You Can Blame Me: My Vote in 2008

You Can Blame Me: My Vote in 2008 by Steve Clemens. Election Day +2, 2008

If Al Franken fails to surpass Norm Coleman in votes after the state-mandated recount in the next several weeks and Norm is sworn in for another 6-year term, I guess you can “blame me”. I just couldn’t justify filling in the oval before his name on the ballot. No, I didn’t completely lose my mind or my conscience and vote for Norm Coleman! Nor did I succumb to the tempting “a pox on both your houses” for such a plethora of disgusting negative adds by the Franken and Coleman camps by supporting the libertarian ideas embodied by Independent candidate Dean Barkley.

I don’t like voting against others. When given a choice, I prefer to vote for what I want - rather than against others. So I wrote in Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer for Senate. None of the candidates whose names appeared on the final ballot have laid out policies and ideas that take seriously the environmental and economic crisis that awaits us if we fail to rapidly address climate change challenges that Jack’s campaign chose to tackle head-on. None of the other candidates addressed the need to drastically cut military spending by significant amounts (50%, for starters) if we wish to reject American exceptionalism and imperial claims.

This Senate vote was an easier one for me despite the projected closeness of the race due to the personal nastiness of the Franken campaign during the DFL caucus and endorsement process. My vote for President, however, caused me much more anguish. During the primaries and most of the general election campaign (after Kucinich and Edwards dropped out), I wanted Obama to prevail over the policies and record of Senator Clinton – but I was clear that Ralph Nader would once again get my vote as in 2000 and 2004.

I started to vacillate after hearing Tom Hayden explain his support for Obama despite many of the positions taken in debates and on the campaign trail. At one point even icons such as Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn advocated voting for Obama with the proviso of doing so without any illusions about the real nature of his positions and our need to continue to pressure him to change policy once elected. Zinn later recanted and advocated only supporting Obama in close swing states but to support Nader in states where the vote would not likely to be close.

An extra dilemma in this campaign is the dreaded “Bradley effect” – the notion that the public opinion polls won’t accurately reflect the deep-seated racism in some people who won’t admit they won’t ever vote for a person of color but can’t overcome that bias when marking their ballot. Should I cast my ballot for this person of color even if I don’t agree with some of his crucial positions to “correct” for the racial bias in our society?

So, about a week before the election, I had decided to reluctantly vote for Obama – to choose the possibility of “hope” and “change” that might go beyond the limits of a campaign where candidates vie for “centrist” positions. Obama at least might listen and consider progressive positions once elected. At least there is that possibility of hope. But, to assuage my conscience, I felt I also needed to write to him about some of the important areas where we parted ways so he wouldn’t take my vote as a carte-blanch endorsement of his campaign and policies. Here is what I started to write:

Open Letter To Barack Obama: My Vote in 2008 by Steve Clemens

Only twice in the nine Presidential elections of my adult life have I marked my ballot for a candidate of one of the two major political parties. I lived in Massachusetts in 1972 so I voted with the majority when George McGovern carried that state as his only electoral victory. The other time was after eight straight years of “Ronnie the Popular” with wars still raging in Central America; I felt to elect the former head of the CIA who had served as the Vice President during those years was too much. Even though I detested the vacillations and compromises of Michael Dukakis, and thought his ridiculous posing in a tank to show he was not “soft” on national defense was pandering, I voted for him primarily in opposition to his main party opponent. To help assuage my conscience, I also wrote him a letter attempting to clearly spell out to him what my vote was NOT endorsing in his platform and campaign “promises”.

And so, Senator Obama, I feel the need to share with you why I will (with hesitation but also hope) cast my ballot for you to serve as our 44th President. It is not an easy decision for me. While I feel the symbolism of your election would have tremendous benefits for our national reputation and relationships around the world, I’m very concerned that some of the positions you have taken to secure your electoral victory do not signal the changes (or continuations) I wish to see.

I would love to see the titular head of our government represent the growing diversity and multiculturalism of the USA. It is also important that the electorate send a clear message of the wrongness of our on-going war on and occupation of Iraq. Your opposition to the war plans back in 2002 are noted and appreciated by many of us in the peace community. However, your announced desire to increase military personnel in Afghanistan makes me seriously question both your judgment and analysis of the misguided “War on Terror”. There are no military solutions to genuine security and justice concerns throughout the Middle East and particularly Afghanistan. It is not a helpful response to fight terror with terror and the record of killing civilians in Afghanistan by our bombing attacks will continue to be counterproductive.

Your equivocation on the death penalty disturbs me. The entire world looks at our criminal justice system as deeply flawed by the racism evident in its world-record (per capita) prison population. We need clear, principled leadership from all our main branches of government to change these regressive and demoralizing policies that most other governments around the world already have done so.

