« Obama has pledged delegate majority, including MI & FL (sort of) | Ben's Blog | FEC legal-type question for the lawyers out there... »
Is it wrong to encourage certain friends to vote 3rd party?
So, I'm wrestling with an ethical question. I've got Republican friends who aren't exactly thrilled with McCain, but who can't bring themselves to vote Democratic. It seems like a bit of a cheap shot to encourage these people to vote 3rd party when I've discouraged all of my Democratic leaning friends from doing so when they're not thrilled with the Democratic candidate. On the other hand, I'm convinced that it actually is in their best interest since I think that a Democratic president will help almost all of us. (Those earning more than $250,000 might reasonably disagree, depending on their priorities.)
So, what do you think? Is it ethically wrong to encourage them to "throw their vote away"?
So, what do you think? Is it ethically wrong to encourage them to "throw their vote away"?
Advertisement
Shameless plug: if you'd like more posts not referring to the RFK gaffe to show up on the rec'd list, rec this! (Also, it'll increase the chance that I really hear from ethically minded people, since posts about the RFK gaffe seem to be crowding out other posts.)
May 24, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
ANYTHING to have something else to read! I was getting so interested when we were all starting to think more about McCain instead of each other.
May 24, 2008 9:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, and it's a good subject. I didn't mean to say I'd recommend "anything"; I'm just so happy to see something that hasn't been hashed and rehashed.
May 24, 2008 9:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, and don't worry, I'm pretty hard to offend—although quasar definitely appears to be working on it.
May 24, 2008 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, sure, make a shameless plug for recommendations. You're just encouraging people to throw their vote away!
That's a joke, Ben. Seriously, I don't think your dilemma is an ethical matter, since politics doesn't seem to have much to do with ethics, near as I can tell. If you think the benefit accrues to your candidate, what the hell. If they can't tell the difference, it's their problem.
May 24, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I do feel there is a line somewhere. For example, I would never (knowingly) lie about a candidate in order to get someone to vote for or against them. I have, however, failed to mention something about a candidate if I thought that it would discourage the person from voting how I thought they should vote. I'm not sure that's ethical either, as I believe a knowledgeable electorate is this country's best hope.
May 24, 2008 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Encourage away. I tell my hardline Republican friends that McCain is a Democrat in wolves clothing anyway, so they should vote for Bob Barr. I've got no problem with this.
May 24, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I haven't been doing this yet, but I'm definitely leaning that way—specifically with Bob Barr.
May 24, 2008 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I had some friends that were very conservative older ladies in Arizona. Still keep in touch via e-mail. I almost had them flipped to Obama, but a few weeks ago they said, "Well he never served, so I can't vote for him." I can keep arguing around that, but I think the killer may have just happened Friday when he took on the Immigration case against Lou Dobbs and Rush Limbaugh.
I've never seen a group of 7 40-50 something year old ladies get SO RILED up before. They are crazy about the immigration thing.
Anyway, got an old Blue Blooded friend in Philly I'm working on too. If a Steve Forbes-like, money-guy 3rd partier ran, I could flip him maybe.
:) This is all in good fun... The complexion of the race will change dramatically after Obama brings his brand of pragmatic, rational-thought to the debates. I suspect a few will flip on their own. Great fun...
May 24, 2008 11:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Go for it. I think I'm going to campaign for Barr.
Seriously though, if you can't convince 'em to vote Democratic, I see no harm in talking up 3rd party candidates. In the end, it's the own choice who they pull the lever for.
(Random aside - do people still actually pull the lever? I like that phrase. Sounds much better "who they fill in the little bubble for." Which is what I did.)
May 24, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I have a racist relative or two who I think might be very amenable to a Bob Barr vote. It shouldn't be too hard to find some good quotes to support the idea that Barr is the ideal candidate for those favoring white supremacy! (When he was "accused" of having some black blood of his own, I think I recall him going a bit overboard to prove that he was loyal to the white race. I might be misremembering, however, so take that with a grain of salt.)
May 24, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Way to throw your relatives under the bus, Ben. ;)
I have a friend (love her to death!) who actually still believes that Obama is a Muslim, and that Rev. Wright is the worst person alive. I think she believes that if he's elected there will be some kind of retribution to white people. She also told me that she's not voting, but if she was going to vote, she'd vote for McCain "because he's really good on global warming and the environment and that's the most important thing to me."
I didn't encourage her to vote.
May 24, 2008 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's an unusual combination in my experience—someone who is that ignorant about Obama, but who actually cares about the environment!
May 24, 2008 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you know many hunters?
May 24, 2008 8:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not well enough to talk politics. Point taken, however.
May 24, 2008 8:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fishermen, too.
Strange Bedfellows. I think they feel they same was as we do.
May 24, 2008 9:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
same way we do.
That's it. I'm going to do a shot.
May 24, 2008 9:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, now that you've "jogged" my memory, I do know a couple of people who might fall into a similar camp. I belong to a marathon running group, and we spend a lot of time outdoors (a typical training run can last anywhere from one to four hours), so these people do tend to develop an appreciation for the environment as well. Since being a runner isn't really that selective for political ideology, I've met people from across the political spectrum, including some fairly firm Republicans. What's more surprising about this is that this in Charlottesville, where Republicans are a very rare breed. (I know, you're jealous.) For whatever reason, it seems most of the people in the same pace group as me tend towards the more conservative end of the spectrum.
May 24, 2008 9:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I'm sure it's a similar line of reasoning. Any interest group that sends time outdoors comes to respect and care for Nature.
May 24, 2008 9:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe the last company that made parts for the mechanical voting machines went out of business long ago. The only way to maintain them was through cannibalizing other machines for parts. They were supposed to have been phased out by 2004 by new federal voting laws.
I actually voted on one in 1960. No, I'm not that old. I was 4 when my Dad took me into the voting booth with him. He picked me up and said "Pull that lever right there." After I did that he told me "Now you can tell people you voted for John F. Kennedy."
And I just did.
May 24, 2008 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great story PistonMoaned!! :)
May 25, 2008 3:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dontcha miss the lever? I can still remember the "ka-CHUNK-a" back in NYC. The computer voting is so intangible.
May 24, 2008 9:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
We still had them here in Conneticut up until the last election. Same ones my parents used in the elementary school I went to.
Them things were built to last. American made.
(sigh)
May 25, 2008 1:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe that was it--I was still technically a CT resident until I was around 23-24, so I would have voted there.
May 25, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
In NYC, we still pull levers. Some of the oldest voting booths, and I love them.
May 25, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
This, in answer to Hilarym's question, way up above.
May 25, 2008 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you should encourage them to vote in their own interests. If the Democrats and John McCain don't serve their interests, then maybe they should consider voting for a third party. Or they can just abstain from voting this time around and whatever happens, they won't be liable for it. But I think it's okay to continue convincing them that a John McCain presidency is bad for everybody mostly because I think it's true.
May 24, 2008 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, so many seem to think it's fine when the person in question doesn't think either candidate is regressive enough, but would you give the same advice to someone who thinks that neither candidate is progressive enough? (I.e., suggest that they vote for Nader, or whoever they think is progressive enough for them?)
May 24, 2008 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
That does put me in a bind. I think I'd reverse myself in that case and say that voting for a progressive candidate that's too far out of the mainstream wouldn't serve your interests but would instead serve the interests of those that would never care about your interests. Does that make any sense?
May 24, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Only in the sense that you're in about the same position as me. I don't mind if they throw away their vote, but I sure don't want our people doing so!
May 24, 2008 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have a couple of friends who refuse to vote for the Democrat because "They are the same as the Republicans" and will vote for Nader instead. I've tried the "Progressive Democrat is a thousand miles closer to your position than McCain so why not help us out?" routine but so far, no luck. They seem to want to teach America a lesson (one that it isn't ready to learn) by insisting on supporting an extremely unelectable candidate.
I believe Nader said something to the effect of "Well maybe America needs a cold shower" when asked if he was worried about throwing the 2000 election to Bush. Now the shower doesn't even work anymore and he still insists on running for president.
May 24, 2008 9:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have Republican friends?
May 24, 2008 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do. I even have Republican relatives. Heck, about half of my relatives are Republican. I'm not proud of it, but there it is. I've admitted it.
May 24, 2008 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was kidding. My grandfather was a "Lincoln Republican" (which as far as I can tell would make him a Democrat, were he alive), and my mother holds on to that tradition. Her husband is a military nut and loves McCain, and I really love her husband in spite of this. My ex-husband voted for Bush TWICE, but at least I could divorce him. (Yikes.)
May 24, 2008 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't worry, I took no offense. At least you weren't questioning whether I had any friends at all. :)
May 24, 2008 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, Ben, how about a little love on my post? I recommended and commented on yours, man.
