For the first time in some years, I’m going to vote in a national election. As some of you may have gathered, Bush’s cute little poodle will be asking for some more doggie biscuits later this week. But he’s not sitting up on his hind legs and making sad little puppy eyes – oh no! Like any faithful hound, he saves that for his Imperial Master. What we get is a poodle’s attempt to growl and snarl.
“My dog biscuits,” he cries, “Mine.”
“Don’t give them to the Golden Retriever. If you do, that nasty old pit bull will get them.”
“My dog biscuits. All for me.”
I take a look at that pit bull terrier, and there’s no doubt it’s a nasty beast, slavering and drooling at the end of its chain. It’s already promised that it will play “Fetch” for its Master every bit as well as that fluffy toy poodle. And when it’s not playing “Fetch,” it’ll be running around loose on the streets, biting babies and savaging pensioners. Not to mention its cheerful rampages in the park with those Alsatians from the BNP.
Choices, choices.
Let me tell you about the first ever election I voted in. It was in New Zealand and I was 19, going on 20. There had just been three disastrous years of National Party Government – doesn’t the very name tell you everything you need to know? The first female prime minister had repealed pay equity legislation. They had gutted the unions with the 1990 Employment Contracts Act. They had played `fetch’ for their Imperial Master in the Persian Gulf. But for me the legacy of that National government was also more immediate. Friends who came too close to death from meningitis – and in one case, scarlet fever – because they put off going to doctors that they couldn’t afford. Another who miscarried because, unbeknownst to us, she didn’t have enough money for food. The consequences of overcrowding, poverty and `user-pays’ when you don’t have anything to pay with – that’s what I remember the National Party for.
Simple choice, right? Vote Labour. But for the six years prior to the National government’s election in 1990, the Labour government had been metaphorically crapping on the carpet and pissing on the sofa. They’d sold off every public asset they could find – railways, forestry, fisheries, telecoms, you name it, they sold it. They made it harder for people to get an education. They introduced user-pays health care, with the result that the rich stayed healthy while the sick stayed poor. Gosh. What a surprise. Who’d have thought?
Ironically, their one saving grace was that they were bad dogs in every respect. And when Imperial Master `Gipper’ said “Here doggy dog! Nice dog! We’ve got a nuclear ship for you! What a good dog!” they ceased crapping on the carpet just long enough to chomp on his leg instead. Thus New Zealand became nuclear free – an imperial province in revolt. It was a pretty substantial saving grace, really.
So what to do? I wanted National out. Desperately. But I didn’t trust Labour as far as I can spit. And I’m hopeless at spitting – on the rare occasions I try, it’s more of a dribble.
My flatmates advocated voting Alliance – a leftist splinter party that broke away from Labour in its neo-liberal phase. No surprise there – one was active in the Alliance party and another was thoroughly pissed off with the Labour Party’s betrayals. I liked the Alliance a lot – I liked their policies and I liked their potential to break the two-party stranglehold on power.
But I really wanted National out. And so in the end, I succumbed to the politics of expediency and voted Labour even though I knew that the Alliance was what I wanted. I’ve never been terribly happy with that decision. National won. By the time they finally lost power in 1999, I’d left the country.
Since then, I’ve grown much wearier and warier of the politics of expediency. Strategic voting – choosing the lesser of two evils – is all very well if you’re utilitarian. But I’m not, or at least, I try not to be. And in my old age I’ve become obstinate enough to want choices that aren’t evil. Sooner or later, you have to say what you want.
There’s no doubt that in working-class towns like the one where I live, Labour has done a lot of good. None. Unemployment has gone down a lot here. Kids get to go to Sure-Start programmes that help them get ready for school. The library is excellent – lots of computers and free computer courses. Some of you here may have heard about my wonderful experiences with the NHS – and no, I’m not being sarcastic. And that is just the tip of the iceberg. But if the price is the Iraq that RubDMC has documented, indefinite detentions and the current inhumane `policies’ towards asylum seekers – all of which my local Labour MP supports – then I won’t pay it. You can’t purchase your freedom with someone else’s captivity. It doesn’t work that way. And given the value I place on my own freedom of movement, how can I vote for a government that deports so many, and makes even successful asylum seekers wait five years before granting them permanent residence? How can I vote for the occupation of Iraq? Why would I vote for my imperial masters? From where I stand, a vote for Blair looks an awful lot like a vote for Bush.
