Features

A Game of Drones

Torture, Guantanamo, Kill Lists, Unconscionable Casualties, and Obama's Second Term

A Game of Drones

Tyler Streeter

+ Enlarge this Image
+ Enlarge this Image
+ Enlarge this Image
Kelly O
THE WORLD CAN’T WAIT They think President Obama is wrong about torture and Guantanamo. They’re right. Does that make Obama wrong about everything else?

It's hard to take a protest seriously when it consists of 10 protesters. The fact that some of those protesters are dressed in orange jumpsuits intended to evoke Guantanamo doesn't really help, especially considering they're protesting across the street from a Cheesecake Factory. The Cheesecake Factory makes everything seem ridiculous—the people stuffed impatiently into the lobby, the waitstaff in their impractically all-white uniforms, the homeless kids begging for specific types of cheesecake out front. The Cheesecake Factory makes me think of Trouble, the little white Maltese dog that belonged to disgustingly wealthy hotelier Leona Helmsley, who tabloids called "The Queen of Mean." When Helmsley died in 2007, she left Trouble $12 million in a trust, more than she left any of her grandchildren—hell, more than she left to any other human being. She willed her poor chauffeur a hundred thousand dollars, placing his value at exactly 120 times less than Helmsley's dog.

The sight of customers enveloped in the huge booths of the Cheesecake Factory, pawing through their gigantic menus and poking their forks into their enormous entrées—an Over the Top Meatloaf Sandwich, say, washed down with a Twisted Salted Caramel Pretzel shake off the "Spiked Milkshakes" menu—is always hilarious. They look less like humans and more like, say, small hypoallergenic dogs that have had all the life intentionally bred out of them.

Outside, it's a frigid Friday night in downtown Seattle. Very few pedestrians take any notice of the protesters. A few stop to shout angrily ("Impeach Obama!" or "Waterboarding works!"), but only a handful even bother to take a flyer or ask what the protesters are doing. What they're doing is representing activist group The World Can't Wait, shouting at passersby about torture, assassinations, and murders committed by robots on the other side of the planet. They're standing on the corner of Seventh Avenue and Pike Street in front of the Regal Meridian 16 movie theater, ostensibly protesting the movie Zero Dark Thirty, although none of the protesters I talk to have even seen the movie. A couple of them admit that they want to see it, even as they hand out flyers accusing the movie of "represent[ing] the CIA's view of the world," which is to say that it justifies torture and the illegal detentions of innocent human beings.

When I mention to ringleader and spokeswoman Emma Kaplan that this is more like a protest against President Obama, she says she's heading to Washington, DC, with The World Can't Wait next Tuesday to protest the inauguration. That inauguration has been on my mind a lot lately. On the one hand, it's the celebration of a resounding victory over the Paleolithic conservative movement that has erupted in this country like a bad case of thrush. On the other hand, it's a national confirmation of a president who has done a lot of things in his first term that I find morally repugnant.

Almost every day that I covered the 2012 presidential election for The Stranger, I would get at least one e-mail, tweet, or comment on a story asking me how I could justify planning to vote for President Obama. These messages would mention one or two selections from a long menu of his misgivings: drones, Guantanamo, the kill list, the perpetuation of the Patriot Act, the war on drugs, the TSA's pointless and humiliating security theater. A good number of these queries came from concern trolls—Republicans trying to foment discord among Democrats by pretending to be outraged about the continuation of these (largely) Bush-era policies—but most of them came from progressives who were struggling with their conscience.

Here's the basic math that I did: An Obama presidency would be less morally reprehensible than a Romney presidency. Let's for the purposes of this essay set aside the domestic issues (where Obama's positions were clearly superior). When you looked at Obama's weakest moral points—most of which relate to foreign policy—he still wielded more moral authority than Romney, who surrounded himself with George W. Bush's foreign policy advisers. Whereas President Obama has mostly stayed within the (grossly extended) boundaries established by the Bush administration, a Romney presidency might likely push those boundaries out even further. The Obama administration seemed likelier to use diplomacy in a foreign policy crisis, whereas Romney was banging the drums of war against Iran back when he was an obscenely wealthy piece of political trivia in Iowa in the fall of 2011.

