Home > Family, Love, politics > Green for Hope

Green for Hope

Last week, I wrote briefly about why I couldn’t vote either Republican or Democrat in the upcoming U.S. presidential election.

What am I voting for, then?

For the Green Party.

For peace.

image

For my children, and their future on this planet.

image

For hope.

Advertisements
Categories: Family, Love, politics Tags: , ,
  1. August 25, 2016 at 7:34 am

    I applaud your decision to vote your conscience!

  2. August 25, 2016 at 7:43 am

    I’m now third party myself as well. I am still on the fence between Johnson and Stein as I’m still reading about their platforms. Decision is imminent ๐Ÿ™‚

    • August 25, 2016 at 7:19 pm

      Hear that! There’s a slim chance I’ll vote for Johnson, if it looks like he has the remotest possibility of winning. Other than that, I’d love Stein to get 5% of the vote and secure Green Party federal funding for the 2020 election. Happily, it looks like that’s virtually a given for the Libertarian party! ๐Ÿ™‚

  3. August 25, 2016 at 6:36 pm

    Good for you! I’m glad you broke free of the Dem fear-mongering. And I will say Jill’s tee-shirts are cooler than Gary’s… ๐Ÿ™‚

    • August 25, 2016 at 7:35 pm

      Me, too! I’m so glad y’all were willing to talk me through the nerves of facing life without “my” party of two decades. The moment I made the decision, I felt so much lighter of heart. To know that I no longer have to buy or try selling there’s-really-just-two narrative … phew.

      I’d read that Democrats and Republicans are two heads of the same horrific beast. It seemed like an exaggeration until my last three-book reading stretch, when I realized that the little breadcrumbs Obama’s been tossing out have been to hide the thousands of loaves of bread he’s given to those already best able to feed themselves. I look at the things I didn’t see the last eight years and then look at Clinton and think I cannot be any part of Obama’s third term: tons more weapon sales to dictatorships that oppress minorities and execute dissenters, tons more threats against “allies” who try to obtain recourse against America for its illegal acts of torture and detention, tons more entreaties that we Americans must not examine the past (when that would yield detrimental results for those who lobby hardest here, while simultaneously lecturing other nations how they must own their pasts), tons more castigation of journalists who report news versus propaganda, and tons more steps toward really not being able to call ourselves a democracy with a straight face. (It’s hard enough as is.)

      I’ve been trying to figure out how to express the highlights from the most compelling of the three books I just read, but every time I try, I’m stuck with the fact I want to quote more than half the book. Argh!

      In any case, establishment Dems tell me I must vote the lesser evil, so I’m taking their advice. I’m just extending it a little further: voting against evil. Which, phew.

      • August 25, 2016 at 8:48 pm

        Yes, yes and YES! As for book highlights … I hope you figure it out because I love your insights. I am struggling so much at the moment with much to do and very low energy reserves, which leaves me too tired to do serious research. I love that I can read your thoughtful take on the research you do and come away with, at least, something resembling a clue! Maybe you could pick one highlight at a time and write a series, posting it as … hmmm … Philosophy Phursday, or Political Ptuesday… ๐Ÿ™‚

  4. August 25, 2016 at 11:30 pm

    Aha! I’m doing the same thing! There won’t be any need to apologize for my vote if I go Green! Fabulous photos! Smiling faces make me smile, too!

    • August 26, 2016 at 5:47 am

      I’m so hopeful the Green Party will get 5% of the vote in November! With that, that’s government funding for 2020 that’ll dramatically improve Green chances in the future. That’s a thought that makes me smile all over again. ♥

  5. August 25, 2016 at 11:34 pm

    I’m really grateful that you have been blogging so openly and honestly about your search for who to vote for. You’ve begun to change my thinking about voting and “throwing votes away”. I live in a fiercely Republican state and I never vote Republican, which with a certain way of thinking amounts to throwing my vote away. Since my vote probably isn’t going to make much of a difference at all in who my state votes for, why shouldn’t I go ahead and vote for who I want to, regardless of political party? And then looking at the differences that could be made to the political system if 3rd party candidates get enough votes? I kind of wonder how I ever saw a vote for 3rd party as potentially throwing away your vote.
    I was curious about why you decided on The Green Party, so I went ahead and Googled Jill Stein and found her Platform. I was amazed at how it was almost exactly what my extremely liberal self wants and believes! I guess I just assumed (because I’ve been conditioned to do so) that being a “Liberal” I would only fit in the Democratic party.
    I still haven’t made a final decision on who I’ll vote for. If my state is as against Trump as people have been saying I might feel the need to vote Democrat just to be certain that Trump doesn’t win. But I also might cast my first 3rd party vote this year. ๐Ÿ™‚
    Once again, thank you for sharing and helping me make sense of this mess of a political landscape this year!

    • August 26, 2016 at 6:08 am

      Thank you so much for leaving this comment! I started out my blogging only wanting to post when I’d really figured something out. Over time, I realized I was limiting myself to a very narrow range experience. I was also taking part in the everything’s-easy-and-groovy narrative built when social media reflects the best parts of our lives instead of their entirety. I started wanting to be more open with everything I don’t know, which honestly feels really good.

      I’m glad that I’ve documented my struggles to make sense of things here. (I wonder how they’ll read to me down the road?) I’ve included a lot of articles on my Politics page, but I haven’t yet figured out how to express them in a way where they’re readable. I’ll figure that out later, I suppose.

