THE ELECTION DISSENTERS HAVE ORGANIZED! BOYCOTT THE 2012 ELECTION!
The Call to Boycott the 2012 Presidential Election is experiencing a spike in interest, enthusiasm, activity and actions. In this post I will provide for you some of the updates currently taking place with regard to the 2012 Presidential Election Boycott!
1. THE OFFICIAL PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION WEBSITE IS UP AND EXPERIENCING HEAVY TRAFFIC!
The site is very comprehensive and expands daily as the movement grows with new actions. To learn more about the Boycott and to comment visit www.electionboycott2012.org
2. THE ELECTION BOYCOTT IN THE MEDIA!
LINH DINH author of the COUNTERPUNCH ARTICLE, “Time to Boycott the Election” http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/08/14/time-to-boycott-the-election/ presented the case to Boycott the Presiential Election on PRESS-TV, here : http://wwwwsonneteighteencom.blogspot.com/2012/08/americans-should-boycott-election.html
3. THE PROLETARIAN CENTER FOR RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND CULTURE HAS OFFICIALLY ENDORSED THE PREZ BOYCOTT! The blog post regarding the Boycott endorsement can be found here: http://prolecenter.wordpress.com/2012/09/17/boycott-the-2012-election/
4. CINDY SHEEHAN HOSTED A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION BOYCOTT NATIONAL CONFERENCE CALL ON HER SOAPBOX : “Thinking Outside the Ballot Box!” The audio to the program is here: https://prolecenter.wordpress.com/2012/09/17/cindy-sheehans-soapbox-thinking-outside-the-ballot-box/
And A-Infos Radio Project and others posted the audio, too: http://www.radio4all.net/index.php/program/62932
5. THE ELECTION BOYCOTT IS WORKING TO “BUILD A CULTURE OF RESISTANCE”
Some ask, ‘What will the Election Boycott DO?” “What will it accomplish?” This action, as with any action does not show a direct ‘result’. It not if we do A then that result in B. It’s not like that. A very important contribution of the Election Boycott is that it BUILDS A CULTURE OF RESISTANCE as per Glen Ford of Black Agenda Report: “… what we do need are organizations that are willng to confront power…willing to identify who the enemy is and to call them out… to make sense of emerging realities…. to involve as many people as possible in forceful and sustained opposition to those who do harm to the the people. A real movement builds a ‘culture of resistance’….a widely held belief that is it is right to resist…”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUf6nSLl0a0
6. I WILL SPEAKING AT MAY DAY BOOKS IN MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA TO DELIVER A TALK ON THE BOYCOTT ON OCTOBER 10th! The talk will be hosted by the group ‘Building Utopia’. Stay tuned for info and updates.
7. THE ELECTION BOYCOTT COMES TO NEW MEXICO STATE UNIVERSITY ON SEPTEMBER 25th
8. FORMER VOTERS ARE COLLECTIVELY FORMALLY PUTTING THE SYSTEM ON NOTICE!
Here is pdf of voter cancellation letter to formally denounce your participation of their fraudulent federal government.
9. ELECTION DISSENTERS BURNED THEIR VOTER ID CARDS AT OBAMA HEADQUARTERS IN CHICAGO DURING THE DNC CONVENTION! (Check out the fabulous pictures!)
‘
10. ELECTION BOYCOTTER TED RALL CREATED A SPECIAL BOYCOTT ‘TOON FOR US AS A GIFT TO THE BOYCOTT!
STILL NOT CONVINCED?
At both the DNC and the RNC Theatrical Convention Shows a public “vote” was cast. At each convention a party leader would go up to the podium and direct the audience to say ‘YAY’ if they were in favor of the item or ‘NAY’ if they were opposed. Whichever roar was the loudest indicated the selection of the voters.
However, the Ruling Class had something else in mind.
The teleprompter for each convention had a pre-written text for the speaker of the outcome of the ‘YAY’ or ‘NAY’ vote, which had been entered into the teleprompter prior to the audience’s response.
The Dems were challenged a bit more as the audience didn’t cooperate and so the speaker demanded a ‘do over’ until the audience response matched the pre-determined outcome.
Blog Posts
The Right Ideals, The Wrong Strategy
By Weiss, Adam at Sep 23, 2012 03:01 AM
Nonetheless, I think a Romney presidency would be far worse in terms of the damage he would do to most Americans. Paul Ryan's plan to make Medicare a voucher system is guaranteed to shift medical costs to seniors. While a single-payer system would be preferable, Obama's health care reform does more than Romney would ever do to prevent insurance companies from denying claims to people with preexisting conditions. Obama is far more likely to promote a government stimulus to the economy than Romney.
