Go to ...

Political Context

The Progressive Mosaic

RSS Feed

Should Progressives Boycott The Presidential Elections?

From the "Vote for Nobody" campaign website

“If voting changed anything, they’d make it illegal.” This quote, attributed to Emma Goldman, implies a much more sweeping indictment of the electoral process, in the most generic sense, than that espoused by proponents of boycotting the U.S. Presidential elections. The current movement seems focused on the corruption of major party politics by big money, voter suppression, and electoral fraud.  Two current sources of arguments against participating in elections are the “Vote for Nobody Campaign” and the Facebook group “Boycott the 2012 Presidential Election.” The former site is light on content, and seems largely designed around the sale of Gary Chartier’s book The Conscience of an Anarchist: Why It’s Time to Say Goodbye to the State and Build a Free Society. The latter group explains:

Whereas both major political parties have sold out to the Wall Street banks and multinational corporations with no allegiance to the Nation or the people,   Whereas third parties have no possibility of winning the Presidential election due to corporate control over the media and the electoral process,   Whereas three decades of solid efforts to reform the electoral process have been subverted by the corporate state,   Whereas participation in this process lends legitimacy to a system that has lost its legitimacy,   We hereby refuse to vote in the 2012 Presidential elections.

So it seems that the substance of the anti-electoral position is limited to (1) bourgeois, major-party candidates, in (2) the Presidential (as opposed to more local) elections. The question is whether boycotting the elections is a viable alternative political strategy. In order to explore this question, I talked to Terri Lee, a veteran activist for economic justice and co-administrator of the group “Declare Your Independence from the Democrats!” Terri is also a member of the Boycott Elections Facebook group mentioned above.

POLITICALCONTEXT.ORG: Why should American citizens boycott the 2012 Presidential elections?

Terri Lee: Boycotting the presidential elections would be a notable act of rebellion and defiance. The Establishment effectively draws in the public and engages them in the ‘horse show’ and political theater of elections. Voting serves them, not us. They work and invest millions to keep us attached to an immoral, rigged, corrupt, electoral process which is both a scam and a sham.   I support Wally Conger’s Anti-Electorate Manifesto: “We, the Anti-Electorate, do not believe there is a need for “strong leadership” in government. We are not drawn to ‘intellectual’ authorities and political ‘heroes.’ We are not impressed with titles, ranks, and pecking orders – politicians, celebrities, and gurus. We do not struggle for control of organizations, social circles, and government. We do not lobby the State for favors or permission to control those with whom we disagree. Rather, we advocate freedom. By its very nature, the State does not. Exercise your right to say ‘No’ to the warfare-welfare system. Refuse to vote. Then tell your friends why.”

PC: Should citizens boycott only the Presidential elections? What about candidates down ballot? Senators? Representatives?

TL: Well, the presidential elections garner a lot of attention and so it could be very effective if registered voters resisted going to the polls as a loud, clear form of protest. Voters could publicly burn their voter registration cards and expose the system for the corrupt system that it is. We can deem it unworthy of our participation. We could demonstrate the integrity of the collective by refusing our participation and resist.

PC: Even more to the point: Should I vote for my city council candidates, local judges, public hospital board members, and school board members? Why them and not the President of the United States? What’s the bright line?

TL: Here’s something to consider. Let’s take electing your local mayor. The mayor lives in your community. You may see him or her at your local grocery store, gas station, post office, school or park. You live and work with one another and you share a community. It’s easy to have access to your mayor — you can go to his or her office. If residents are upset, the mayor has to face the outraged citizens rather directly and intimately. The farther out you go the more distant, detached, insulated the elected official is. Citizens have to use their own judgment on this, of course, but it seems to me that for where we are now loud public resistance to the presidential elections is a good place to start.

PC: Let me play devil’s advocate: The Obama administration will not enforce the Defense of Marriage Act. A Republican administration would. Under Obama’s health care reform, a few million people might have a better chance of accessing life-saving medical treatment. Under a Republican administration, that won’t happen. Aren’t you sacrificing gay rights and sick people on the altar of political purism? Aren’t you saying “sure it’s okay if a few hundred thousand people die, or there are fewer civil rights for gays, as long as I make my politically purist point?” How would you answer arguments like that?