I am deeply concerned about the nature and design of the massive economic bailout of Wall Street …

I planned to finish writing this on Election Day. But the night before, a friend who is an election judge asked me if I could help him out by working at a polling place with him as a deputy election judge. I felt it was my civic duty and ended up working more than 15 hours, thus failing to have the time to write to/about Obama before he was declared the President-elect.

The specter of past campaigns came to haunt that decision to vote for Obama. I got an email from the Nader campaign that Ralph would be interrupting my plans to hand out goodies to the neighborhood kids on Halloween night by speaking nearby at the University of MN. Although Obama has a book called The Audacity of Hope, it is really practiced by Nader - when his campaign asked for a $10 “donation” ($5 for students) to attend his speech! I guess when you aren’t raising hundreds of millions like Obama, and you aren’t likely to get any donations from Wall Street or corporate tycoons, and you get shut out of the national TV debates, you need to pay the bills somehow.

Ralph Nader doesn’t have the charisma or eloquence of Barack Obama. But he is very clear about his analysis of our present situation and the need for our political leaders to address it honestly without pandering or caving in to the wealthy corporate interest groups. It is more important that my vote reflect my convictions than merely be an expression of “hope” that this politician might change. Is the analogy similar to the woman who marries hoping to “change” her husband down the road? Why not find the right partner who can grow with you rather than always feel the need to change them?

Many observers commented about “fear” as an issue in recent American political campaigns. I decided I couldn’t let fear of a Bradley effect or a McCain win affect my vote any more than “fear” of “terrorists”, “immigrants”, “gay marriage”, or other issues that might affect other voters. Even “fear” of a Sarah Palin presidency should a cancer-ridden John McCain not survive a full term is still a vote out of fear rather than conviction.

That Halloween night, I decided to cast my ballot for the Nader/Gonzales ticket. I say this somewhat confessionally. There are many good reasons why almost all of my close friends voted for Obama (and probably Franken as well). I don’t sit in judgment on them and their reasons to do so. Frankly, the decision was easier for me because it became apparent in the last month of the campaign that Obama would easily carry the electoral votes in Minnesota – thus giving me the “luxury” of favoring my conscience over the expediency of trying to keep McCain out of the White House.

Had I finished my letter to Obama, I would have addressed core issues for me in the political realm: War and “defense”- what makes us more “secure” and what threatens our “security”, Wealth & poverty- care for the marginalized, Healthcare and the need for a single-payer/universal coverage system, Human rights, Environment, …

What I will commit to is to continue to work for creating political space (an opening) for progressive change by doing my day-to-day work of nonviolent direct action, educating myself and my neighbors and fellow citizens about issues confronting us, trying to give a voice to and on behalf of the poor and marginalized. My vote on Election Day is less significant than what I do on behalf of my nation, our citizens, and our world the other 364 days of the year. If we create the political space, maybe courageous politicians will arise to embody our values and convictions. And, someday, maybe we can elect them! In the meantime, we have to continue our work.

Today I Voted For Peace. 2006

Today I Voted For Peace
By Steve Clemens. September 2006

Today I voted for peace: I mailed my absentee ballot with an X by the candidate who calls us to bring the troops home NOW! (Keith Ellison).

On Primary Election Day (Sept. 12), I will be voting for peace by walking for prisoners. The Prison and Jail Project in Americus, GA is sponsoring the annual 100 mile FreedomWalk to raise awareness for and of the people in jails and prisons in southwest Georgia. My vote (walk) for peace is a call to stop demonizing and instead work for healing, restitution, and reconciliation rather than punitive punishments.

I voted for peace when I traveled to Iraq in December 2002, three months before this new manifestation of war against the Iraqi people which really has been on-going since the economic sanctions were put in place in 1990 and the bombing began in earnest on Dr. King’s birthday (oh, the irony!) in 1991.

I voted for peace when I spent 20 years of my life helping organizations build affordable housing for families in need. There is no peace (certainly not the SHALOM the scriptures call for) when people are hungry, homeless, or in need.

I vote for peace every Wednesday morning when I join 30-50 others in a vigil outside the entrance to a company that profits by making weapons of war and indiscriminate destruction. Alliant TechSystems must not be allowed to make such weapons such as cluster bombs, land mines, and depleted uranium munitions without our voicing our “vote” of NO!

I voted for peace when I joined millions of other citizens around the world on a February Saturday in 2003, marching in the streets saying a war on Iraq will not heal the wounds and scars of 9/11. Voting in the street is an important part of informing our public policy-makers.

