Early morning, April 4th....
Another thought on the US election:
"We cannot be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote."
That was Martin Luther King in 1963 during his "I have a dream..." speech.
Looking at Bush or Kerry, or come to that... Blair, Howard or Kennedy.... have things really changed? Do you really believe you have something positive to vote for?
If Kerry wins, will it be because of his policies, or because he isn't Bush? If Bush wins, will a lot of it be because he isn't John Kerry? I know who I would vote for and why (if I was a US citizen) and it wouldn't be entirely because of his policies....
I know the answer in a democratic society is supposed to be that if you don't like what you see on the ballot paper, get off you arse and set up your own party, but it certainly gives some food for thought. If there was a general election in the UK tomorrow I would probably vote Labour in spite of all my disgust at the way they have conducted themselves on issues like the war in Iraq. Why do they still get my vote? Because I don't feel as though I have a viable alternative - they are still better than the rest (although actually my vote would be wasted because I live in Rushcliffe - a safe conservative seat held by Kenneth Clarke - stupid system! I want to use my mandate and have it count for something)
"No, no we are not satisfied and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream. "
"We cannot be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote."
That was Martin Luther King in 1963 during his "I have a dream..." speech.
Looking at Bush or Kerry, or come to that... Blair, Howard or Kennedy.... have things really changed? Do you really believe you have something positive to vote for?
If Kerry wins, will it be because of his policies, or because he isn't Bush? If Bush wins, will a lot of it be because he isn't John Kerry? I know who I would vote for and why (if I was a US citizen) and it wouldn't be entirely because of his policies....
I know the answer in a democratic society is supposed to be that if you don't like what you see on the ballot paper, get off you arse and set up your own party, but it certainly gives some food for thought. If there was a general election in the UK tomorrow I would probably vote Labour in spite of all my disgust at the way they have conducted themselves on issues like the war in Iraq. Why do they still get my vote? Because I don't feel as though I have a viable alternative - they are still better than the rest (although actually my vote would be wasted because I live in Rushcliffe - a safe conservative seat held by Kenneth Clarke - stupid system! I want to use my mandate and have it count for something)
"No, no we are not satisfied and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream. "
Let's change the world.
Any suggestions?
posted by swisslet @ 13:17
3 Comments:
At 3:34 pm,
LB said…
i'm the other way.
what's the point in voting? the chances of your specific vote being the one that makes the difference are entirely negligible compared to the time it takes you to go to the polling station, the petrol you use in your car to get there, the shoe leather etc etc and so you should just stay in and not bother at all.
If you're a Republican in New York, dont waste your time. Have a cup of tea and watch Countdown instead (assuming that is you can get Countdown on NBC or whatever channel it is)
let them get on with it and join a society for things you genuinely care about (i.e not Iraq) and get directly involved in a way that you can actually change something that you give a toss about. Like CAMRA for example. Or hospital radio.
I have used our new gambling laws to place a bet on the outcome of the Presidential eleection. I like that. A lot.
At 4:17 pm,
Teresa Bowman said…
The problem is that ideally, everyone should have a say in matters, and their "say" should be individual and not channelled through a political party - with some of whose policies the individual might agree, and with some of whose policies they might not. However:
1. Large numbers of people very rarely manage to agree with each other; and when they do ...
2. ... "If you put one hundred of the most intelligent people in the world together, they become a stupid mob" (Carl Jung).
I would love to change the world. Unfortunately it would necessarily involve changing human nature, and I don't think that's possible.
(Good God ... have I been listening to Radiohead again or something?)
At 4:46 pm,
Damo said…
Of those five politicians, I at least think Charles Kennedy has not yet done anything to show that he is a bad man. For what it's worth, I've voted Lib Dem all my life.
How will changing the world ever happen? My only theory is that it would be by people concentrating on single issues. Look at Chris Martin of Coldplay and his work for Oxfam/Make Trade Fair. He's come in for some stick for that, which is very wrong. Basically, if you or I want to change the world, making lots of noise in itself won't change anything. Holding up a placard outside no. 10 won't change anything. Reciting a 10-point list in a pub of the things you'd do if you were in power won't change anything.
Nope, the best hope as I see it is for everyone to find the one thing that motivates them above everything else... and stick to it. So what Chris Martin is doing is entirely correct... he's picking one thing and really REALLY running with it. And most people who are giving him stick probably do nothing except, I don't know, moan about how unfair speed cameras are. I wonder how much different the world would be if everyone took a single issue and championed it... I guess we'll never know.
Post a Comment
<< Home