From Party-Line to Conscience-Voting: The Evolution of an American Voter

My conscience this November might be called a switch to the Right. Others might call it a far Leftist move. And several will say that it's absurdly moronic. That is what makes our country what it is: the right to be wrong. At the end of the day, I just have to be okay with my decision. Again--my decision.

As recently as three years ago, I would have never seriously considered voting outside the Democratic Party. It was never a loyalty thing with me; the Dems' platform mirrored most of my beliefs. They still do. Regrettably, the same cannot be said for the way in which they and the Republican Party operates:

I am tired of the millionaire donors. 

I am tired of the lobbyist ties.
I am fatigued by a broken government.

I am exhausted by this two-party system.

I am choosing to limit participation within it.

Admittedly, 2016 is not the best year for me to have a conscience conversion. Some friends on Facebook remind me of that daily. Some of the rhetoric is hardcore: I am apparently inciting a second Holocaust by entertaining a vote for anyone but Hillary. Voting for anyone else renders a vote for Trump and I'll have to live with that for the rest of my life; I am dooming my country. Ironically, these are the same fear-mongering tactics utilized by the candidate whom these voters despise. Trust me, folks: my first election was Bush vs. Gore. I realize the ramifications of a vote--or a lack thereof.
As a then-nineteen-year old looking for someone to blame, I could not and did not want to understand what Ralph Nader and his supporters were doing. Although I've shown up fifteen years late, I get it now.

On November 8, I plan on casting my vote for the Woman who is uniquely qualified to lead our country in a transparent, non-dynastic, non-corporate-leaning fashion: Dr. Jill Stein.

You might think that this the part of the show where I denounce Hillary Clinton, the person. Not gonna happen. In terms of ideology alone, I like Hillary. I like her qualifications. But I also think that her ties to a broken system run too deep and in being chained to a party, I do not view her as a transparent candidate. Being a fervent student of American History also contributes to my opinion. Our Presidency was never intended to be a dynasty, the office being held in a trust for sons, possibly brothers, possibly spouses. In addition, I have a sincere problem with electing anyone approaching seventy years of age to the highest office in our country--a country with an ever-changing energy, in dire need of fresh approaches and ideas. In fairness, Stein isn't much younger than Hillary but her views and lack of system-conformity mirror what our country needs to examine. If you find me an ageist due to my last sentences, that's because the shoe fits. Reagan didn't belong in office nor Dole nor McCain or Sanders. Speaking of Bernie, as much as he spouted revolution, I never bought that a 74-year old lifelong politician would be a true agent for change. He never fully convinced me. Because even if it were true, he is still part of the Democratic Party and would have never left that army to go solo on so many near-impossible ideas. Bernie was an easy sell for a lot of people--a lot of people who hadn't been paying attention or chose to ignore the maddening stalemate of which President Obama has been held prisoner for the past seven years--and for which we all have suffered.

Mainstream candidate supporters might read that last paragraph as horrific cynicism and a vote for Trump but I view my decision as just the opposite: I am eagerly claiming my right to vote for whom I choose, ignoring the "lesser of two evils" mentality and voting for a candidate in whom I believe to be the best choice for my country. If that isn't Patriotic, Progressive or Democratic, I do not know what is. I highly resent the fact that in a country of 320 + million people, I am instructed by society and my government to choose between just two candidates in a political arena which has grown to benefit those who had that arena built on the backs of the labor and intellectual weaknesses of the American electorate. That stops with me--and that's the beginning of how it stops completely.

And what if my vote does contribute to a President Trump? Perhaps we need Donald Trump to awaken and unite an apathetic nation who turns a weary, blind eye to mass shootings and business as usual. Perhaps his actions would prompt an otherwise frustratingly partisan government to come together, to defeat him and his ideas for the greater good. To perhaps give hope to a cynical nation by reaffirming the way our government is suppose to function. Besides, do you really think that any person with such a narcissistic interest in his own business ventures cares about systematically changing the government? Please. I do not support Trump's candidacy for a moment, but my conscience should not be jailed and my opportunities as a voting citizen held hostage just to ensure that he isn't elected. The very message that we should vote for someone at any cost to defeat someone else means that we hold our Fears higher than we hold our Democracy. We are not protecting Democracy by voting against a candidate on that merit--we are feeding into its demise because that mentality strips us of our right to choose. No candidate--no party--should hold that power over anyone.

Notice that I am not extolling the virtues of Dr. Stein. Notice that I am not slamming Hillary or Donald. Much. I am slamming the system--and they just happen to be part of it. As voters have very short memories, I will remind people that this is the same broken system that Bernie and Trump supporters alike are rallying against.

I should not and will not tell you how to vote--and thank you for not impressing that upon me, either.
But I am a piss-poor citizen if I quietly allow society to listen to the same feel-good-speeches with the same tired promises and rhetoric that blinds us to the same broken realities and inequalities of our situation. To my loyal, two-party system friends, I do ask you to listen to your conscience and block out the "have to" and "no choice" rubbish that we are being fed. To my friends on either side who have been advocates for revolution, I am not telling you anything new.

I am reminding you of what you want.

The Blame and The Remnants...

No mention of my friend in the headlines today. It has only been two weeks since he and forty-eight others were taken out in the U.S.' worst mass shooting. We Americans have continued to do what we do best: we look for something to distract us. We're back to Donald Trump and whether or not Richard Simmons is still Richard Simmons. I have often heard it said that the 'media' distracts us, but I have come to believe that we choose the distraction. If it's more pleasant and sunnier than what we're dealing with now, the media is all too happy to give us what we need. We're just self-medicating by subject-surfing.

