Voting Democratic — Without Illusions

Philip Damon taught writing and literature at the University of Hawaii for 34 years, and his fiction, non-fiction and social commentaries have been published widely. Among the mystic and holistic traditions, he has followed many practices. His “Sacred Democracy” columns appear monthly in readthedirt.org.

If we’re unsure whether we’re voting this year, we’re probably Democrats, or at least we’re grudgingly registered as such. And if we aren’t even registered, wallowing in the mire of political disillusionment, we’d likely vote Democratic if we were — although anything but hopeful of progressive results. We no longer see a difference in the parties over what the billionaires are dictating. Nonetheless, and all appearances to the contrary, consider this: If we are anticipating the elections, and with relish, chances are we’re Republicans, and you bet we believe our votes will make a difference, especially against the dispirited liberal ethic of the Democrats and ever-diminishing turnouts at the polls.

But if it’s a presidential year, it’s a different story. Now Dems have a charismatic star-character, the embodiment of our yearnings for a just society, rolled up in his or her magnetic persona—and we know he or she can reach out and feel our pain. We support presidential candidates with zeal, send money, believe promises they’ll be the difference. They’re our superheroes, poised to save Gotham single-handedly from evil, while the rest of us, even metropolitan authorities, only watch with adoring awe.

So when we vote for them and check off the lesser Dems, we’re killing two birds with one stone. And we can do so without ambivalence, making it all the sweeter as we proudly sport our “I voted” pins. Two years later, though, when the smaller fries are back again unescorted on the legislative ballots—to represent us at “lesser levels” — far fewer of us are enthused over these pickings. But even so, why are we less conflicted anyway when voting for the president? I mean seriously, someone has to convince me we have more to hope for electing Democrats to the presidency than we do with run-of-the-mill Democratic legislators, from the county level right on up to Congress.

Perhaps 2016 is just another shadow year in a long series of electoral quadrennia, as the pendulum does its bi-polar swing from yang to yin and back again—or it may seem like a naturally cyclical thing, as some folks view global warming. Yet mightn’t it also be signaling the disillusionment felt by electorates toward presidents halfway through their terms? This way, a Democratic president’s liberal base can take its resentment out on the smaller fry, who aren’t so small when you consider they enact the laws.

In fact, isn’t that the difference in the strategies of the parties over recent decades? Any party can add seats on the coattails of a winning president. But the Republicans know their base is ready to re-elect rightwing lawmakers, even if they lose the big one.

Star-struck liberals go gaga over every would-be prez although state assemblies are where things get decided, like who gets to vote. Since the 2010 census and the Court’s invalidation of Article 4 of the Civil Rights Act, Republicans have bolstered their voting base by gerrymandering districts and disqualifying sizable numbers of Democratic-leaning fellow citizens on the flimsiest of pretexts. Just imagine, the very foundation of our national edifice, the right to vote for who speaks for us in the halls of government, being denied to marginalized Americans by bought and paid-for lawmakers of one’s own state—and spare me the historical ironies while you’re at it. Once we’re effectively labeled, seemingly any right may still be denied us, under the banner of democracy.

So yes, it’s a fledgling system and a shaky work in progress, our democracy, and always has been a battle over control of the government. But what’s unfair is still unfair.

What is appallingly unfair, though, not to mention bizarrely self-defeating, is for high-minded yet jaded citizens to punish the small-fry Dems for presidential actions — either by failing to vote or by sending them off to state houses as impotent minorities. Many newspapers publish how legislators have voted, so tell me if Dems and Cons vote the same on anything. Liberal apathy aside, moreover, a majority of Congressional votes go nationally for Democrats, while a majority of gerrymandered seats go to Republicans. Don’t get mad, get even, said the Kennedys. But short of another revolution, getting even happens at the ballot box only. In our zero-sum society, it’s always the last laugh.

Rather than abstaining in chagrin, why don’t we throw down the gauntlet on those Democratic candidates and turn them into majorities? If every liberal-leaning abstainer nationwide decided to show up in November, it would be more than just a triumph over cynicism. It would be a moral challenge. Lest we forget, we owe the Affordable Care Act (imperfect as it is, Republicans hate it for a reason) to the two years the Democrats held the House. If we lean liberally ourselves, we’re likely to be ambivalent about our current president. But we’ve been dissatisfied with actions by ones we liked more. Meanwhile, is it any less cynical to sit out the vote from spite than it is for Republican legislators to strangle the economy because they want to kill the government from the inside out?

Republicans know there’s a difference if Democrats or Republicans make up the majority of a legislature. A survey of legislative members from all states of the corporate-controlled American Legislative Exchange Council shows virtually zero Democrats, in state houses or in Congress. In “Citizens United,” the Court may have forced the Dems to solicit corporate money to finance costly campaigns, but still they rarely vote with the Cons, almost all of whom are members of ALEC. Isn’t that all we need to know?

Conscientious objection at the polls is an unconscious vote for the GOP.

Maybe we dislike the Electoral College. Maybe we dislike the two-party system. Maybe we dislike having parties at all — George Washington did. But they’re what we’ve got. If we fear disillusionment, does it make sense to build hopes on illusions? If a mid-term result signals disillusionment, which illusions are being dispelled? Voting, win or lose, is the principal principle of democracy, as long as we approach it free of illusions. Just thinking….