes for Gore for the sake of defeating Bush and those who castigate Nader for daring to finish his run.

I think that if I were to vote for Gore, I must do so sadly, with the strong intention of fighting his subsequent and certain evil. If I vote for Nader, I must also feel pain if Bush wins. But I think the danger of Nader voters being complacent at a Bush win is much less than the danger that Gore voters won't stand up to him. When we act, we have the dual duty to nuture our own spirit and to do right by others. If we act from servile obedience, we almost surely will fail in one duty and thus weaken our will to do the other.