I voted for peace when I crawled under the chain-link fence “protecting” Fort Benning from the 19,000 peaceful demonstrators calling for the closure of the School of the Americas and I again voted for peace when I walked willingly into the Federal Prison in Duluth this past spring to “serve” my three month sentence. Hopefully, that kind of vote can let my “representatives” know without any doubt about the seriousness of my convictions (pun intended).

I voted for peace when I purchased a hybrid car in order to consume fewer of our earth’s dwindling natural resources – certainly one of the more significant causes of war in our world today.

I voted for peace when I submitted my application as a conscientious objector in 1968 to the war on Indochina and voted again for peace in 1974 when arrested at the White House calling for our government to honor the Peace Agreement we signed.

I voted for peace when I attended the installation of a lesbian minister in a local Lutheran Church several years ago, signaling that my vote for peace is also a vote to not allow those considered “different“ in our society to be marginalized and discriminated against without my protest.

I vote for peace when I make my financial donations to the Center for Victims of Torture, The Nonviolent Peaceforce and the Christian Peacemaker Teams, Mennonite Central Committee, Jubilee Partners and The Open Door Community, and numerous other groups working to feed the hungry, welcome the stranger, visit the prisoners, heal the sick, perform the “works of mercy” and work for reconciliation and justice.

I take my vote seriously but I don’t confuse my marking an X beside a candidate’s name as fulfilling my political duty. My electoral vote might be the least significant of the many other opportunities I have been given to “vote” with my body, my time, and my money. Until politicians know we will back up our votes with our lives, they will not need to take us or our “politics” very seriously.

My Vote in 2004

My Vote in 2004
By Steve Clemens. October 2004

I agree with Anabaptist theologian John Howard Yoder when he wrote in 1976 that voting is probably the least significant political act in we should engage ourselves as Christians. More important than voting are acts of mercy, protesting in the streets, and working for real, substantive change.

During the primary season, I supported the Democratic candidacy of Rep. Dennis Kucinich, despite the fact that he never received more than 7% of the vote state-wide. (Incidentally, he did win our local caucus vote with close to 50% of the vote with 7 other challengers). Dennis called on people to vote their hopes, not their fears. To vote for what we dream for, not for what we are against. However, in the end, as a loyal mainstream party member, he endorsed the party nominee, albeit with not a lot of enthusiasm, calling for his supporters to “work within the system [party] for change.”

For me, there are several primary issues in the selection of a President: the present reality of empire coupled with an imperialistic theology which identifies America as “special, chosen, a beacon on the hill, light for the nations”, the growing and obscene gap between the rich and the poor both here in the US and around the world, our present (and historic) habit of choosing force [or threats of force] over international cooperation and community, our endangered political freedoms and the right [and duty] of dissent, and our stewardship of the environment. Hanging over virtually all of these issues is the domination of corporate interests and the inordinate role of money in our electoral process.

We have been told by some in our nation that at the center of this election are key moral issues. I agree. I just disagree on what are those issues. Abortion should be considered as a public policy issue because how we treat the most vulnerable is important. However, the question of when life becomes human is not readily answered in the political arena and, unfortunately, many of those hollering the loudest against abortion have not supported either effective birth control programs or adequately funded programs for needy children. I support a policy [advocated locally by State Senator John Marty] which calls for governmental support for both adoption and birth control education/supplies as a way of decreasing the number [and need?] of abortions.

The threat to the institution of marriage that gay or lesbian couples present is raised as another key moral issue. Homosexual partners in loving, supportive, and committed relationships are most certainly preferable to promiscuous and exploitative sexual behavior. Heterosexual divorce is a greater threat to the “traditional marriage” yet the second marriage [after a failed marriage] of some of my friends is clear evidence to me that most of we humans are created to thrive in committed and loving relationships. I am convinced that many of my gay and lesbian and bisexual friends were born with that minority sexual orientation and, as such, are especially loved by our creator who has a special compassion for the poor and the oppressed and excluded. For me, not only permitting but encouraging committed relationships for homosexuals is a Christian political position. My marriage is in no way threatened by the ability of others to marry.

Prayer in schools, public statues of the Ten Commandments, and keeping “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance are also trumpeted as moral issues in the body politic but are like the two above more “wedge” issues to further divide us as a people and are more likely used to distract us from the real political choices we should be addressing. Incidentally, I don’t want politicians deciding what prayers are said in schools and I worry more about enforcing the “liberty and justice for all” before worrying about “under God” in the Pledge. I can’t recite the Pledge anyway since I’ve already “pledged allegiance” to the Kingdom of God.

