Who Cares? -David Foster Wallace on political cynicism
 

I came across this quote while rereading Wallace's (RIP) piece for Rolling Stone on John McCain written during the 2000 Republican primary. I thought it was possibly the most effective response to political apathy I've ever seen. Although it was written at one of the latest dates that John McCain could have justifiably been considered a maverick (his record since 2000 has been only sporadically independent), the essay has aged fairly well (it's been reprinted as a standalone book for the season).

Above the race and gender "firsts" this election presents us with it is more notably the first time in recent memory that neither candidate represents their respective party's previously established power structure. Democrat voters chose Obama over H. Clinton at least in part because of impatience with the continued impotence of the current Democratic Congress. McCain was selected over the more seemingly mainline candidates Huckabee or Romney due to Republican establishment's collapse under the weight of their own incompetence. So it seems that cynicism hasn't prevailed thus far in this election cycle.

Still, I've heard a fair share of "It doesn't matter"s and "nothing will change"s from people this year. How do you, the various TFP politicos, respond to political apathy and cynicism when you encounter it?

I raised this point in a thread some time ago and you'd be surprised at the number of TFPers who will rationalize that they have the right to choose not to vote.

Personally, I feel that anyone who has the right to voice their opinion or has had their ancestors, family or gender fight oppression in order to obtain that right has an obligation to vote. It saddens me when intelligent people express such apathy, cynicism and worthlessness.

No worries about McCain getting too far from the Bush policies, they've got Bush's best people on the job training them in the "correct" answers - Washington Post - Steering the McCain Campaign, a Lot of Old Bush Hands

You seem to be forgetting that the citizens' votes don't matter. Our president is voted for throughthe electoral college, which has no obligation to vote the same as the people. We are a country contolled by the elite. Those elite have a voice. Us down here on the lower rungs of socity, our voices are lost to the wind.

But I do agree, people should vote, if only to show that we are paying attention.

Yep, the Electoral College is fucking retarded and needs to be rid of now.

We have had this discussion in the past usually around election time so I apologize for the repetition and will take the position of the non-voter.

I look at our system as one controlled by the ruling class; our polititians and their associates, families and friends. The only question to be answered in these elections is which party gets to direct the corruption this time around. Votes for third parties are looked at as wasted, votes for Nader are votes taken away from the Democrats, votes for the Libertarian are votes taken away from the Republicans and neither one has a chance anyway.

The heated discussions over which party is worse is just a distraction from the reality that both are. I wish just once we would show our collective disgust with the system and when they have an election no one shows up. The elections are rigged to put a Democrat/Republican in office. We should not feel obligated to endorse the corrupt polititians with our vote. Voting gives the impression that we actually think there is a choice and the system is working.

Not voting, or even a massive refusal to vote by itself won't do anything. After all, it's still within the framework of The System, which tell us that voting is crucial. By not voting you say "my vote is a potent symbolic raspberry directed at the Man." But how is that Raspberry going to work itself into fundamental change? How do you get from the non-vote to direct rule of workers councils, if that's what you want? In a way, the non-vote protest affirm the importance of parliamentary politics, but if there is to be fundamental change, voting will be a relatively minor issue. Either the change happens and voting affirms that change, or change renders the vote irrelevant. So, if someone out there is working for fundamental social change, and is truly too busy to vote, well, more power to them. Otherwise, it's kind of silly to think that this most passive of gestures will make any sort of difference.

Another trap is to think that all elections are the same. Voting can be crucial at some points, at others, not so much.

Yeah, I remember this. Since we vote and it's our system that put the nominees in place, creating anarchy wouldn't be a solution. Please explain the point of giving this impression and to whom we'd be giving it.

I doubt if I'd be the only one working day and night to keep people from voting if the outcome could/would potentially change anything.

Not participating in a rigged election does not seem like anarchy. Some governments use voter turnout to show how widely people support the election system.

problem is that the electoral system neither counts blank ballots (as do, for example, trade union elections in france, which make them into a type of protest vote in that they actually register) nor does it juxtapose the number of people who do vote against the number registered in any given election. that means both forms of protest/abstention are erased, and the counting system generates its own justification. this is a problem, in that it also erases the space for dissent within the electoral system, pushing it outside--but since this is america in 2008, that seems to mean it pushes dissent to watching tv. or writing pissy posts about things on messageboards. for example. doing nothing.

if that is the case, then what dfw said is obvious.

We should all vote for the IOP.

This was on my college campus <.<
The Inanimate Object Party.

What's sad is they've recorded several wins over the years :\.

I hear what you're saying, but I can't imagine who we'd be showing or what the result would be. What would course of action be if nobody showed?

That's why I call it anarchy. If there is an answer, educate me. I have no idea.

I'm guessing it would revert back to GW until new nominations occurred? Doesn't sound like a happy place to me.

I think rational choice would be one way or the winning candidate would have to meet a minimum amount of votes. Therefore protest votes could actually play the role of spoiler.

if no-one showed except for, say, 20 people nationally, the way the voting count works is that the percentages would be calculated for each of the more or less interchangeable representatives of the dominant class using that 20.

of course, that would not prevent a collapse of the electoral system as a whole. they call this a motivation crisis, which is the result of a legitimation crisis. what it would mean would be a function of the arguments made by various political movements before that.

not participating in a rigged election can be the only "rational" choice.
but you'd have to be persuaded that it was rigged, along with pretty much everyone else.

Thanks, RB. I think.

What if there were no dominant class?

Am I understanding that you're saying that the electoral system would save the day? I didn't realize it would still work, but I was assuming a 0 turnout. But surely at least the candidates' families would vote. :p

i was just talking about the way the counting works in the states.

once capitalism is finished, we can start thinking about there being no dominant class.

I'll vote when there's an option for "None of the Above"

These are almost my sentiments exactly and yet I still vote in every presidential election. I don't think we can afford another decade under these same electoral, educational and judicial systems. Lord knows we're well overdue for a media revolution.

But change doesn't come overnight and while I may be naive by thinking we can actually make this a better country, one president at a time, armchair apathy gets us nowhere.