When I present this math to Kaplan on the sidewalk in front of the movie theater, she isn't so sure. She doesn't see any discernable difference between Romney and Obama, and she thinks that in many ways, an Obama presidency could be more harmful than a Romney presidency because liberals tend to become complacent when liberals are in power. Kaplan believes that at least Democrats would care about the erosion of civil liberties under a Republican. "I talk to liberals all the time who think that Guantanamo is already closed, just because President Obama is in office and he promised to close Guantanamo" when he was running for president, she says. As for drones, the New York Times reported that as the 2012 election neared, President Obama's staff "accelerated work... to develop explicit rules for the targeted killing of terrorists by unmanned drones, so that a new president would inherit clear standards and procedures." (The story proves both my point and Kaplan's: Obama's people didn't trust Romney not to broaden the drone program, but they were apparently blind to the hypocrisy of their own power mongering.) Kaplan didn't vote in the 2012 election, and she believes that voting isn't going to bring about the changes that need to take place.

Kaplan isn't alone in believing that Obama is a criminal on a global level. In a video posted Saturday by Al Jazeera, Noam Chomsky declared that President Obama "has no moral center... if you look at the actual policies [of the Obama administration], they're pretty shocking." Chomsky explained, "The drone assassination campaign is... just a global assassination campaign."

If it's an assassination campaign, it's a terribly inexact one. Drone strikes begin as lists—I imagine them as clean lines of names on white pieces of paper—presented to President Obama by his national security team a few times a month. The president looks at the names, he listens to the cases against these people he'll never meet, and then he decides who should die. More than 300 drone strikes have been launched in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia under his command, and the death toll is estimated at higher than 2,500. This is more power than any one human being should possess.

On December 11, a graduate student from New York University named Josh Begley started tweeting every recorded US drone strike in chronological order under the name @dronestream. On February 2, 2010, to pick a day at random, a cluster of eight drones in North Waziristan launched at least 17 missiles, killing dozens and missing their intended target. Two vehicles filled with rescue workers trying to help victims of the strikes were also destroyed, with an unknown number of casualties. There are plenty more like that. A lot of innocent people, including children, have died. We know some of their names, but some of them are (and probably always will be) anonymous. This is the sort of thing that will keep you up nights, if you let it.

You can make the argument that if radio-controlled airplanes weren't doing the killing, air force pilots would be, or soldiers on the ground. A lot of Americans favor drones because it takes our troops out of harm's way. But that presupposes that American lives are more valuable than the lives of innocent people in other countries. If you believe that, if you believe that a 3-year-old girl from Minnesota has intrinsically more value to the world than a 3-year-old Pakistani girl, you probably don't have a problem with any of this. And I probably wouldn't be able to talk to you for more than two minutes without wanting to vomit.

There are others who argue that the moral dirtiness of drones is the price we pay for being a global superpower. The majority of people who die in drone strikes, the argument goes, are planning to take the lives of other human beings; we're just hitting them before they can kill others. But wouldn't it send more of a message to capture these criminals and put them on trial for conspiracy to murder? Doesn't the idea of blowing people to smithereens from a remote-controlled airplane send the message to younger generations in these nations that brutal, seemingly random violence is how you get your way? Isn't this the same sort of thing we marched against George W. Bush for, back in 2003?

But then, can you show me an American president who doesn't sign his name in blood? If you really look at the record, doesn't every one of the 44 men who've had that job have a Waco, a Japanese internment program, a Trail of Tears, a popular war built on false evidence, a secret Cambodian bombing on their conscience? Abraham Lincoln is the closest thing we have to a secular American saint, and his legacy is built on the 750,000 deaths of the Civil War.

Some of the protesters outside Zero Dark Thirty believe that a second American revolution is required to cleanse our national shame, that we need to tear the whole system down and start over. But as long as we're (almost) all fed and employed and inconceivably comfortable when compared with almost every other human being who ever lived, that simply isn't going to happen. Most of us vote for the person we believe to be morally superior and hope for incremental change toward the good. There is historical evidence for this; politics isn't the story of leaps and bounds, but of hesitant steps. Where we are now as a nation is a destination at which we could not have arrived without the work of millions of people who slowly ground themselves to dust for us. The angriest among us can scoff at this idea as the mincing moral equivalence of a sellout, but to ignore that we move toward betterment by crawling for thousands of miles is to ignore the elephant of history sitting square on your chest.

Besides, are any of us really clean? To live in America right now is to be the beneficiary of untold suffering. Just because we've outsourced our slave labor doesn't make slave labor less real. One of the protesters flashes anti-torture signs on a tablet computer that was surely made by an impoverished person working for pennies in an unsafe, unregulated factory. At least some of the shoes that the protesters wear were made by children in a factory somewhere you have never heard of. Across the street, in the warm, eggnog-colored glow of the Cheesecake Factory, diners are tucking into meals made from the suffering of animals that can definitely feel some form of pain. If the moral high ground were the most important requirement for the survival of our species, we would have fallen into extinction a long time ago. Instead, we walk around in our shiny coats with our big dumb smiles and we eat our Skinnylicious® Chicken Enchiladas, followed by the guilty pleasure of a Chocolate Tuxedo Cream™ Cheesecake, which we totally deserve because we've been so good lately.

I bet President Obama thinks about this a lot. He's demonstrated the ability in his writing to walk into tangled thatches of philosophy and to delineate a clear, if circuitous, path through to the other side. But I'm glad that Kaplan is going to be there at the inauguration with The World Can't Wait, holding up a big sign about drones and civil liberties. I hope the president catches a glimpse of her sign out the window of his limousine when he's in the motorcade heading down Pennsylvania Avenue. I hope it makes him think about what he does, one more time, before he takes the oath. And I hope the rest of the country sees her, too. Without people like this, the noisy ones, the dissatisfied ones, the rowdy ones who are willing to throw themselves headfirst into the jeers and disapproving glares of the pedestrians in a hurry to get to Gameworks or H&M, we'd never get anywhere at all. recommended

This article has been updated since its original publication.

 

Comments (40) RSS

Newest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
40
SO the point is the people protesting with a valid argument are just wasting their time? You would vote for someone with a record of Assassination and torture to maintain the hypothetical evil someone else may do.
We had an American citizen killed in another country because he preached. Key word preached against us. And it is OK? The real issue is the rhetoric used to keep 3rd party candidates down. Like "A vote for Ron Paul or whoever is a vote for the other side"
Posted by The Scotty on January 23, 2013 at 9:18 PM · Report
39
No worries, if Obama completely fucks everything up he can use his go to move and blame Bush......again.
Posted by Libs suck asshole. on January 22, 2013 at 8:21 PM · Report
38
The inherent problem with any criticism of the president is that you presume you know anything at. This article is riddled with moral subjectiveness both literally and implied. We pretend to know what information is being provided (or pretend that is irrelevant) and pretend that we know what the process is that informed the decision. And best of all, we pretend that because the results were not optimal or to our liking that therefore our decision must be the correct one.

The crime is not in what the president has done. It is us insisting that in his place we would make the perfect moral decision.
Posted by TheBeastlet on January 21, 2013 at 11:22 AM · Report
37
Three words: Instant. Runoff. Voting.
Posted by Tyro on January 21, 2013 at 9:09 AM · Report
36
This is a simplistic article that tries to achieve a moral high ground while being completely naive to the realities of the world. Obama can't close Guantanamo because the republicans blocked funding to do so under the AUMF; Obama could argue that his Article II authority permits him to do so, but that would mirror the exact kind of Constitutional overreaching that Bush engaged in.

And your comments on the drone strikes? That they presuppose that American lives are more important that those overseas? That is a ridiculous assertion. Your answer that the US should go in on the ground and arrest those on the hit list is even more absurd. That would almost surely result in more deaths, both of Americans and foreigners. And one of the reasons we don't do so is because the countries we are operating the drone program in specifically deny our use of ground forces there. Your article assumes that foreign affairs is a simple and safe slate; it isn't. Likewise it does that same in assuming that the President has unlimited power in closing Gitmo; he doesn't.
Posted by ble210 on January 20, 2013 at 5:02 PM · Report
35
Honesty Update:

When President Obama falsely claims the banks didn't break any laws, and faux newsies like David Brooks, Thomas Friedman, Malcolm Gladwell, Sorkin et al., make similarly false claims, then why is the SEC always fining the banksters! (True, they are the smallest, most insignificant fines possible, but it bears reflection.)

http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litrelease…

http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litrelease…

http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litrelease…

http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litrelease…

http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litrelease…

http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litrelease…

http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litrelease…

http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litrelease…

http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litrelease…

http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litrelease…
More...
Posted by sgt_doom on January 20, 2013 at 12:48 PM · Report
34 Comment Pulled (Spam) Comment Policy
33
OBAMA kept Bush' entire National Security Team for the first term, and most of the economic advisers. Thus, it is no surprise that he would turn out to be yet another presidential war criminal - the Nobel Peace Prize is advance icing on that cake. The only reason he became president is because the sheeples are hooked on hope - the most dangerous drug of them all. http://summapolitico.blogspot.com/2012/1…
Posted by wolfie69 http://www.roloff.freehosting.net/index.html on January 19, 2013 at 12:38 PM · Report
32
@12, simpleton you, have you ever passed an IQ test, by any chance?
Posted by sgt_doom on January 18, 2013 at 11:18 AM · Report
31
Constant repeats the US Chamber of Commerce mantra, the Wall Street bankster talking point, that we are all to blame, that none of us have clean hands so therefore, ignore all those billionaires and trillionaires who have profited from all the death and destruction!

FYI to Constant: slave labor is still alive and thriving in America, sonny!

Responding to a Paul Constant article is beneath me. It isn’t that I have such a high opinion of myself, but such a dismal opinion of the drivel Constant writes.

Once upon a time, the book reviewers and that sort represented the unbridled conscience of a newspaper or journal, while today they represent the worst. (Note the statistically improbable number of book reviews which have appeared in the Sunday edition of the New York Times Book Review section, written by neocon members of PNAC, during the years 2000 to 2010!)

Frizzelle recently blogged on the “irony” that the only one to face jail time for US torture was the CIA whistleblower who had sought to expose it, John Kiriakou.

No doubt Frizzelle thought his a clever observation, whereas it didn’t even reach the sophomoric level. There is nothing “ironic” of any of the nefarious actions of the neocon administrations of Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

There was nothing ironic about Reagan establishing the Office of Privatization --- to privatize everything --- within the OMB with his Executive Order #12615, just as there was nothing ironic about Clinton and Obama advisor, Robert Rubin, establishing the Hamilton Project --- to promote the privatization of everything --- within the Brookings Institution.

There was nothing ironic when Reagan appointed William Casey to be CIA director, when Casey’s first action was to privatize the earth resources data garnered from CIA spy satellites, once available to the public, thenceforth only available to Casey’s Wall Street cronies.

There was nothing ironic when George H.W. Bush failed to pass NAFTA, so they brought in Clinton to accomplish that bankster task.

There was nothing ironic about Clinton appointing billionaire and Rockefeller lackey, Peter G. Peterson (expelled from MIT for massive cheating), to Clinton’s commission to “…end welfare as we know it…”, since Peterson’s life mission has always been to end Medicare/Medicaid, privatize (steal) Social Security, and offshore all American jobs (Peterson’s day job was private equity LBOs; buying oil refineries, then closing them to drive up the price of oil, investing in the privatization of prisons, cornering the telecom market [please recall the original Rockefeller ownership of AT&T], cornering the Anthrax vaccine market, etc.).