The real issues

Our present wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and “against terrorism” are but symptoms and manifestations of the reality that our nation has become a world-dominating empire. Coupled with the enormous economic power of multi-national corporations, the US is actively seeking hegemony over the entire globe [not to mention the incredibly serious present attempts to militarize and dominate space as well under the bi-partisan Star Wars program]. It must be said clearly- The war against Iraq was illegal [according to the Charter of the UN] and was based on lies and fear-mongering. While our attacks on the Taliban-led government of Afghanistan had more international support, our failure to spend any significant effort to re-build that nation is both dishonest and criminal.

“Terrorism” is a political term bandied about to discredit one group against another. When cities are fire-bombed [as in WW II] or vaporized by nuclear bombs, when villages are attacked by “contras” or other “paramilitary” groups we call “freedom fighters”, those on the receiving end experience the acts as terrorism. Acts like the tragedy of 9/11 are criminal and those involved should be apprehended and brought to trial. But so should political leaders who order the bombing of civilian areas, oversee a policy of “disappearances”, and target victims primarily on the basis of religion, race, or ethnicity.

But what about leaders who standby while millions die of preventable disease (malaria) when just a few hours-worth of the present US military budget (now over $1 billion/day) could eradicate it? Is that not a form of ‘terrorism” to the families who watch their children die? War and the threat and preparations for it are, and must be, predominating moral issues in the political realm. As President Eisenhower reminded us, "Every gun made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed...."

When our national identity becomes confused with a theology of being “chosen” by God, we are at the brink of blasphemy. There is no Biblical basis for a “new Israel” and to proclaim that we are “a city on a hill” (to quote President Reagan) is in fact to confuse the Kingdom of God with a nation whose history is ripe with genocide (Native Americans), slavery (African-Americans), rape and plunder (the theft of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California from Mexico), genocide again (Philippine Islands), mass murder (fire bombing of Dresden, Tokyo, and the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki), devastation of the environment (Agent Orange and napalm in Vietnam), and it continues with the use of depleted uranium munitions in Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq (twice).

If we are a “chosen people”, when do we get exiled to Babylon for these sins against God and humanity? Manifest Destiny was a smoke-screen for the idolatry and avarice it masked. The hypocrisy and hubris of our policy and position that the US can have weapons of mass destruction but other nations cannot makes clear that our nation labors under the presumption that we are divinely-ordained. Our nation sells more weapons to other nations than all other nations in the world combined! Somehow that picture does not mesh well with the Biblical vision of the lion laying down with the lamb.

Our empire mentality has blinded us to what is clearly evident to peoples around the world. Having 5% of the world’s population, we consider it our birthright to consume way in excess of our share of the world’s resources. We’ve substituted “dominion” for “stewardship” and now are facing [or, if Republicans, still in denial about] global warming, pollution, extinction of species, … . We cannot trust “the market” to regulate itself. The market system is part of the fallen powers of domination and it is foolish (and idolatrous) to look to it for our salvation. Short-term profits have become our god and, in the process, have raped and plundered our environment and what used to be called “the commons”.

There appears to me that there are only slight differences between President Bush and Senator Kerry. Both have indicated that they will not challenge the policy of empire- Kerry just wants it to have a little more dressing of approval from the international community. Both have called for increases in military might at a time when the US outspends all other nations in the world combined! And to do this, social programs must be cut. Education, healthcare, social security, international humanitarian aid are all sacrificed on the altar of Mars.

Yes, some Democrats seem to pick and choose among new weapon systems while Republicans want even more than the Pentagon requests. Most of the weapon systems have nothing to do with “defense” – they are offensive weapons. Study after study has shown that investments in weapon systems always produce fewer jobs than investments in almost every other sector of the economy. The Pentagon has so much money that it presently can’t account for more than $1.2 trillion it has received in the past several decades. We’ve moved beyond acting out of fear and greed to outright foolishness yet neither major candidate nor political party is willing to say “the emperor has no clothes”.

Biblically, how one treats the poor is probably the key issue in evaluating the government. Not only is this a major theme of the Hebrew prophets, but Jesus talks more about economic issues than any other. The rapidly increasing chasm between the wealthy and those without in our society call us to confront again Jesus’ parable of “the rich man and Lazarus”. Our political process has become fatally corrupted by the undue influence wielded by corporate and other wealthy interests. Who is willing and able to speak on behalf of the poor? While Christians will have honest disagreements about taxes and other fiscal policy, the question must be asked as to whether the poor are being “left behind”?