While in the long term I would like to see something like Participatory Economics replace capitalism and am fully aware that Obama is part of an unfair capitalist system, electing him will do less harm to average Americans. There are other ways to build a culture of resistance, such as supporting worker cooperatives.
On another level, in 2008, only 57% of eligible voters voted in the presidential election. That means 43% of the population was already boycotting the election.
Adam Weiss
Check out my political blog at politicalcreativity.net
Reply this comment
Lesser Evil Voting
By Lee, Terri at Sep 23, 2012 19:29 PM
Hello Adam,
Thank you for your thoughtful response to my post.
Adam, the Election Boycott does not support the notion that the choice of one POTUS over another by the Ruling Class will be 'better or worse' than another for a few reasons. This frame is assuming that the public is indeed making the selection of the POTUS and it is an approach that continues to get people into the voting booth to pull the lever for the Dems -- viewed, as you have suggested -- as slightly "less worse" than Romney who is viewed as disastrous.
Adam, this is a popular notion that has been set forth by both the late Howard Zinn and Noam Chomksy; however, Glenn Greenwald outilnes the 'costs of voting for the Democrats' here:
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.
[APPLAUSE]
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].
AUDIO LINK TO GREENWALD'S TALK: http://wearemany.org/v/2011/07/civil-liberties-under-obama
The Boycott does not focus on either the party or any particular candidate, primarily becasue neither can or will alter the institutional structures of capitalism -- which will be in place no matter who sits in the Oval Office come January. The Boycott is s systemic rejection.
Adam, you wrote above,"There are other ways to build a culture of resistance, such as supporting worker cooperatives." The Boycott is an collective act of resistance that is the most peaceful way to delegitimize government. It can be done along with 'supporting workers cooperatives' as there is no interference in either direction and they can be simultaneously done.
You might also appreciate this wonderful essay by Matt Stoller regarding Obama's second term agenda entitled: "Obama's Second Term Agenda: Cutting Social Security, Medicare and/or Medicaid " LINK: http://blackagendareport.com/content/obamas-second-term-agenda-cutting-social-security-medicare-andor-medicaid
Again, thank you for writing.
Terri
AUAU
Reply this comment
Re: Lesser Evil Voting
By Weiss, Adam at Sep 25, 2012 00:26 AM
A lot of material in your post, but there is really one point that gets at the heart of my viewpoint, some of which I didn't express in my first reply. In comes from your quote that:
"The Boycott does not focus on either the party or any particular candidate, primarily becasue neither can or will alter the institutional structures of capitalism -- which will be in place no matter who sits in the Oval Office come January. The Boycott is s systemic rejection."
If people boycott the election as a protest against it being embedded in the capitalist system, the assumption is that such protest can contribute to a replacement of capitalism. Strategically, a boycott needs to broaden its base of support. People who would normally support Obama need to feel drawn in to a movement for a more just economy. But right now, I don't feel you are going to tap in to a large resevoir of support. I believe this partly because the American public just isn't thinking about alternatives, unlike parts of Spain that have a long anarchist history. But I think it also connects back to the fact that a boycott isn't going to connect to people who would be worse off with a Romney presidency. For example, what could we say to a 60 year old person who is concerned about Medicare not being there when he or she gets older? That the costs of voting for Obama are more than the benefits of being able to having some kind of medical coverage? Unless you have some alternative way to pay for this person's medical care, they are absolutely justified in keeping Obama in the White House.
Since it is a matter of strategy, there is certainly the possibility that an election boycott could be the right path down the road, but right now you are not going to get enough public support for the idea that the US government is illegitimate.
Adam Weiss
politicalcreativity.net
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Lesser Evil Voting
By Lee, Terri at Sep 26, 2012 19:00 PM
Did you happen to catch what happened in Belarus this week? An Election Boycott shut down all the pollng stations. Google it and you will see for yourself! Of course, the government and press tried so spin it and are promising punishment to the 'dissenters'!
Coming up soon Mark Smith and I will be appearing on a radio program together.
This is Mark's blog: http://fubarandgrill.org/
This is Mark's book:
Consent to Tyranny: Voting in the USA
Voting in US elections accomplishes exactly the opposite of what most voters want. These essays explain why it is better not to vote than to consent to tyranny.
http://www.amazon.com/Consent-Tyranny-Voting-USA-ebook/dp/B0095OHZ9G
Check the Election Boycott site for updates!