"What's Sandy Hook?" 

I heard that question the other day from someone who follows the news but had forgotten about twenty or so kids who were assassinated by a madman at their elementary school in December 2012. I do not blame him completely. I blame American apathy. And I am a party to that blame. Unless you've been a tireless voice for violence awareness, the blame is yours also.

A helpless defeatist resides in my home today. Ten years ago, he was advocating for everything from LGBT Equality to Global Peace. Fifteen years ago, he was a passionate teen, hellbent on tackling the issues that faced mankind.Today, the man is--as a popular song lyric goes, "not broken, just bent." His outlook is bent to the point of breaking, but eternal hope keeps him going. He looks at world events with resignation, a weariness brought on by years of activism, years of caring when others did not, years of social and political upheaval. This defeatist feels empowered to do nothing just yet as the murders are still raw. He questions his faith in his country--and has had plenty of justifiable reasons to question that of his government. And so he sits. And he waits.

So I sit. And I wait.

I wait for the next murders. I know they are coming. I wait for the description of the assault rifle. I wait to see the memorials to the victims. I wait to see the grandstanding by our politicians who cry for change. I wait for the silence from the NRA. I wait for the prayers from a people whose Christ rallied against violence. I wait for another eloquent yet predictable speech from my President. And in waiting for all of these things, I must accept that I am partially to blame for all of these things.

In Central Florida, a woman who bore only one child no doubt faces sleepless nights and days of anguish from the forced acceptance that she will never hear her only child's voice again. In Connecticut, a little girl gets balloons marking the anniversary of when she was born ten years before. But the balloons are flying high above the little girl's tombstone--a reminder to all of an innocent life taken all too soon.

Today, I carry on. I work, I laugh, I eat, I sleep, I converse about topics not related to murder. But the remnants of murder are staying with me just below the surface.

And I hope the remnants of murder stay with you as well. 

The Lessons of a Deflated Political Junkie.

2016. An election year. A dozen or more candidates from both parties vie for attention and acknowledgement; the obviousness of their desire making the spectacle both painful and comical. The media is having a field day--as it should.

A political junkie should be enjoying this. Four and eight years ago, I was.

I am unsure where this disgruntlement of a voter began--but I will remove one assumption from the list: it has virtually nothing to do with President Obama. I do not for one moment regret my votes in 2008 or 2012. As Conservatives would gleefully claim, I never felt swindled or bought by Obama's Administration. I did not always agree with his decisions. But I did resent the times when he, like most politicians, was being influenced by corporate campaign donations. Even more resentful of the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, my distrust is no longer silent; my cynicism no longer buried behind a faux front--the last attempt at claiming that things are suppose to be this way.

No Hillary. I am incredibly proud of Secretary Clinton's accomplishments; her Martha Stewartesque way of fighting through challenges--especially from men who don't like to lose. She would probably be an excellent President. Unfortunately, she is part of a very old, very broken system.You do not spend 40 years in the political spectrum, attempt to continue a dynasty, allow greedy corporations to float your rise to the top--and then step to the podium as the maestro of the systems rebuke.

I look to Bernie and I should be relieved. No corporate tax dollars funding his campaign, whose platform is a testimony to the enviable workings of places like Denmark and Sweden. Free tuition, making the wealthy pay their fair share--how does that not sound good? And then I think about Senator Sanders' lifetime of service in our Congress. I look at his failure to collaborate and question how he would begin the debate to bring about these necessary reforms and how he would effectively buck the system that has afforded him political stature. I look at the Senator and question not only whether he would--but whether he should be in office in the first place. Electing anyone seven years from their 80th birthday to one of the most stressful offices in the land is lunacy. Not only does the man sound tired--he looks it. And if that makes me an ageist, I am an ageist. At age 69 upon her would-be election, Hillary is in the same boat. We are not well-served when we elect aging leaders. If the risk of lacking fresh ideas isn't a problem, the lack of stamina is (i.e. Reagan and the still-ongoing debate of whether or not the onset of Alzheimer's began during his last term.) Figuring out my disenchantment the other night, it all made sense: Right Message, Wrong Deliverer.

As goes without saying, I have no faith in any of the Republican candidates. If there were a Jon Huntsman or a 'Rockefeller Republican'--educated Moderates who didn't go around catering to a bunch of nut jobs--I might lend them an ear. The GOP isn't smart enough to nominate those candidates.

I cannot get jazzed about anyone in this race and while I still intend to vote, I have zero idea as to who will get that vote.

Last year, I declared myself a political 'Unaffiliated', ending fifteen years of consistently Democratic registration. This was not an easy call: I was once a College Democrat and did some relatively-active campaigning for candidates even in the years that followed college. The Party had shown itself as the standard-bearer of many things-Progressive and I appreciated that, even when it took the Party years to evolve into those stances. But the more I watched the operation, the more it dawned on me that the Republican and Democratic parties are more similar than what they would like for us to see. As the saying goes, "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem." In our two-party system, the shoe fits.

America should not have to "choose between the lesser of two evils." In a land of an estimated 322 million people, it is both patronizing and suspect that our attentions are focused towards two candidates. The media fuels their rise. The apathy of the public does the same. But at the end of the day, it is the collaboration of the powers-that-be and the dominating parties that results in business as usual. The more we trust their candidates, the more we accept the status quo. The more we turn to the alleged security that the 150+ year old parties promote, the more we forfeit our voice and rely on the corporations in bed with them to do our bidding.

And we all know how corporations have our best interests at heart.