TL: Well, I don’t agree with the premise of your question regarding the Democrats and the Republicans, but I understand your point. It seems to me that you are suggesting that it is slightly more important to vote Democrat than to vote Republican due to that thin bit of difference — so, why not just go to the polls and pull the lever for the Democrats because it could do ‘some good’ for ‘some people’. So if you calculate a ‘least harm’ and ‘most benefit’ ratio, hold your nose and just vote Democrat, yes? I turn to journalist Glenn Greenwald who most eloquently expresses my view on this (not about not-voting, but rather about the point that it’s ‘slightly better to vote Democrat than Republican so be a reluctant voter and vote Democrat’):

GREENWALD: You know there’s abeen lots of people who make radical critiques of hte government who — like Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn and others — who have said ‘as horrible as the Democrats are the fact that they are even a little bit better than the Republicans means that it’s important that they win and not Republicans because with an entity as powerful as the United States governmetn even small differences can make meaningful differences in the lives of millions of people.’

And so even though there’s tiny little differences between Democrats and Republicans — and they’re both evil and corrupt in their own ways — that it’s important to continue to elect Democrats, they’ve argued.

That to me was an argument that was somewhat persuasive — for awhile.

And what I’ve actually decided and concluded instead was that even if there are short-term benefits to electing Democrats — as opposed to Republicans — so you get a Sonya Sotomayor on the Supreme Court instead of an Antonio Scalia, for example — something like that.

That’s a benefit that’ll sway some case and it’s bettr [inaudible]….um, there’s also experent costs to pledging your loyalty to a political party and to contine to support it even though it’s in this extremely corrupt and destructive expression.

And so it’s not just the benefit that needs to be weighed, it’s the cost as well, knowing — as party leaders do — that many liberals are convinced (and that many people on the left are convniced) by this reasoning [the Democrats] can continue to ignore people on the left, because they know that at the end of the day they’ll scare enough of them to with scary images of Michele Bachman or Newt Gingrich or whomever…they’ll continue to support [the Democrats] even though they’re ignored adn they get nothing.

And they’ll be ignored and get nothing forever.

That’s a huge cost.

Another cost is the opportunity cost of doing activism for a political party that doesn’t care at all about you.

Instead of using your money and time on more meaningful changes.


So that, I think, is the ultimate formula that needs to be evaluated. The ultimate weighing of costs and benefits that needs to be assessed — not just ‘well, there are some beneifts to the Democrats, therefore let’s vote for them.”

[Ask, too] what are the costs from continuing to support and prop up this party and having them know that they can take the support for granted and putting our time and energy into that rather that something more significant that can achieve something more enduring and more fundamental with longer-lasting benefits.

And so that’s the calculation that, to me, has swayed me away from that view [of Zinn and Chomsky].

PC: What about third party candidates (e.g. the various socialists) who admit the Presidential elections are largely meaningless in the substantive sense, but who run candidates for President in order to take advantage of the electoral process in order to get the message out about their party, their beliefs, the crisis of capitalism, etc.? In boycotting Presidential elections, are you also “boycotting” the way in which those third party candidates use the elections as a platform for their message?

TL: The third party candidates can still campaign — in fact, that’s their function in this scam of a system: to simply run. In their campaigning they expose the injustices in the system and the seriously flawed positions of the candidates. And, at the end of the day that’s about it. Inherent in the system design (including the domination of corporate monies) third parties and third party candidates are unable to establish an alternate party or see a candidate to victory. We know it, the third party candidates know it and The Establishment knows it too. Boycotting presidential elections does no harm to them because there was no chance for victory from the onset.

PC: What reforms of the electoral process, specifically, would have to happen before you’d stop calling for the boycott?

TL: We would need to take out all the elements referenced by Noam Chomsky when he speaks of presidential politics (paraphrased) as: “the big-money big-media candidate-centered narrow-spectrum electoral extravaganza the masters stage for us once every four years”. Simply put, we have to get the corporate money out of elections, level the playing field, implement publicly-funded elections, and institute Instant-Runoff (IRV) voting. (And while we’re at it and dreaming a bit, a parliamentary government with proportional representation would certainly be a step in the right direction.)

PC: If voting makes no difference, why does refusing to vote make a difference? How is your gesture any less symbolic and meaningless than voting?

TL: Excellent question! Voting is the status quo. It’s desirable to The Establishment to have us follow these silly elections, to have us believe in the illusion of choice, and to have the public think “that’s politics” and busy ourselves with phone banking, fundraising, canvassing, etc which is all FOR THEM! Intentionally, purposefully, and loudly not-voting is an act of defiance. A refusal to partake in the immoral, illegal, corporate dominated, money-serving system in which voters are pawned.