Sincerely,
Ripper making a shameless plug
May 24, 2008 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, an ethical conundrum. Do you serve your own interests or your friends? I think you serve your friends. Personally I'd make the argument why the democratic candidate might make the better choice, even if they are making over $250K. In the end though each voter has a right to choose to vote for whomever they believe will serve them and the country best.
Sadly I would have to say this even goes or those who might vote Nader, but for the life of me I can't figure why they would. I've never forgiven him for killing the Corvair :) It was my first car and I loved it.
May 24, 2008 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
(This is directed at both jsfox and workerbee, who appear to be on approximately the same page with this issue.)
I suppose the question becomes then, what actually serves my friends' interests? I suppose I'm really thinking more of my relatives than my friends, as my Republican friends are typically informed enough that I wouldn't be able to play mind games on them even if I wanted to.
So, for my relatives who are being spoon-fed by cable TV/talk-radio, what serves their interests? Allowing them to vote for an inferior candidate, or convincing them to vote for an even worse candidate that has no chance of winning? I suppose your argument is that rather than using my time with them to convince them to go 3rd party, see if I can't get them to jump over that hurdle and go all the way to Obama. Sadly, for at least a couple of them, I'd first have to convince them that black people aren't inferior to us. :( (In case you're wondering, yes, I have already tried this, and will continue to try to do so, regardless.)
May 24, 2008 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ben, as someone who willingly gave up their own job 2 weeks before Christmas so that an older guy with two little kids could keep his, I have a standard that might be helpful:
Put yourself in their shoes. Recommend whatever will make it easy to look at yourself in the mirror in the morning.
May 24, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I gave a response to you up above, but I'll add that perhaps I already know the ethical answer, but my Machiavellian instincts are fighting it.
May 24, 2008 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
And women can vote for McKinney. That should make it a real interesting race!
May 24, 2008 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd rather work on convincing that particular segment of the voting population to vote for Obama. I've just finished reading "The Nine", by Toobin, and although it didn't shift my opinion much, it did remind me about all of the other reasons why it's important that we don't get any more Justices in the mold of Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, or Alito.
May 24, 2008 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ben,
We you not one of the more vocal commenters on the Allsburg thread about tribalism?
The premis of that thread was that Hillary supports are somewhat primitive do not use logic and reason in decision making. Thus the basis of the argument on that thread was if the symbolized death of Obama or someone closely knitted will satisfy their need for revenge to come to a place of unification of "the party".
What I did not understand is why a "death" would have to be the factor (as in "Lord of the Flies"), and why it could not be a true unification through a marriage or birth or even adoption.
I can't reconcile a death FOR HILLARY supporters as a reason to appease them. Why is it necessary to appease Hillary supporters up to this type of sacrifice? Is is some type of authoritative or superior sense that they hold?
This was before Sen. Kennedy's diagnosis and before Hillary's statement of Obama. But if these ideas are floating around maybe she feels she has a mandate.
But in any case, since you are still somewhat on the fence in your support of Hillary I don't think you can really convince anyone of Obama's merits. Especially if you take part in the type of thread as I mentioned. And your flanking for Hillary is obvious.
If your family and friends are racist. Why do you constantly talk to them? Their vote isn't that important overall. Just let them not vote and cancel things out.
I think you know this.
You know the history of what 3rd parties do to the overall election.
May 24, 2008 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Huh? I've never supported Hillary. Never. I haven't even come close. Heck, I voted for Dole in '96. The closest I've come to "supporting" her is to say she's not evil.
Because I still love them. I'm surprised this is even a question…
Well, the root of the problem is our voting system that makes it hard for 3rd parties to take hold, but that's a debate for another thread. Keep in mind, however, that both of the current major parties were 3rd parties at one point in history.
May 24, 2008 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
THAT should cure your Machiavellian instincts.
:D
May 24, 2008 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
But not your alcoholism , no?
May 24, 2008 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
It would be nice if it could cure your lack of reading comprehrension.
I'm curious. How much does GOPUSA pay you to slavishly lick the balls of rabid Obama supporters, and attack everyone approaching moderate with extremely petty, infantile and worthless ad hominems. I hope it isn't much. You aren't too good at it.
If you don't understand what I'm saying, perhaps you could Wiki it.
May 24, 2008 8:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're drunk again.
May 24, 2008 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, in case you missed my comment down below. Not only was I not one of the more vocal commenters on the Allsburg thread about tribalism, I didn't post a single comment on it!
So, I suppose you'll apologize now for suggesting that I don't know where I stand since I couldn't remember what I had supposedly written on this thread?
May 24, 2008 8:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Heh.
May 24, 2008 8:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I did down thread.
May 24, 2008 9:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
So at present you can convince people to vote third party even if it damages your candidate? And you would do so to protect their racist bias and ideology?
What I meant is why do you talk to them about politics. They don't get it. If they're voting on color or sex. They're willfully ignorant.
But, could you explain further your comments on the tribalism thread.
Maybe that would help me to understand where you're coming from.
May 24, 2008 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you've misread what I wrote. I'm talking about getting people who would otherwise vote for McCain to vote 3rd party. (Just to be clear, McCain is also not the candidate I support. I support Obama.)
Which comments on the tribalism thread are you talking about? I don't have a link to that thread handy…
May 24, 2008 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm saying why even care who they vote for if their reasons for voting are not about issues.
Go ahead and tell them to vote 3rd party. They won't know what it means anyway.
So far as the tribalism thread. You mean that you can't recall any opinions that you had there? The other discussion we had you couldn't find a link to the incident Obama had in PA. Your research skills should be better than mine.
What gives?
May 24, 2008 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
A little more detail might jog my memory…
May 24, 2008 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
If it's that easy for you to forget what you stand for no wonder you have problems with the power to influence. Guess that's why I thought you were a Hillary supporter.
just saying.
May 24, 2008 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not forgetting what I stand for. I just don't know which thread, which incident in PA, or which comment you're referring to.
If your memory is so perfect, then presumably you can find the thread for me!
May 24, 2008 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why are you being so confrontational and obnoxious? Ben is asking for input about an ethical dilemma. You are trying to make him feel stupid. I have met him and he is not stupid!
Nor is he a Hillary supporter, a McCain supporter, nor is he lazy. It is extremely hard to research old threads on this site (unlike the old one.)
May 24, 2008 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Cville Dem. I felt like I was entering the Twilight Zone when quasar suggested that I might be a Clinton supporter!
May 24, 2008 8:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, it's a troll. It attacks moderates in an attempt to foster division.
I'd ignore it.
May 24, 2008 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, seeing as how I did once call you a Clinton supporter, I suppose there is a certain bit of poetic justice in all this…
I'm not ready to call quasar a troll just yet. Confused and hostile, yes, but I'm still agnostic on the troll accusation.
May 24, 2008 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's fine.
:)
I hang out with moderates so I have been, on occasion, accused of being on the others camp. It's amusing.
I'm just calling this one out. I figure folks should be on notice. There's been an infusion of McTrolls here in just the last couple of days. they seem to be the middle against both ends, and vice versa.
It's getting kind of weird. I'm hoping more folks catch on so it can get back to normal.
:)
May 24, 2008 8:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
playing the middle against both ends.
Oopsie.
Drunk again.
:D
May 24, 2008 8:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Later comments by quasar have removed my doubts about its trollness. I'm sorry I doubted you, workerbee.
May 25, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
You DO know that all it takes is a click on your screenname to see your latest post.
just sayin'.
You want to leave it at that?
May 24, 2008 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is that directed to me or to Cville Dem? Either way, I'm confused…
Assuming that you actually wish to be understood, it might help your case to be more specific rather than less. We're not mind readers.
May 24, 2008 9:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not always about you, Ben.
May 25, 2008 12:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is this the thread you're talking about?
If so, no wonder I don't remember what I wrote. I didn't write a single comment in that thread!
May 24, 2008 8:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Careful, you might make it drop it's turdblossems.
May 24, 2008 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gee!
You know, I did assume you were part of that thread because so many "former Clinton and now moderate" supporters tend to post on many threads that have racial undertones.
I connected your sudden dilemma as akin to other posts that have an element of underlying disapproval about Obama with none of the outward support. You post as the devil's advocate, but never the candidates advocate.
I just got the impression since you have hard core racism in your family and never talk about your life experiences with others (yet have a lot of opinions about other groups) I jumped to conclusion that your ideas were formed and still influenced through a close knit group of people.
I apologize.
May 24, 2008 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me say this again: I've never been a Clinton supporter. I wouldn't even really say I'm all that moderate. I just try to be polite.