      The Green Party very closely reflects my beliefs. That wouldn’t even have mattered to me had I not been horrified by my recent readings into understanding that the Democrat party I thought existed is very different from the one that actually does. The massive uptick in weapon sales by Clinton’s Department of State and Obama’s administration overall, with huge portions of those going to human rights destructive dictatorships, has been particularly illuminating. The U.S. has already provided $1 billion+ in weapons to Saudi Arabia, in addition to other assistance, and is preparing to fork over another billion dollars of weapons. All this so that Saudi Arabia can continue to bomb Yemeni hospitals, schools, and weddings, and Kerry can lay blame for that squarely on Yemen, the victim of indiscriminate destruction in which the U.S. has been not only complicit, but–accurately–per Glenn Greenwald on Twitter, “indispensable.”

      Warfare is lucrative. Until recently, I failed to grasp how much “lucrative” determines outcomes for both parties.

      This is one example. There are so many other examples that I don’t even know where to begin.

      So when I look at what establishment Democrats tell me is the “lesser evil,” I know it’s not them. It’s not Trump, either. So the answer, for me, is in third parties. In breaking up a two-party system that benefits not the people but the system.

      Wow, that got grim!

      All that’s to say, I went from feeling really, really heartsick about voting Dem to feeling really, really good about voting for peace–actual peace, not propaganda peace.

      It’s a grand feeling. ♥

  6. August 28, 2016 at 9:29 am

    There was a very irritating editorial in the NY Times a few weeks ago calling on third party voters to not lessen the mandate of the winner from one of the two major parties. I couldn’t believe they would publish something like that, but then again the Times does have their own agenda, even if they do try to appear impartial.

    I think that no vote is wasted, why support the status quo if you do not believe it? And for similar reasons as your’s I’m with Johnson-Weld.

    • August 28, 2016 at 9:57 am

      I highly recommend the article “Democracy in Peril: Twenty Years of Media Consolidation Under the Telecommunications Act.”

      Here’s a representative quote from the article:

      “[The [sinister] role that the media industry plays in Washington] has not been central in the 2016 presidential election. But it is deeply concerning that, of all the presidential candidates running in 2016, the Big Media lobby has chosen to back Hillary Clinton. Media industry giants have donated way more to her than any other candidate in the race, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics. In light of this, we must be mindful of the media reform challenges we face in the present, as we try to prevent the type of damage to our democracy that was caused by the passing of this unfortunate law.”

      When the New York Times posts articles like the one you mention, what it’s saying is, “We’ve placed a tremendous investment in nudging Clinton toward the presidency in the hopes that she will continue rewarding us as greatly as she and hers can in the current landscape.”

      In this case, of course, it’s an editorial, but now the line between editorial and news article is so blurred that it’s important to keep the purported news pieces in mind when assessing the editorials.

      A couple of years ago, I began noticing how NYT’s articles specifically contained lots of terrible slant disguised as neutrality. It, especially, has featured in fair.org reporting I’ve followed.

      I no longer get my news from a single source. I use Twitter hashtags to track news from multiple sources, to gather the most accurate reflection of what’s actually happening apart from the agendas of any one given “news” source.

      (I know this probably all sounds very cynical to many voters not following closely, but hey. Enough following the news and its blatant biases, and this is where I’m at: finding news from alternative news sources. Social media used correctly presents much more news-y news than most politician-adulatory news organizations these days. I so highly recommend Greenwald for his way of breaking down how mainstream media is and has been in bed with politicians for decades now, to the point where they don’t really work hard to hide it anymore.)

      I agree with you that no vote is wasted, although I now–having read hundreds of articles the past few months–feel that this is particularly so with third party votes. It looks like a lot of people now vote as I used to: “My party is good, ergo I must vote for them, because they’re the good guys, even if I’m not especially tracking what they’re up to these days.”

      I told another commenter that I might vote for Johnson-Weld if a groundswell of votes made that a viable prospect. My heart’s full Green, but by the same token, my recent readings have so alarmed me about how R/D politicians have destroyed quality of life for the 99% that I feel any party not benefiting from entrenched power would represent the majority better than R/D. Indeed, Johnson’s non-interventionist lean is a sigh of relief to me as I watch how the U.S. has armed Saudi Arabia (more than $1b and counting, to ensure ongoing oil access, etc.) which now flagrantly attacks Yemeni civilians, and I know that peace would have a much, much better chance to flourish under his leadership than under either the neocons or the neolibs.

      All this is a really long way of saying, I think you’ll see a lot of that, but the fact it’s abundant doesn’t make it’s true. You’re using your vote as it was meant to be used: to have your voice in saying what you want for the country and the world. If neither the D nor R parties reflect that (and they could not be further from it for me), you use and amplify your voice by voting for the party that does. And that, that is rad. That is democracy.

      • August 31, 2016 at 2:19 pm

        I used to read the NY Times every day, but like you I started to notice a shift in their news coverage. Over time it became so noticeable that I stopped reading the Times for its news and political coverage. I did still like to read the Times for its Art coverage, but even there I noticed how a political slant would be included in many stories. I think I noticed the headline of editorial I mentioned while reading a movie review and couldn’t help but be pulled in by the outrageousness of it.

        Now I read the Economist (which had a good article about the bombing of Yemen recently), the Guardian, BBC News, and The Wall Street Journal, and I listen to the ‘On The Media’ program from NPR. Each has their own agenda, but none as subtly invasive as the Times. Thanks for the link to that article, I wasn’t aware of that website and now I have another option to add to my list!

        Sometimes I wonder if it would be beneficial if US media just completely abandoned it’s facade of objectivity. In the UK, each newspaper is much more up front with it’s viewpoint; readers know that the Guardian is centre-left, The Telegraph is centre-right and so on. I wonder if that helps to reduce this kind of invasive slant to the news coverage.

  7. Paul
    September 6, 2016 at 7:21 pm

    Bravo!

  1. August 25, 2016 at 10:14 am
  2. August 27, 2016 at 12:16 am

Please weigh in--kindly!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: