like_mike (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} like_mike) wrote,@ 2006-01-01 13:44:00 |
|
Not as irrelevant as you may think
(oops, this was orriginally posted in the wrong place. Also, I would appologize if this is hard to follow, as it is essentially thoughts from a previous conversation with a particular person)
A few days ago my sister dismissingly told me I was politically irrelevant. This statement was based on the issues I have with voting (which are probably expressed somewhere in this journal around election day 2004). To be fair, I was giving the most provacative and perhaps intentionally annoying arguments I could think of (the whole you must vote thing sort of set me off). I didn't at the time formulate much of a response, however, after some thinking I have.
The larger idea that she expressed was that "unless you can come up with an alternative system (to voting), your position is irrelevant". And I supposed I could have discussed various free-market anarchist (or even syndicalist) ideas. The value of political electioneering is way overestimated. There are so many issues that are more fundamental--and have much more importance to altering the course of a city, state, or nation-- than electioneering. How people think, how people live their lives, what they value, and how they relate to the world is much more important than how they vote. At best, the results of an election are the effect of all of these things.
To take elections so seriously is a mistake. The election of bad politicians is not so much a cause of negative cultural trends as an effect. Later on that night, the discussion between my sister, one of my cousins, and I veered back to politics. More specifically, the conversation moved to Detroit mayorial election between Killpatrick and challanger (I don't remember his name). In any case, the opinion of the others (I don't really know enough about Detroit politics) was that Killpatrick was an awefull, corrupt, slimy guy and that it would have been great if the challanger had the electoral ability and technology to win. But if most people in the city supported Killpatrick, all the electoral technology and political operating won't matter. It is more important to ask why a corrupt awefull politician is supported by the majority of the city. Why did they do this? What were they thinking? If Detroit as a city could deal with the more fundamental cultural issues, then both candidates would be much better and the results of the election wouldn't be so important. If you don't deal with the actual reasons that people like corrupt politicians, then corrupt politicians such as Killpatrick (and much more important, in my mind, Coleman Young)will always have an advantage.
(oops, this was orriginally posted in the wrong place. Also, I would appologize if this is hard to follow, as it is essentially thoughts from a previous conversation with a particular person)
A few days ago my sister dismissingly told me I was politically irrelevant. This statement was based on the issues I have with voting (which are probably expressed somewhere in this journal around election day 2004). To be fair, I was giving the most provacative and perhaps intentionally annoying arguments I could think of (the whole you must vote thing sort of set me off). I didn't at the time formulate much of a response, however, after some thinking I have.
The larger idea that she expressed was that "unless you can come up with an alternative system (to voting), your position is irrelevant". And I supposed I could have discussed various free-market anarchist (or even syndicalist) ideas. The value of political electioneering is way overestimated. There are so many issues that are more fundamental--and have much more importance to altering the course of a city, state, or nation-- than electioneering. How people think, how people live their lives, what they value, and how they relate to the world is much more important than how they vote. At best, the results of an election are the effect of all of these things.
To take elections so seriously is a mistake. The election of bad politicians is not so much a cause of negative cultural trends as an effect. Later on that night, the discussion between my sister, one of my cousins, and I veered back to politics. More specifically, the conversation moved to Detroit mayorial election between Killpatrick and challanger (I don't remember his name). In any case, the opinion of the others (I don't really know enough about Detroit politics) was that Killpatrick was an awefull, corrupt, slimy guy and that it would have been great if the challanger had the electoral ability and technology to win. But if most people in the city supported Killpatrick, all the electoral technology and political operating won't matter. It is more important to ask why a corrupt awefull politician is supported by the majority of the city. Why did they do this? What were they thinking? If Detroit as a city could deal with the more fundamental cultural issues, then both candidates would be much better and the results of the election wouldn't be so important. If you don't deal with the actual reasons that people like corrupt politicians, then corrupt politicians such as Killpatrick (and much more important, in my mind, Coleman Young)will always have an advantage.