Actually, I've posted quite a few nice things about Obama. I do play devil's advocate, but I've always made my position quite clear, I thought. I have no idea why you think I've never given "outward support" to Obama. I think you're confusing me with someone else (again).
Wow. That's quite opinionated. OK, first allow me to clarify about the hard core racism in my family. I'm talking about only a few family members, and none of them are in my immediate family. I.e., I'm talking about cousins, etc. Secondly, I have mentioned life experiences with others several times. Not that I expect you to read every post I've ever written, but to suggest that I haven't talked about such experiences is making a rather unwarranted assumption. You know what they say happens when you assume. My core ideas were mostly formed in elementary school and high school and were no doubt influenced by my mother (a Democrat), my father (a Republican), as well as my teachers and classmates. Since then, I've interacted with people of various political persuasions and geographical locations. I've traveled abroad several times, and had interesting political conversations with people from countries across the globe (although admittedly concentrated in Europe).
Here are just a few of the personal details I've already revealed at TPM: I was born in Germany, I taught ballroom dance, I was a public high school teacher, I worked as a programmer for several years at a software company, I have a Masters in Astrophysics, another in Computer Science, and I'm currently working on my PhD. I work in a neurosurgery lab most of the time, and have until just recently also worked in an archeology lab.
May 24, 2008 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I know that. You've said all this before.
May 24, 2008 9:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then why did you say:
May 24, 2008 9:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because you still have not talked about your cross culture experiences. You speak of the comfort zone that has shaped your opinion.
May 24, 2008 9:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't realize we were supposed to give full autobiographical references for each of our ideas. What is it you wish to know?
May 24, 2008 9:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll reply downthread.
May 24, 2008 9:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
He also thinks I'm named Greg. He's way into figuring out who we really are. In my case, I think he's figured out that I'm really Greg Sargent.
May 24, 2008 11:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know you're going to think I'm crazy, but I'd always guessed your name was Alex.
May 24, 2008 11:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
NO WAY! NOT GREG SARGENT!
Greg DeLassus.
But maybe I was giving you too much credit.
May 25, 2008 12:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, in what way do I "speak of the comfort zone that has shaped [my] opinion"?
What do you mean by that? Could you be specific?
May 24, 2008 9:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is the funniest conversation I've read here. I felt like I was reading a conversation from the old Burns and Allen. Quasar = Gracie
May 24, 2008 11:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is the funniest conversation I've read here. I felt like I was reading a conversation from the old Burns and Allen. Chock full of misunderstandings
May 24, 2008 11:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
It has felt rather surreal at times.
May 24, 2008 11:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
busted.
May 25, 2008 12:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
That comment and this pic do NOT go together.
May 25, 2008 12:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm only kidding, not trying to really insult anyone.
May 24, 2008 11:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
With that pic you are.
May 25, 2008 12:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
And what holoscript are you attempting to use here to transcend our understanding of rudeness? I clicked on the associated profile, hoping that this was actually someone spoofing you.
I suppose it'd be even more rude if it actually were an unattractive picture.
May 25, 2008 12:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Say that again?
But this time breathe.
May 25, 2008 12:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd recommend looking at how these folks stand on certain issues and then recommend a candidate that fits their view. For example, if your friends are pro-Iraq war and that's a hot button issue for them, then the ethical thing to do is probably just leave them alone to vote for McCain and work on convincing someone else.
But let's say that government spending and high taxes are their hot button issues. Here's what I would do; I'd point out that Bush and his Republican Congress spent like drunken sailors and tremendously increased the size of government. Point out that low taxes are fine as long as they are accompanied by reduced spending, but if you're going to spend money the responsible thing to do is pay for it with taxes instead of borrowing and passing the buck to your children. Now point out that an Obama presidency can't be *worse* than the Bush presidency in that respect. The size of government might increase, but we might balance the budget instead of passing the buck to our kids. And hey, Bush increased the size of government, too, so Obama is no worse.
See where I'm going? Using THEIR stances on issues, I've established an argument that an Obama presidency is probably no worse than a McCain presidency. Now, if you can honestly establish such an argument, I see no ethical problem encouraging them to vote for Barr because even if it helps Obama win you've already established that that result isn't THAT bad.
You can do the same thing if they complain about wanting Supreme Court appointments that honor "original intent" of the constitution. You point out how Scalia and the two new Bush appointees have sided with the executive branch on civil rights issues, etc... That's a pretty hot button issue with Libertarian types. Now, if Scalia, Roberts, Alito, won't support original intent readings of the constitution, how much worse could an Obama appointment be?