There wasn’t anything ironic about Clinton and the dramatic increase in the privatization of the American intelligence establishment, fully realized under George W. Bush’s administration, just as there’s nothing ironic about Obama’s continuation and expansion of George W. Bush’s War On Whistleblowers.

There’s nothing ironic about the US Congress wasting so much time and taxpayer monies in their pursuit of sports types like Barry Bonds or Lance Armstrong --- after all, the sports types don’t own the government, it’s the banksters which have the monopoly on the government, on congress, on the Supreme Court.

There is, therefore, nothing ironic about federal prosecutors hounding to death Aaron Swartz, who successfully sallied forth against AT&T and the others, just as there’s nothing ironic about the amoral imprisonment of Gov. Don Siegelman, Bradley Manning, John Kiriakou and Shakir Hamoodi, and anyone else in America who does the right thing, the good deed, the moral undertaking.

The only irony is why anyone would employ the likes of a Paul Constant?
More...
Posted by sgt_doom on January 18, 2013 at 10:30 AM · Report
30
Makes me think of Frank Shallard.
Posted by Baritone on January 17, 2013 at 4:54 PM · Report
29
The point of third parties is to defeat the major party closest to your ideals-to get their attention. Roosevelt cut the GOP vote in 1912 handing the election to Wilson. While this was as much about TR's ego as policies, it sent a message to the GOP that they needed to take TR's ideas more seriously. Perot in 1992 and Nader in 2000 sent the same message: Ignore us at your peril. After 1992, both the GOP and Dems became more concerned about Perot's message about the deficit. Nader's 2000 run had a smaller impact, but still basically communicated "don't ignore us" to the Democratic party.
Posted by hist_ed on January 17, 2013 at 1:35 PM · Report
28
It's a strange time when you almost have to go to Red State to read about the return of rendition.
Posted by linus9 on January 17, 2013 at 12:42 PM · Report
27
@8 Paul, I may have to defer to your experience concerning things made up...like Obama having any sort of moral grounding. Start this clip at 12:30.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l64zFyTu…
Posted by Che Guava on January 17, 2013 at 9:53 AM · Report
chaseacross 26
I trust Obama enough to assume he's carefully weighing these issues, negotiating an ugly, messy war he inherited against a determined enemy. I trust that he's trying to end said war as expeditiously as possible. That's why I voted for him without reservation. I'm uneasy with the drone strikes, with their high collateral damage and suspect efficacy, but the people trying to kill Americans or or allies have realized by now that the only way to survive long enough to make a go of it is to stay as close as possible to as many civilians as possible. In the balance, though, messy assassination is much preferred over ground offensives as far as humane sentiment goes. Still, like Paul, I'm glad the protesters are around. We need to keep the bloody price of our safety in mind, keep the wounds of our democracy open.
Posted by chaseacross on January 17, 2013 at 2:41 AM · Report
25
What exactly is the point of this article? It feels like an attempt by Constant to morally justify his acquiescence to the status quo by arguing that nothing else is possible since we're not all starving, and only incremental positive change has ever occurred. As others have pointed out, this version of revolutionary determinism is historically incorrect. Just look at the Revolutionary War, which wasn't about starving peasants rising up, but one group of aristocrats angry at being financially screwed by another group of aristocrats. There have even been examples of a more democratic basis in U.S. territory, like the popular coup in Pennsylvania shortly before the Revolutionary War, which installed the most progressive government of any of the colonies.

But hey, whatever helps you sleep at night.
Posted by Tent_Liberation_Army on January 16, 2013 at 8:31 PM · Report
zivilisierter Wurm 24
Your choices as a morally-conscious participant in society are despair, or to fill your life with enough noise that you don't notice. The other option is to march into the woods with a 70-liter pack and disappear.

@23: sure, or fucking devour each other like the Cultural Revolution. lupus est homo homini
Posted by zivilisierter Wurm http://peregrinari.tumblr.com/ on January 16, 2013 at 8:09 PM · Report
23
If you look at societies structure with a critical eye it's undeniable that the old design has failed and we are going down-hill fast. People in general are far less happy than they were just 40 or 50 yrs ago. The dead oceans are inevitable at this point. Its OBVIOUS that progressives/liberals aren't capable of affecting any real positive change. [see: throngs of folks crying in the street because their masters finally let them get married...
40 fuckin years after the summer of love!! They should've been flipping over cop cars and buttfucking in Starbucks. The only reason these mass shootings don't happen TEN-FOLD is because the populace is being drugged en-masse. My point is that this system has slow boiled your critical thinking skills and isn't worth protecting. Let the anarchists have their A.K. 47's and maybe we can re-structure into smaller, denser, self-sustainable communities that don't create adam lanzas.
Down with the globalists.
Posted by carsten coolage on January 16, 2013 at 7:34 PM · Report
22
Blame it on bin Laden.
Posted by drinkup on January 16, 2013 at 6:29 PM · Report
21
Wow. Thank you for writing this Mr Constant. Your excellent essay navigates the ambiguous confusing terrain I feel lost in at times concerning Obama and drones especially. Your criticism as well as well deserved praise for Kaplan and The World Can't Wait shows your ability to embrace contradictions with integrity and compassion. This piece can be very helpful for getting the dialogue going. Thanks!
Melissa Parson
Posted by LissieP on January 16, 2013 at 4:32 PM · Report
20
"ringleader and spokeswoman Emma Kaplan" of course had she been protesting Bush our little Paulie would have said brazen leader. The temerity of stating third-party candidates are useless, where the hidden objective is to publicly reinforce the ol' left/right gangster paradigm.
Posted by liberty4all on January 16, 2013 at 3:38 PM · Report
dirac 19
The lesser of two evils is the candidate that will be allowed to keep going the status quo machine: of massive economic inequality, empire, and a two-tiered system of justice and police statism. Nice to know.

tl;dr "Pooh-pooh protestors. Let us know when you want to get serious and sit at the grown-up table of change."
Posted by dirac on January 16, 2013 at 3:18 PM · Report
18
@13: That's why I always write-in for the perfect candidate who'd never do anything wrong: Jesus Christ.
Posted by tiktok on January 16, 2013 at 1:46 PM · Report
17
Paul, I have two questions for you:

1. Doesn't your dismissal of revolution (of some sort) as an actual option--based on people in the US being relatively well fed, clothed, with access to particular privilege, etc. -- doesn't this just displace the revolutionary justification to outside US borders? This is what's called the "third worldist" hypothesis in revolutionary theory, which argues that we have a "labor aristocracy" in the 1st world that makes it impossible to instigate revolution or real (positive) world change of any sort. I mean, I disagree with this (on an empirical and anecdotal basis, since I am from one of the many parts of the US that are basically abandoned zones, "wastelands" of the type described by Chris Hedges in his recent book--and these areas are larger and closer than liberals like you make it seem). But still, do you think that revolutions (including against US Imperialism) are justified overseas, but just not here?

2. I think you're misportraying the revolutionary argument about historic change -- the idea isn't that there are there massive "jumps" that occur after revolutions (if anything, every revolution begins with a material step BACKWARD as people rebuild from the revolutionary war). The argument is that revolutions are necessary points of abrupt discontinuity, where that graduated, snails-pace of actual historic movement CHANGES TRAJECTORY. At certain points this change in direction involves a (relatively quick) restructuring of "productive forces." Today that would mean, for example, the immediate start of a process toward entirely dismantling coal and oil energy networks, paired with massive projects to build up new energy sources and decrease/redistribute existing productive capacity throughout the world--including more localization of agriculture. All of this comes through ABRUPT breaks in political power--breaks in which people directly assert themselves, which often means some degree of violence against the police/military/pinkertons/etc. suppressing those people and against the material conditions (such as prisons, military installations, sweatshops, etc.) aiding this suppression. It doesn't mean there is some magical "jump ahead," just a kind of torsion which changes the ultimate arc of history.