But what about that evil pit bull? What if by voting Green or LibDem (my two front-runners at present) I let in the Tories – who are even worse on Iraq and openly racist when it comes to issues surrounding immigration. Arguably, Blair’s lies about Iraq demonstrate a rudimentary awareness that he was doing something that he should feel ashamed about: Howard knows no shame. Shouldn’t I just put on that clothes-peg grit my teeth and vote Labour?
In New Zealand, my decision to vote tactically made no difference: National won and the years that followed were predictably awful. But what would have happened had Labour won that year? Michael Moore (the guy who went on to become Director General of the WTO – not the film maker) was still the leader of the Labour Party – he would have become Prime Minister again. How then would Labour have learned that neo-liberalism was unviable? The gains that have been made there over the last six years under a real Labour government would never have taken place, because New Zealand would still be without a real Labour party.
Counterfactuals. We can’t know. Which is another reason why I’m not convinced that utilitarianism is a sound basis for political action.
So who you would you be voting for? And why?
I’m excited! I’ve caught a few of your campaign events via CSPAN, and am fascinated. Do keep us posted.
I’ll try.
I suspect I’ll be up pretty late on Thursday night while they count the votes. I don’t want the Tories in — I absolutely detest them. I’ve been calling the local Tory candidate to complain that her campaign material on immigration is racist every time it arrives through my mailbox. But I know damn well that if Labour increases or even maintains its majority they will interpret the vote as a mandate for going to war and curtailing civil rights. Which again, starts to sound horribly utilitarian.
If my local MP had been one of the rebel backbenchers, I probably would still vote Labour — but alas, he has a golden certificate from the New Labour Doggie Obedience School.
And what a beautifully laid out dilemma, as well.
I don’t know, is my answer :). All I can say is… look at the past 5 years here in the US, and if your Tory party is anything at all like our Republican party… I’d probably give utilitarianism one more try.
Thanks =)
Well in the States — especially in this last election I think I may well have voted ‘anyone but Bush.’ But here one of the problems with voting for Blair is that it will indirectly strengthen Bush IMO.
I agree, a Blair win is already being set up by the right wing to be played as a ‘Bush victory”. Thing is, we’re already stuck with Bush… he’s there, until 2008 (unless we can get him impeached or something). So it doesn’t really matter if he’s seen to be strengthened (although I am not sure he will be, overall).
But there is the possibility of you guys there getting a mirror image (sort of) into office, and that would be complete disaster for both of us, lol.
I’m not advocating you do vote Labour or anything, of course (well, not much), because you have to to what seems best to you. I’m just saying, is all.
Superbly written piece there, as usual.
But what’s all this stuff about your ‘old age’? I somehow find that tricky to imagine….
The question you raise is one that I’ve long meant to write something substantial about, and perhaps I will in connection with this election. My view (of which I never seem able to persuade anyone, by the way) is that the whole dilemma of ‘strategic’ vs. ‘principled’ voting is a false one as long as one vote cannot swing the election. And that is almost always the case apart from boards and committees. It even applied in Florida 2000 – a once in a century fluke in terms of closeness! It also applies even in small British constituencies, where thousands of votes separate the winner from the losers. So for any given voter, there is no reason to go with anything but one’s first choice on the merits.
But even if you can convince people that their one vote for a potential ‘spoiler’ won’t, in practice, elect the ‘boogeyman,’ they still often feel they have to vote ‘strategically.’ This frankly mystifies me, but as best I can tell they tend to reason something like this: “I should vote in a way that I’d be comfortable for many others to emulate. And if many folks voted for the potential spoiler [here: LibDems], the bogeyman [here: Tories] might win. Hence I should vote for my #2 choice with realistic winning chances [here: Labor].”