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: Lesser Evil Voting
By Weiss, Adam at Sep 27, 2012 18:18 PM
You mention the Belarus example to show that a boycott can be effective. As I previously wrote, it can be quite effective as a tactic, but the conditions have to be right. Why might it be successful in Belarus? Because the ones boycotting it are major opposition parties. It would be the equivalent of the Democratic Party boycotting an election. Belarus has organized political parties who are fighting authoritarian rule. To say that the same tactic will work in the US now is ignoring how the situation in Belarus is drastically different.
I still feel you haven't addressed my question of how we can justify the costs of boycotting on real people's lives. I mentioned that while Obama's healthcare reform may not be great, Romney and Ryan have a plan that will basically scrap Medicare. Is it ok for us to ask them to take that risk by boycotting the election?
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Lesser Evil Voting
By Lee, Terri at Sep 28, 2012 16:46 PM
Adam, when you ask, "...how we can justify the costs of boycotting on real people's lives," are you saying that the people of Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Syria, Palestine, and Iran aren't "real people"?
I think they are real people, just as real as we are, and to quote peace activist S. Brian Willson, "We are not worth more, they are not worth less."
Sacrificing the lives of real people elsewhere to gamble on the possibility of gaining some slight, temporary benefits for people here, seems rather selfish and inhumane to me. As long as the US has a capitalist system, benefits will be taken from workers and the poor while greater benefits are lavished on the wealthy and corrupt.
Many of those whose jobs have not yet been outsourced will reject the idea of an Election Boycott because they erroneously think that by keeping a capitalist government that outsources jobs in power, they might have a chance of keeping their jobs. There are only two candidates with any chance of winning this presidential election, and both would prefer to spend money on foreign wars than on jobs, housing, education, health care, or anything that might benefit US voters.
People with a stake in capitalist imperialism, who believe in the capitalist imperialist system, and who don't consider human beings in foreign countries to be "real people," will continue to vote, even if they know that the results of the election will result in more trillions of dollars being spent on wars and bailouts while less is spent on domestic needs.
But those of us who do not wish to see war criminals in power, who don't want innocent people murdered in our name, and who know that neither of the candidates has our best interests at heart, are happy to have found a safe, legal, nonviolent, effortless means of noncompliance--a way to withdraw our support and consent from the capitalist system and demonstrate that it does not represent us.
The rapidly increasing popularity of the Election Boycott movement will not attract any die-hard capitalist imperialists. But it is attracting millions of people who want a better world and know that in order to get it, we have to stop doing politics as usual and try something different. As long as people are willing to vote in elections where their votes don't have to be counted, aren't verifiable, can be overridden by computers, corrupt elections officials, the media, political party leaders, the Electoral College, Congress, the Supreme Court, or by the winning candidate conceding to the loser, there is no incentive for government to allow us honest elections with a level playing field. The only way we can demand better is to refuse to settle for less. The only way we can demand real and lasting social goods, is to refuse to vote for greater or lesser evils.
Boycott 2012!
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lesser Evil Voting
By Weiss, Adam at Sep 28, 2012 18:54 PM
My concern about there being sufficient social support for a boycott remains. You say that the boycott is attracting millions, but give no evidence to support this. And my point still stands that you will not gain support among people who actually will do better under an Obama 2nd term, such as elderly people reliant on Medicare.
As far as the main thrust of your last reply, if the choice were between a candidate that could provide better foreign policy then I would surely weigh that in my decision. Their foreign policy is awful, but essentially the same, and in my judgment more dangerous if Romney is in power as Republicans tend to be more jingoistic and reckless. But I think domestically, Democrats are much better. I don't like that the two parties are so beholden to business interests and have foreign policies that do result in needless deaths, but I believe an Obama admistration will do overall less harm than Romney. And you can say that means I view non-Americans as less valuable or whatever you like, but often we have to make choices that aren't easy or pleasant.
Unless you want to completely detach yourself from society, then there are always ways we support atrocities and unfair policies. If you have a job, that means you are paying taxes which fund our military. Do you ever go to a movie? That's time you could have been organizing for social justice. So there is no moral high ground if a person decides to not vote for the lesser of two evils. My sense is that people who call for an election boycott when there is insufficient public support are being dogmatic. There is no contradiction between being anti-capitalist (as I am) and trying to make a capitalist society better.
I don't have a whole lot more to say on this topic, so I will leave it at that. If anyone wants to follow my blog, it is politicalcreativity.net
Reply this comment