|
what enables you to think that there is a distinction in this situation between voting one's "conscience" and voting tactically?
do you somehow imagine that the decision to vote tactically is easy?
on what basis?
i do not see where any of the pseudo-psychological statements about voting tactically come from...it seems naieve in the extreme to imagine that you can abstract your vote from tactical considerations.
maybe the problem works like this: for people inclined to vote nader, the prospect of another bush term is obviously, a priori, something to be rejected out of hand--which opens the way to tactical consideration.
i am not sure about libertarian politics--supporters of that position do not have a real problem with another bush term insofar as it is more likely to advance some of thier overall goals--say the dismantling of a coherent relation between the state and the economy--but they do not like bushrhetoric and other elements of his policies--but they do not feel as though they really loose either way.
maybe that explains the sanctimoniousness that sometimes appears here.
it is a function of their assessment of the tactical situation.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|