Refuse to partake. Refuse to vote. Declare abstinence from the corrupt system that they designed and want to draw us into. How liberating! Let there be a ballot-box revolt in which all the polling stations are empty and quiet on Election Day 2012!

9 Responses “Should Progressives Boycott The Presidential Elections?”

  1. pomo
    December 24, 2011 at 7:01 pm
  2. xerxes
    December 23, 2011 at 10:44 pm

    Oh brother. This interview is dripping with straight, white, middle-class privilege. That “thin bit of difference” is literally the difference between life and death for people at the margins. And you trotted out Glenn Greenwald to back you up? That guy is a celebrity pundit, who will never have to know what it feels like to worry about food stamps or unemployment benefits running out. I bet he has pretty sweet health insurance.

    I’m still waiting to hear someone who is actually in a marginal class—and not just affecting it!—to tell me that these issues are minor, or don’t really impact very many people, or that the minimal help for people that we’re able to squeeze out of our political system isn’t worth fighting for.

    Quaker Dave has some great points. Instead of heckling the presidency (which isn’t going anywhere), focus on doing something positive. Get involved in local politics, and encourage everyone else to do it. Build a progressive state and local movement. All I hear from this campaign is a double-negative: “we’re NOT saying DON’T vote for local offices.” Okay, I won’t, um, not vote for no one at no local office. Got it. Way to win hearts and minds, folks.

  3. Quaker Dave
    December 23, 2011 at 5:49 am

    More than boycotting the election, progressives need to refocus. While the left has been focused on presidential politics and the evils of the Bush years, the regressive right has been taking over school boards (allowing them to dictate a national educational agenda through the sway held by Texas’ purchasing power) and secretaries of state (allowing the right to attack voting rights across the country). We’re all focused on Gingrich and Romney, and we’re missing both the damage being done at local and state levels and the opportunity to actually enact progressive political policy.

  4. lampworker
    December 22, 2011 at 11:17 pm

    I admire a bold statement, and indeed this is one. Sadly, I fear it will only register with people that already aligned with this belief.

    A two party system was in part established due to the inability to collect a popular vote or other election alternatives. Technology has long changed this restriction in several ways. However, anyone saying the system is broken, in any fashion, is normally quick to point to an inability to change it. Strange! I respect that you feel a boycott will shed light on this. I also fear that people are creatures of habit.

    I would say I have long ago boycotted ANY election. Politics is an illusion to fool the masses. I’ll adjust my tinfoil hat now. 🙂

  5. lurch194
    December 22, 2011 at 11:16 pm

    One advantage to letting a Republican win would be that many liberal Democrats, the ones who have fallen silent — or worse — since Obama won, might actually return to at least feigning mild opposition to U.S. international aggression.

  6. lurch194
    December 22, 2011 at 11:14 pm

    If we vote in the presidential race, we’re voting for Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces. Who should be Commander-in-Chief? Nobody, plain and simple. The U.S. Armed Forces are a major organized-crime syndicate. If we were offered the opportunity to cast our vote for leader of Los Zetas, or some other drug-trafficking syndicate, would we do it? Could we, in all good conscience? In a way, it’s a little unfair to compare the U.S. military to a drug-trafficking syndicate — unfair to the drug traffickers. The U.S. military dwarfs them both in its power and in its willingness to carry out atrocities.

    Lost in the discussion of electoral politics is the sheer size of the concentrated power that lies in the Executive Branch. It needs to be challenged, thwarted, dissolved. We’re never going to accomplish that by dutifully pulling a lever every four years.

  7. elizabethcatherine
    December 22, 2011 at 11:05 pm

    This is incredibly idiotic. Karl Rove loves this shit. Cowtowing to Rove and Crossroads USA…how pathetic! Go ahead and don’t vote and let’s see how wonderful a Romney Administration will be.

Leave a Reply

About Matt J. Stannard

Agitator, writer, podcast & radio host; I taught argument, debate, philosophy, rhetoric, advocacy for 15 years in the U.S., Korea and briefly in Iraq. Now the Editor at Shared Media Cooperative, making & editing content for politicalcontext.org, egalitarian review, the underview, and other people's shows & sites. Also studying law & parenting my three young children. "Here's to love and solidarity, and a kiss behind the barricades."