So do you actually think you have historical examples which contradict this (the actual) revolutionary argument? If so: WHAT? What real basic changes in productive forces or fundamental social relations actually came out of simple slow growth with no abrupt discontinuity in trajectory, with no people directly rising against injustice and (often violently) destroying it?

I also want to point out that I think much of your portrayal of Obama (and even his differences with Romney) is inaccurate even according to the liberal-progressive metric you seem to be using. Here's more data on that in the best (that I've read) of the "progressive" critiques against Obama by Matt Stoller:

http://www.salon.com/2012/10/27/the_prog…

Finally: Though I don't think it's reasonable that you offer a straw-man argument for revolution here, I also want to emphasize that I have little interest in defending the particular revolutionary arguments of World Can't Wait -- an organization which is simply a front-group for the wingnut RCP Bob Avakian cult. But if you're looking for a straw man to burn, they're a goddamn good one.

More...
Posted by npc on January 16, 2013 at 1:30 PM · Report
sirkowski 16
So what do we replace the drones with? More boots on the ground? Or just let the Talibans gain control over the Pakistani nukes? What's the realistic alternative here?

Also note that the Talibans have killed thousands more Pakistani than the drones.
Posted by sirkowski http://www.missdynamite.com on January 16, 2013 at 1:22 PM · Report
Cato the Younger Younger 15
Drop #13 and keep #14...damn double posting before I had a chance to save the edit
Posted by Cato the Younger Younger on January 16, 2013 at 12:56 PM · Report
Cato the Younger Younger 14
A vote for the lesser of two evils is nothing more than a gain for evil.

At the end of the day this is on the voters who embrace the "two party only system". So before you blame Obama or Bush look in the mirror first and understand your contribution to the problem.

Reponsibility starts at home..and with yourself.
Posted by Cato the Younger Younger on January 16, 2013 at 12:54 PM · Report
Cato the Younger Younger 13
A vote for the lesser of two evils is nothing more than a gain for evil.

And as much as people will "blame the third party candidate" or say "that's the way it is" remember, the voters allow this to go on. Blame Obama or Bush all you want to but look in the mirror first.

Posted by Cato the Younger Younger on January 16, 2013 at 12:54 PM · Report
Simply Me 12
Beautiful pros. Poignant observations. Excellent journalism.
Posted by Simply Me on January 16, 2013 at 12:44 PM · Report
11
It is not “the lesser of two evils” argument that dictates people’s politics, but the dogged adherence to branded images and slogans. Whether you are persuaded by Norman Rockwell’s America or a fervent of young educated/united workers/ rainbow coalition rhetoric, the two-party system is a push for the one agenda by same shady post-Bretton Woods characters. Sycophantic supporters of both parties always seem to revert to non sequitur and ad hominem attacks when the medicine they are given prove too bitter. We will be condemned forever in a downward spiral loop when writers, voters, and activists are frozenly convinced that there is no reality outside of a two-party system.
Posted by liberty4all on January 16, 2013 at 12:31 PM · Report
10
"There is historical evidence for this; politics isn't the story of leaps and bounds, but of hesitant steps. Where we are now as a nation is a destination at which we could not have arrived without the work of millions of people who slowly ground themselves to dust for us. The angriest among us can scoff at this idea as the mincing moral equivalence of a sellout, but to ignore that we move toward betterment by crawling for thousands of miles is to ignore the elephant of history sitting square on your chest."

Paul, you magnificent bastard.
Posted by wedwe on January 16, 2013 at 12:27 PM · Report
9
I'm not opposed to doing both, Paul, and I appreciate your writing on this criminally overlooked topic. But folks like the ALCU and the well-intentioned proselytizers you cite in the article have been raising hell about this for most of Obama's first term and what have they gotten? A 10-person protest, Dennis Kucinich and, if they're lucky, a few softball questions for John Brennan before he's named CIA Director.
Posted by Hutch on January 16, 2013 at 12:22 PM · Report
Paul Constant 8
@1: That is an old-fashioned mistake on a quick-turn article. I apologize and it's being changed. Thank you!

@3: Okay, so you can vote your conscience because you live in a state that votes for the candidate who you seem to share more beliefs with out of the big two. But if enough progressives voted their conscience the way you did in Washington State, the vote could have been tipped to Romney's favor. Third party candidates don't win the popular vote. And even if they win the popular vote, they'll never win the electoral college. We can argue about this all day long, but that just isn't going to happen without a seismic shift in American politics, and as I argued in the piece, seismic shifts don't happen that often. Isn't it better to agitate to make the party that appeals more to your belief system into a better political party?

@5: Maybe you should read the piece more carefully, because I think you're making shit up about it.
Posted by Paul Constant http://https://twitter.com/paulconstant on January 16, 2013 at 11:45 AM · Report
gebbeth 7
lesser of 20 evils.
Posted by gebbeth on January 16, 2013 at 11:38 AM · Report
6
@4. Agreed. But imagine how the narrative of "third party voting is throwing your vote away" would change if a third party got 5-10 percent of Washington State's vote? It's not a perfect solution but when extra-judicial killings of American citizens and foreign innocents is the accepted standard of both American parties there's not much a guy like Paul can do.
Posted by Hutch on January 16, 2013 at 11:22 AM · Report
5
This column is the liberal version of the elder Bush's "no matter what the facts are, I'll never apologize for America." Insert 'Obama' and it's a pattern match. It's laughable, except for the part where everyone gets blamed, the bizarre Prole = Wal-Mart Commutative Principle.

It would have shorter and simpler for Paul to write 'Meh' and be done with it, but then we'd have missed the America-as-Cheesecake-Factory-across-the-street part. Chris Hedges should employ some analogies like that.
Posted by Che Guava on January 16, 2013 at 11:13 AM · Report
4
@3: First-past-the-post voting more or less necessitates voting for the lesser of two evils.
Posted by Ben on January 16, 2013 at 10:29 AM · Report
3
Your "lesser of two evils" argument is a false dichotomy and self-fulfilling prophesy. You live in a solidly blue state that hasn't voted for a Republican president in nearly 20 years. There were several third party candidates you could have voted for that were outspoken about these issues. Take your pick - I went for Rocky Anderson and the Justice Party. Sure it's a symbolic vote but it makes it a little bit easier to sleep at night knowing you're not giving a vote of confidence to morally reprehensible foreign policy.
Posted by Hutch on January 16, 2013 at 10:14 AM · Report
2
This article, while well intentioned, fails to inform on a few key issues.

There is no mention or explanation of "signature strikes", which target people (whose identities are unknown) based on a pattern of behavior, such as loading a truck with fertilizer, regular calisthenics or target practice, etc.

There is only an oblique mention of "double-tap" strikes, in which one drone strike is followed by another, under the logic that those who run out to help the people hit by the first strike must be terrorists as well. (there is another variation on this where a drone targets the funeral of a deceased Taliban member, which will be presumably attended by other Taliban figures...and civilians)

Finally, there is no mention that the adminitration's definition of militant is "any military-age male in the strike zone."

You can do better, Paul.
Posted by GG4 on January 16, 2013 at 10:08 AM · Report
1
Shouldn't " the FAA's pointless and humiliating security theater" be the fault of the TSA? I've never been felt up by an air traffic controller.
Posted by Tyler Pierce on January 16, 2013 at 9:33 AM · Report

Add a comment

Most Commented in Features