Previous argument/post, continued:
FIRST POINT OF VIEW:
Yes, it's an excellent justification for not paying attention to what is going on in politics right now.
I think W. proved very nicely that they are NOT all alike, and not making even a small effort to select who might be a little less worse is abdicating one's responsibility as a citizen.
The two-party corporate-dominated system that we have right now will not allow much change, but it makes it all the more important to do the best we can with what we do have, rather than whine "they are all alike" and go back to watching television.
SECOND POINT OF VIEW:
But it does take a higher power of magnifying glass to tell who's worse these days. Clinton was "less worse" than Bush, but Bush couldn't pass NAFTA, which Clinton happily did, as well as repealing Glass-Steagal and other economically ruinuous measures. Obama was less worse than Bush Jr, but Obama re-instituted the Patriot Act, passed corporate dream healthcare bill and escalated the Afghan war. So not voting is starting to look like a more viable option than getting tricked into supporting someone just because you voted for him, forgetting he was the "less worse" then, and still is not worth supporting or defending. I think it's part of what Noam Chomsky called "manufactured consent." Partisanship is NOT good citizenship. It is what allowed Bush Jr to balloon the deficit against the principles of many Republican congressthings that knew better. It is what allowed Clinton to pass NAFTA. It is what is being used against the American people to carry on the corporate agenda.
permalink blog version similar posts elsewhere on the Internet