Why Anyone?
I am not in the least unique in my outlook on American politicians--as I've already stated, like most Americans I find every one who crosses my path annoying and boring at best, despicable and horrifying at worst. I resent every intrusion that they make into my life. I feel like I'm voting for one of two guys who both intend to rape my girlfriend in front of me; they both promise to be as gentle as possible, but I feel inclined to ask why they think they can rape my girlfriend in front of me in the first place. Both of these guys use dishonesty to feed on the public's fears: Bush wants you to believe that if he's not elected there will be another September 11th, even though the first one happened on his watch, and Kerry wants you to believe that if Bush stays in power the draft will be reinstated, though the current draft bill was drawn up by liberals who have nothing to do directly with Bush's administration. I recognize that not every single act these people commit is evil, but their better actions merely fill me with boredom, as opposed to white-hot rage. So I, like most Americans, find myself voting for the lesser of two evils, in most cases. That's why I'm voting for John Kerry; I've read a great deal in the past two years or so about the history of the two main candidates, and Kerry seems by far to be the more thoughtful and serious of the two. He was also a successful lawyer at one time, and this, frightening as it is to some, makes him less likely to be a "thwarted" personality, unlike Bush, who has never excelled at anything except demagoguery and perhaps keg-stands. But wait--isn't lawyering usually demagoguery, too? Fuck. I guess that argument doesn't work very well. But Kerry, during his undefeated tenure as prosecutor, did prosecute some thugs, hired by a powerful gangster, who were intimidating local business owners into buying their bosses' pinball machines, and he did so at the risk of his own neck. VOTE FOR KERRY! HE WON'T LET ANYONE FORCE YOU TO BUY PINBALL MACHINES AGAINST YOUR WILL! WHAT HAS BUSH EVER DONE TO PROTECT YOU FROM THE PINBALL MACHINE TERRORISTS?
Something that is particularly infuriating to me is the portrayal of our current President as a great, lucid moral leader. Rather than going on a long list of his offenses, I will use one simple example that I think perfectly demonstrates not only his lack of character, but his lack of clarity when genuine moral issues are at stake: a few weeks ago, in an interview with USA Today, Bush was asked about his view on Vietnam, and he replied: "I supported my government." In other words, the Vietnam War (and any war, really) is not a moral issue, to Bush; instead, it is an issue of supporting one's rulers at all cost. I believe that this demonstrates what Bush really wants from all of us, as citizens; he wants us to support him in whatever he does, because he's President. Simple. So George W. is profoundly un-American, and in the worst way. Kerry isn't exactly Emma Goldman, but he was thoughtful enough to put himself in a position to take a lot of shit for protesting the war, after actually being in it. Since both of them still stand by their positions on that issue (though Kerry downplays his in hopes of getting more votes from people who are determined to vote for Bush--apparently he trusts their open-mindedness), that alone is enough to make me vote for Kerry.
And Bush can be counted on, at every opportunity, to appoint judges who oppose abortion, to encourage sex-ed programs that emphasize abstinence, to join church with state in every way possible--in other words, to encourage ways of life that are pathetically out-of-touch with the majority of America's people, and that attempt to strip us of our ability to live capably. Kerry has one of the most liberal voting records in the Senate, and can be counted on to go the opposite direction in all the above areas. He can also be counted on not to attempt adding an Amendment to the Constitution banning gay marriage, though he can also be counted on not to fight for gay marriage. This is disappointing, because New Hampshire is filled with gays, some of them friends of mine who would throw GREAT wedding parties.
I believe that Kerry can also be reasonably expected to at least put some real thought and research into his decisions on foreign policy before making the wrong choices. But we cannot trust him, any more than we can trust Bush. I'm afraid that much of the political involvement caused by Bush's frightening rise to power will melt away, appeased by the appointment of a more liberal Commander in Chief. But maybe that isn't likely to happen after all, given the well-publicized disaster in Iraq, which may keep people interested no matter who gets elected.
The really sick thing is that we live in a country where a candidate for President is embarrassed and outraged to be seen as an anti-war candidate. A large portion of Americans want a president who is not afraid to kill, and kill quick, without regard for civilians. That is part of the reason for Bush's popularity among a large chunk of our populace--to many America's violence equals results, hence our propensity for action movies.