But it’s not like individual choices magically affect each other. One person’s vote for LibDems would in no way cause others to also vote LibDems, unless of course s/he agitated for that choice. I can see why one might be reticient about campaigning for a potential spoiler, but I can’t see any reason not to vote cast one’s own for the candidate closest to heart.
And you never know – perhaps if everyone voted LibDems who favors them on the merits, LibDems would win. At least, they’d make a smashing election, no?
The reasoning here is completely general, but in this case, with the LimDems poised to make historic inroads in the HoC, putting the ‘strategic voting’ idea to rest is extra important from my point of view.
PS. If anyone wonders what I’d tell a potential Nader voter back in October, I think I have an interesting answer to that.
Lately I feel as old as Methuselah — it seems a long time since I was living in N.Z. But literally, no — still in my early(ish) 30s.
I’d be keen to see a longer piece on strategic vs. principled voting — your account of the reasoning process that goes on looks plausible to me. My hunch is that a lot of voters think of voting as akin to agitating, even if they’re not loudmouths like me — I wonder if that has something to do with it.
Are you keen to see the LibDems break into the HOC because of their own merits, or because of their potential to displace the Tories as the main opposition party? I’ve been undecided between them and the Greens (I read George Monbiot and found him fairly interesting).
If the former — tell me more about why you’d vote LibDem?
So what would you tell a potential Nader voter back in October? Inquiring minds need to know.
I’d vote LibDems on their merits, which is the only reason I’d ever vote for anyone. Didn’t I get that across?;-)
Why I favor them? It’s getting late up here, so I’ll cop out and just say ‘the lots.’ I prefer them over Labor on every single point of divergence I’m aware of.
What I’d tell the Nader voter? I’d say that he shouldn’t vote Nader because he isn’t qualified for office on his merits. And why not? Precisely because he chooses to run as a spoiler, knowing that he might thereby secure the reelection of an awful president by his own lights! Such egotism, or at best, irresponsible idealism, should make him ineligible for public office to any sane voter.
The key is that unlike any given vote, Nader’s decision to run actually matters to the outcome of the election. Thus his choice loops back to his intrinsic merit as a candidate in the first place.
At least, that’s how I see it.
Hmm. On the topic of strategic voting, you might want to check out Gordon Brown’s latest — looks like Labour will be using the ‘voting LibDem=voting Tory’ line to the bitter end.
No kidding…
Switching from Labour to Lib Dem in Labour-held seats risks the advances we have made on jobs, public services, world debt and trade justice – and the progress we can make in the next parliament.
I guess one can’t blame them for playing that card, but I wish I could shout from the rooftops that people should ignore it for the reasons above.
Another thing is that the British first-past-the-post system is grossly undemocratic. It simply doesn’t aggregate people’s preferences in a remotely fair way. And it’s self-perpetuating, too. Between that and the misconceptions about ‘strategic’ voting,’ the LibDems may never get the break their popularity warrants.
Absolutely! FPP is an awful electoral system. Something that’s been kicking around in my head lately is trying to work out exactly how N.Z. managed to change its electoral system to MMP when both of the major political parties vehemently opposed it. (That 1993 election was the last under FPP)
I don’t know enough about your candidates (even with the Welshman’s recent diaries) to recommend, but I understand your dilemma. You’re right, you can’t know. I agree with Nanette: utilitarian. Here it wasn’t the lesser of two evils, because there was only one evil in the race. Sounds very close to your choices there.
We’ll be where you are now in 2006, but with the advantage of an 18-month lead time. More than enough to choose the right candidate, as opposed to the right party.
Sounds like keeping the Tories out is a priority, but I know a lot of people over there who can no longer look at Bush er, Blair, and are voting Liberal Democrat. Of course at the end of the day Labour might just look so bad that it will fracture itself, thus giving the Tories a boost in future. Who do you want holding the reigns when the crap hits the fan – if it does? What of Blair’s support for faith schools? I think I would do my best to vote him out simply because in the long run it will show the government that it cannot just do as it pleases without repercussions.