For whom should I vote?

I never thought I would be saying anything like this, but I just might pass on this election cycle. The truth is I don't know who to vote for in the coming election! Not one of the candidates appear to have any understanding of what really matters, of what is going on in our society and the world, or of what the future will bring if we don't get our act together now.

The problem for me is that none of the candidates look very good. McCain? - hell no. Obama? - hope is all he offers. Clinton? - cannot trust her. I don't see any evidence that any one of them has a clue as to what the really important issues are.

They all speak to global warming and have some version of a market-based solution, whether it is cap-and-trade or voluntary (Bush II). What they just don't get is the scaling problem of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to what is effectively negative values. That's right. We not only need to reduce our emissions (world wide) to zero, we have to take some of the CO₂ out of the atmosphere in order to keep the concentration at or below the 350ppm level that James Hansen thinks is adequate (and with really good reasons, I might add). Since the concentration is now 380 ppm we have our work cut out for us.

None of these candidates has addressed the concerns of peak fossil fuel. Again, my issues are ones of rates of depletion and the need to understand energy systems and their interaction with economics. Not one of the candidates understands that we have reached the limits of growth and need to find ways to lead meaningful lives while contracting from the scale of energy consumption we currently have.

How about any of the previous candidates? Did any of them seem to have a clue? There were wisps. I actually believe Dennis Kucinich has an inkling of the nature of the problems. But that he didn't stand a chance because many people thought him a lunatic-fringer made his candidacy a non-starter. The basic problem for any candidate for president is that the job they seek to hold is, by definition, one of keeping America on top. It doesn't matter that by the standard definition of what that means it also means we screw the rest of the world. In order for Americans to keep their lifestyles of wanton consumption and waste, the POTUS has to do things like, I don't know, how about invading a foreign country that happens to have oil?!

Which leads me to another thought. I used to think of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney as the epitome of evil. But now I realize they are really just pathetic figures. They are caught in a web of selfishness, not just their own, but that of a large (thankfully not all) Americans. And the American penchant for consumerism is a pathetic state of affairs. It is what my generation grew up with. It is what we thought was the way of life. Only those of us who noticed that things really weren't getting better, and started questioning the dominant paradigm broke free of the delusions that have kept Americans from seeing reality.

None of the candidates could look good to me now. Anyone who stood up and told the truth about growth and consumption and resource depletion, etc. wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of surviving the campaign let alone being elected. I have the unfortunate flaw of demanding that those who would lead have a basic understanding of what the problems are and have a desire to tackle them for all of humanity, not just the American way of life. The problems are global after all. Anyone who seeks to make Americans comfortable in light of the kinds of sacrifices we are all going to have to make in the near future simply doesn't grasp the magnitude or scope of the problems and, in my mind, automatically gets discounted as a candidate.

And that, unfortunately, doesn't leave me with many viable options. Unbelievably, I find my self thinking the unthinkable in this republic/democracy. There really is no one to vote for.

Comments

[ab]

REPLY to: For whom should I vote? (26 April), and Humanity Needs A Strategic Plan (April 28).
The worst plan is to follow the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, simply it can not define CLIMATE (http://www.whatisclimate.com/ ) and has reduced the question to CO2, which is irresponsible.
The most reasonable plan should concentrate on what makes our climate, which is water. Already Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519) said: Water Is The Driver Of Nature. On this basis it is rectified to define climate as the continuation of the oceans by other means, as suggested in a letter to Nature in 1992 (Volume 360, 26 November 1992, page 292); full text at: http://www.oceanclimate.de . More important however is the reference to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, UNCLOS 1982, as it is the much needed instrument to protect the global climate.
Article 192 of the Convention states: States Have The Obligation To Protect And Preserve The Marine Environment.
The most promising plan would acknowledge that we understand very little about how the oceans dominate and control our climate, which should result in full implementation and application of UNCLOS.
For those who need some reading to grasp how human activities at sea can drive weather pattern, and climate should have a look at material presented here: http://www.seaclimate.com , http://www.warchangesclimate.com/ .

[George Mobus]

Insofar as the UN Convention on Climate is not really a strategic plan, but a reaction to a perceived threat it cannot tell us how to anticipate the future. The kind of strategic thinking I have in mind goes beyond single issues such as this.

[donna]

But if you don't vote, you're letting others make the choice for you. In voting for the "least evil" you help keep the greater evil from getting elected. Perhaps your choice has to be made from the standpoint of "who do I not want elected", implying you ought vote against "Hell No" McCain no matter if the other choices are not quite who you would like to see. Then find the candidates you can support and work to get them into your local, state, or other offices.

Political change is a process, not a moment. You can choose to be a part of that process, or opt out of it. Not voting simply means you are letting others make those choices, and they may not be what you want.

[George Mobus]

Hi Donna.

Actually you give good advice. I started with a 'shock' statement to underscore the points I wanted to make. I assure you I will vote, but as you say, for the least 'evil'.

For me that means the person who seems the least ignorant of how the world works. The point of my blog was to simply say that all of the candidates seem really ignorant right now.

There is another dimension to this, however. In the really long term does it really matter who gets elected now? That we are even having this conversation says more about the state of political discourse and awareness in this country, among the people, than it does about the quality of the candidates. In the end, I suspect that whoever gets elected will not be effective in any case. This is about the state of the people of this country more than about the abilities and knowledge of the POTUS.

In a perverse way GWB has done the world a favor by exposing the incompetence of those (in general) who seek high political offices. Fools rush in where angels fear to tread. He has been less evil and more incompetent in his failures to understand what he was doing (Iraq) or not doing (Katrina). His beliefs and subsequent actions are more a testament to his ignorance and incompetence than to any deviousness we might attribute to him. I'm of the opinion that Kerry wouldn't have been any more effective (especially with a republican domination of the congress). Al Gore might have handled the emergencies better (9/11 and New Orleans) but I suspect he would not have gotten any further in pushing for a meaningful energy policy or on CO2 emissions (again as much because of the republican domination). I do think Gore would have bought us a few more years to have the kinds of conversations that could lead to better solutions, but that is mere conjecture.

Everything I've said about the POTUS I also hold for most members of the congress. I concur with the generally poor ratings they get (worse than for Bush last I saw). The sad fact is that there is very little in the way of leadership being exercised in that body.

I'll vote, but with a very heavy heart, knowing that the meaning of my vote is 'the least worst' and that in the end it won't matter much who wins. I hope I am wrong on all counts.

George