Care for the natural environment is predominately a moral issue. God created our world and called it “tov” – very, very good. Our charge to be good stewards, care-takers of this gift, should not be traded like Esau’s birthright for a “mess of pottage”. It is a crime against the creator not to pursue renewable sources of energy like solar, wind, and geo-thermal when all of us are endangered by global warming and other climate-changing threats. Fuel efficiency standards for vehicles is a moral issue, of much greater significance in my perspective than whether or not to allow a sculpture or monument to the Ten Commandments on public (secular) property.

I don’t see either major political party sharing these concerns or addressing these issues. Our present political system of “winner takes all” makes voting for a minor party ineffective [at least in the short-term]. Yet I can’t in good conscience vote for either Kerry/Edwards or Bush/Cheney. I’d much rather vote what I’m for rather than what I’m against – although I don’t totally discount “voting against” the present administration as a way to signal to the rest of the world community that I totally reject unilateralism and the pre-emptive war policies presently invoked by the President. Ralph Nader has been fairly consistent in addressing many of the concerns I’ve raised and his call for all of us to take “citizenship” seriously goes beyond just saying “no” to the present structure. Yet his unwillingness to be subject to the discipline of a party platform smacks too much of American individualism rather than corporate accountability.

So how do I vote? Prayerfully. Confessionaly. And then continue to work within the political arena to raise the moral issues which must be addressed. I’m not proud that I live in a nation which has the highest per capita incarceration rate in the world. I’m saddened that with such great medical knowledge and equipment our infant mortality rate and other health measures show us to be behind more than a dozen other nations. Despite our economic wealth, the percentage of international aid given by our government to other needier nations is well below many others.

Instead of being feared for our military might, I want to live in a nation respected for its devotion to human rights and compassion. Instead of consuming a disproportionate amount of the world’s resources, I want to be a citizen of a nation providing leadership in protecting and conserving the environment. Let’s find a way to heal the divisions in our land and work together on these issues of moral value.

Rejecting A Politics of Hate, Greed, and Fear.

Rejecting a Politics of Hate, Greed, and Fear
Steve Clemens, April 4, 2004

It is no mistake that it is called “culture wars”. There is a “take no prisoners” mentality in our politics – ironic in a country that has one of the highest imprisonment rates in the world! It is a war where the object is not a negotiated settlement but a push for only “unconditional surrender”. And, most unfortunately, it is a Civil War in that it pits brother against brother, family against family, region against region- yet there is very little that is civil about it.

The political dust storm about “gay marriage”: is the concept of “marriage” between traditional heterosexual marriage really threatened and under attack? Do we really need to “defend marriage”? Haven’t Hollywood “celebrities” done enough to make light of this institution without trying to place the blame on gay/lesbian couples who seek the stability and recognition of a loving, committed relationship, trying to break the stereotypical image of promiscuity so often linked to homosexuality? Is this an issue which demands we change a Constitution which is designed to protect rights rather than to limit them?

In the abortion issue: can one be opposed to the idea of ending a developing life while striving to allow women in desperate situations a choice in consultation with a medical professional? While it is admirable for people to speak up on behalf of those who can’t, isn’t it ironic that so many of the voices “speaking” on behalf of the “unborn” remain silent when those who are already born live in poverty and hopelessness? Isn’t it ironic that many of the voices shout on behalf of the “unborn” are the first to “cast a stone” when the subject is capital punishment? Is one really “pro-life” when supporting the most powerful death-machine in military might that the world has ever known?

Why do we search in other countries for “weapons of mass destruction” while we continue to build and justify our own possession and threatened use of such?

We do have much to fear. When one nation with only 5% of the world’s population wants to continue a “lifestyle” which consumes at least 25% of the world’s resources, one must wonder how long this can continue before the masses rise up and demand a change? The exporting of our “culture” through TV, movies, and music has a way of putting the consumption disparities “in your face”.

Yet does our politics – the way we choose to organize our life together as a people, as a nation - need to be polarizing and based on fear and sometimes on hate? Are the divisions created to distract us from the growing chasm between the rich and poor in our own society (not to mention between us and the rest of the world, especially those in the southern hemisphere)?

Can we take time to stop the shouting and sloganeering to really listen to each other? Can we take time to explore why we feel afraid? Why we feel alienated from each other? Can we explore what our hopes and dreams are about?

Someone handed me a “business card” yesterday which read, “Vote ABB”. In smaller letters at the bottom it read, “Anybody but Bush”. Really? Hitler?, Saddam?, Fred Phelps? I can think of hundreds I wouldn’t support but why support anyone just to avoid someone else? Why not find a candidate who calls us to a vision of who we can be rather than who we are not?

When I travel abroad, I don’t want to have to apologize for being an American. I don’t want to secretly wish my passport read “Canadian”.