In my opinion, all candidates for public office are interested in fostering an atmosphere of ignorance, fear and obedience in the populace, because otherwise the people won't be convinced that their leadership is necessary in the first place. Perhaps the fact that half of our eligible voters don't usually bother to vote is a reflection of unbelief in the necessity of authorities of any kind. A person who does not fear death is utterly invulnerable to Bush's campaign. And very watchful of Kerry's. Given this atmosphere, in which the constant lying and the immature, banal bickering between the two candidates, I doubt there will ever be anyone for me to vote for with pride, because I can't imagine that anyone with anything like my most dearly held views or morals will ever make it to the Oval Office.
For example, I will be considered an idiot, as well as a spouter of ridiculous cliché, for making the following statement, but I make it anyway: I believe that America should, publicly and accompanied by parades, discontinue its entire military completely and permanently, and destroy all of its weapons, starting with the nuclear ones, to set an example for the world. The most powerful country in the world should be the one to take this step. We would risk, literally, everything in doing so, but we would set an example for the world that would be the most spectacular and unique event in all of history. Buddha, Lao Tse, Confucious, Christ and Ghandi would be dwarfed by such an act committed by the most powerful military empire in the world. Nothing in known history would even compare to it. With the near-worldwide media coverage that we have, such an act would spread instantly to virtually every technologically capable civilization on earth within 24 hours. That would take real courage. But it is "impractical" to do such things, we are told, while we pay huge sums of money to the military and half our population is suffering miseries that could be greatly alleviated by less than half the sum we use on weaponry. This is "responsible." And John Kerry, as his running mate recently proudly pointed out, voted for the biggest military budget increase bill in history during his tenure in the Senate. He at least he seems capable of glimpsing the horrific nature of violence, perhaps because he's seen it close-up. But he shows no signs of doing anything radical enough to be worth cheering for. He might not start any new wars. Yippee.
That's really the purpose of my vote, miserable and paltry as if is: I want less people to be killed, and believe that Kerry will authorize less killings, but I am perfectly prepared to be proven wrong, and if that happens I believe that a full million of us should gather around the White House and have a hunger-strike, refusing to depart the premises. Why not? It's less absurd than voting, after all, though it does require a great deal more strength, patience and nobility, which is the only thing that keeps me from doing it--I apparently lack those qualities, and are held hostage by the comforts of my job and my apartment, neither of which will garner me a place in history anytime soon. But as a present from the government in return for my obedience, I get to live outside of prison rather than in it. That is, the official prison. Perhaps the threat that the government will make the bars that enclose my life visible, thus shattering my illusion of freedom, is why I don't do anything really effective. Sometimes I suffer from the government-sponsored dillusion that my life is actually safer and better because murder is being committed in my name. And when that happens I sometimes find myself standing still for a very long time, literally afraid to walk in any direction:
Lights are blinking on and off in my dark house
as I walk to the bathroom: VCRs, fire-alarms, digital
clocks that Whitman never knew--stars too. They tap
their little hands through light-years at the glass.
Their emergence does not act like rain or thunder;
something else tears the ozone of memory open.
If I stop in the kitchen, on the way back to Kelly's soft
little neck, and remember my grandmother's kitchen,
the way it was before she died, and remember
the first piece of music I ever liked, and
the unreal chickens in the backyard,
the red feathers looking hand-crafted that glistened
with a sunlight different from adult sunlight; if I stand
and close my eyes and think of her hands roving in the air
just above the oven: the air can feel cleansed, my age
will slither away. I'll forget, for a minute, the pain
a few people in power are causing in my name,
the blood of nations that begins to drip down my walls
every time my soul wakes up. I move a step further
into the bedroom--Kelly's on the rug, we haven't bought a bed
yet for this place-- and I cannot afford to revolt.
And I cannot afford not to revolt. My lover won't be safe
if I do either, and I can't do both--
But I cannot kill. And cannot live without killing. And cannot
kill to live. And cannot live with killing:
But I cannot kill. And cannot live without killing. And cannot
kill to live. And cannot live with killing:
But I cannot kill. And cannot live without killing. And cannot
kill to live. And cannot live with killing. But cannot kill to live.