So in summary, I think you look at their stances on certain issues and find spots where McCain doesn't support that stance. Now prove that Obama isn't any worse than McCain using THEIR stances on the issue. Now you have an honest reason to tell them to vote Barr.
If you can't establish an argument, and if McCain really IS better than Obama using their stances on the issues, then the "ethical" thing to do is encourage them to vote for McCain.
May 24, 2008 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Someone here at TPM referred to this as the "birth tax". I liked that terminology.
May 24, 2008 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with mooshinator. (Maybe because my kids call me the Moominator.) I was going to suggest asking them to articulate what they care about and what is "wrong" with the US as it relates to their lives (working too many hours for too little pay? no health care coverage? etc.) and what they are concerned about in terms of heading into the future (national and personal debt, foreign relations, etc.), and then making a gentle suggestion that they consider voting on issues over party. I think fewer and fewer people agree with the Republican platform once they really understand what it means.
I have had a lot of success with the corporate welfare discussion, basically revealing the billions of dollars we spend to benefit the very few while the vast majority of us struggle, rather than using those funds to create a more equitable and stable economy. Liberal "handouts" pale in comparison to conservative big-business and finance bailouts. But since the conservative argument is framed so effectively, most people never see past the smoke and mirrors.
You don't have to be disingenuous to use liberal talking points to clear a little of the smoke from the air. And a better educated voter is good for everyone.
May 24, 2008 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
It seems to me that the only unethical thing to do would be to lie to them, or to intimidate them in some way. Like you said, if you encourage them to essentially throw their vote away and a Dem wins, they will be better off anyway.
They probably know you are a progressive and will take anything you say with a grain of salt anyway, but good luck in giving them a rational way to vote!
May 24, 2008 7:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
For better or worse, we have a two-party system, not a parliamentary system. The legislative branch is set up for two parties, and the recent presidential elections have demonstrated that people who are moved to vote their "consciences" for a third party candidate end up shooting themselves in the foot. Perot backers got Clinton and Nader supporters got Bush. As a result, it seems ethical to get people on both sides of spectrum to understand they are better off working within and choosing between the two major parties.
Of course, this underscores the importance of the suggestions made by mooshinator and Liora for bringing Republicans over to our side.
May 24, 2008 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
The trick is in finding Republicans who are rational enough to listen. Then make it personal, and frame it well.
May 24, 2008 10:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I usually try distracting Republicans on election day: get them on the phone, recommend a good movie they should go see, send them loads of emails, and just hope they forget to vote. Except in this year's New York primary, when a friend of mine told me they couldn't be bothered to schlep all the way back to Brooklyn to cast a vote for Romney. I figured it didn't make a shred of difference to me, so I guilted them into riding the 2 train for 40 minutes.
But as for the distraction technique, I guess you'd have an ethical problem with that, too, huh?
May 24, 2008 9:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Probably. Doesn't mean I wouldn't do it, however. ;)
May 24, 2008 9:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
The way I look at it: if I sing the praises of anyone except my own candidate, I'm being dishonest. If I put all my energy into distraction, then at least I'm being sincere.
May 24, 2008 9:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think I could live with that justification.
May 24, 2008 9:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent. Problem solved.
May 24, 2008 9:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Libertarian Party: A Gateway Drug to the Democratic Party.
Seriously, in regards to the ethics, do you think that the policies of this third party (I'm guessing it's the Libertarian party) are better than that of the GOP? If so, there should be no ethical problem. If you think it is worse, on the other hand, there might be an ethical problem there.
May 24, 2008 9:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not the party so much as the candidate. Bob Barr is definitely worse than John McCain, in my opinion. (Having grown up in Georgia, I have a bit of familiarity with him.)
May 24, 2008 9:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
10 years ago he was a real SOB. He has really mellowed out quite a bit since then. Look up his fighting for civil liberties since 9/11--there's some good stuff there.
May 24, 2008 9:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll have to do that. I'm definitely thinking of the 10 years ago version. Maybe I can actually recommend him with a clean conscience.
May 24, 2008 10:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the deal with resisting third-party candidates. With the Democrats, one needs to accept the lesser of the two evils not to vote for someone better, which this year would be Nader--who really does stand against war and for single-payer medical coverage. With the Republicans, to resist voting for Barr one needs to accept the more of the two evils--which probably is McCain, who is more war-like than Barr. I would prefer to see a race between Nader and Barr than between Obama and McCain, but all four will be on the ballots of many states.
May 24, 2008 10:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with Nader's positions on HC but I have no confidence that he would be a president that could get anything accomplished. He's at least as divisive as Hillary. I see a Nader administration as a 4-year food fight.
Other than that, he will never get elected. Progressives who vote for Nader are standing on principle while sinking in the quicksand of reality at this point in time.
May 24, 2008 10:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's never wrong to encourage your friends, Ben Hocking!
May 24, 2008 10:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess I was asking reflective questions when I should have made the critical point.
Your approach to people may not be powerful enough when relating with people that have a different type of framework. Not opinion. But framework. You know, typical thinking.
I don't know if you use the power of persuasion as you've done here of a professional academian or a better wonk. But that would only put defenses up.
And if they have hardened cultural constructs it's hard to ask people to be curious or enlightened about other ways of thinking.
It's hard to "make" people go from script to holoscript. If you're known to play devil's advocate, they may assume you're doing so with their ideas. If you have a vacillation back and forth that makes it difficult to know where you stand, you may not be the conduit to convince. That's not to say that you couldn't introduce them to an intercessor.
If you don't believe that voting third party is a viable option for yourself. Why would you want to convince them?
It's just hard to see any permanence or stands in the of duality of your opinions.
Maybe the description of moderate has a different meaning to some here. I equated it with centrist views. Not indecisiveness.
May 24, 2008 10:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
What you describe as a lack of permanence, I see as a willingness to be open-minded. Another purpose of playing "devil's advocate" is to demonstrate empathy to a different set of ideas. What's odd is to hear these traits described as remaining in one's comfort zone.
As for my power of persuasion, I'll never claim to excel at it. For one thing, my reference frame does differ quite a bit from the "average American". Of course, that's probably true of almost every poster on TPM. I have had quite a few successes with persuasion, however, including converting at least one racist-leaning relative into a full-out progressive. (It helped that I got him while he was relatively young.) That is the reason I'll engage such people.
I eschew rigidity, and it's one of the the traits in GWB that annoys me greatly. People who are unwilling to examine their own beliefs are limiting their horizons.
You talk of persuasion, and I assume you think it's useful. However, your behavior recently has severely weakened your own power of persuasion here. At one point, I think I remember you having many valid points. (Admittedly, I might be thinking of someone else.) Recently, however, it seems that you're more interested in belittling others. I hope you go back to focusing on the issues, as I think you do have much to contribute.
May 24, 2008 11:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your comfort zone?
Your childhood and European cultural influences. Didn't you say that this is what still forms your thinking today?
May 24, 2008 11:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Although I was born in Germany (on a US army base), I moved to the United States when I was two. I grew up here, and I can't really say I ever had a comfort zone growing up, as I was the nerdy kid that people liked to pick on. Luckily, I'm not a small person, so that limited the attacks somewhat. My European travels are another example of me leaving my comfort zone as English is my first language. The only other language I speak reasonably well is German, and even that I wouldn't describe myself as being "comfortable" in. In short, I'm still not understanding this "comfort zone" you're talking about.
May 24, 2008 11:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, and to answer your question: no, I didn't say it's what still forms my thinking today. I'm not sure where you got that from, either.
I really think that maybe you're confusing me with someone else altogether.
May 24, 2008 11:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
You said core beliefs from childhood and the addition of other experiences.
I looked at it from a static and separate form but it need not be.
May 24, 2008 11:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right. It's at the core—not at the mesolayers or at the surface. Surely your childhood influenced your core beliefs as well, no?
If I had been raised in Eastern thoughts, I'm sure I'd have a different way of looking at things. I've examined Eastern philosophies and they have influenced my thoughts, but at my core, I'm still Western.
It's interesting that you seem to be attacking me simultaneously for having this core based on my "comfort zone" and for vacillating at the same time.
May 24, 2008 11:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly.
I'm talking about having an transcending approach which changes holoscripts and not a archetypal approach that only deals with familiar scripts.
I was saying that you take a look out side the box within your own constraints. That's transference.
May 25, 2008 12:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
So,
My opinion was that if others only see you as looking at things from different perspectives for the sake of argument.
I would think you come across as a teacher that tells people WHAT to think in very abstract unidentifiable terms.
May 25, 2008 12:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I tend very strongly towards the Socratic method of teaching.
May 25, 2008 12:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Really?
I didn't think you would teach others to ask questions.
You seem more autocratic.
May 25, 2008 12:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
In answer to the posted question, I think we should work to divide the Republican vote. Yeah, let's steer them to third party if they won't vote Democratic. I see it as an attack on Operation Chaos.
May 24, 2008 11:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
There definitely is a factor of "balance" in my consideration as well.
May 24, 2008 11:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I never used the word balance.
I said wavering.
May 24, 2008 11:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, actually vacillation.
May 24, 2008 11:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
?
I wasn't talking about you…
May 24, 2008 11:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
At least I'm not a belligerent drunk.
:)
May 25, 2008 12:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
But a drunk no less.
May 25, 2008 12:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're the expert.
May 25, 2008 12:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
On identify drunks? Sure. I'll take that credit.
May 25, 2008 12:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
*identifying.
May 25, 2008 12:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Busted.
Perhaps you need another drink. At any rate, what clued you in, the avatar?
Aren't you the clever one.
May 25, 2008 12:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Alcohol is your solution to everything isn't it?
May 25, 2008 1:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think you could be unethical if you tried, Ben.
I don't encourage people to do anything other than be honest and reasonable and put the good of the country first which in my opinion is best fulfilled by the promise of the democratic party.
May 24, 2008 11:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Bev. Right back atcha.
May 24, 2008 11:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
HAHAHAHA!
May 25, 2008 1:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
BevD is funny.
May 25, 2008 1:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's what I think. The statistical power of one vote is too small for the political gain to justify the potential cost to a friendship. And you'll probably end up laughing if you try to fib anyway. So tell them what you really think.
But you could certainly use your chat to fully inform these friends about their third-party options, so that if they had any inclination to cast a "purity" vote, they would have all the info they needed to do it.
May 24, 2008 11:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very well put. And, very accurate about me probably ending up laughing. This makes me think you know me in real life. Now that I know you're really "Greg", I'm guessing you're one of two people named Greg in my department. It's only a matter of time before I figure out which. ;)
May 24, 2008 11:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Doesn't matter who he really is. He'll still only post when it's safe to and acquire the view of others.
And he'll still be dull.
May 25, 2008 1:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lemme go back up thread. BBL. LOL!
May 25, 2008 12:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ben if you can't explain to anyone why they should vote Dem this year then no offense intended but you're not nearly as smart as you think you are. Jesus H. Christ it takes 5 minutes to recite a perfectly good rap that destroys any Republican argument and makes the case for the Democratic party. If you haven't developed one by now you've spent too much time arguing with the likes of Billy Glad over internecine crap that won't matter in another two weeks. You're an intelligent guy, please quit wasting your time.
May 25, 2008 1:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
ooo!
And they say I'm harsh.
May 25, 2008 1:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
No. They say you're stupid.
May 25, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, am I right in assuming that the DNC is beating a path to your door to line up speaking engagements, then?
By your logic, we should be able to nail this think by 100-0.
Let me clue you in: you can give all of the best reasons for voting Democratic and some people still won't do it, whether it's because they consider the Democrats to be evil, because they're racists who'll never vote for a black man, or because they're rich as hell and don't care about anything but paying less taxes. (Naturally, these selfish people also wouldn't care about the tax burden being pushed onto later generations.)
May 25, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Off topic, but one argument against third party candidates: Joe Lieberman.
May 25, 2008 6:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
There's nothing immoral about encouraging some one to vote their conscience.
Also, give your friends some credit, if they're seriously considering voting third party maybe it's more important to them to make a statement and send a message to their party than it is to win. Nothing wrong with that.
I'd say there's only one immoral thing that some one can do while advising a friend on their votes: lie about where the polling place is or give them the wrong date for election day.
Anything else is fair.
May 25, 2008 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you should be true to yourself and encourage them to vote democratic. If they won't it's then it's fine to tell them to vote their conscience. Point out the many things you don't like about McCain. But I wouldn't encourage them explicitly to vote third party as that would be duplicitous.
May 25, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I fail to see an ethical dilemma here. This friend does have a mind of his/her own I imagine and I assume you don't intend to use duress, so why not suggest it? You could mention something your friend and the 3rd party candidate have in common, e.g. tax reform, foreign policy, or whatever.
May 25, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink