the American democracy complex (on the political efficacy of not voting)

today is election day, and the media coverage surrounding the midterm elections has made even my beloved NPR virtually unlistenable for the past two weeks. my mailbox has been similarly assaulted, with a minimum of three fliers stuffed inside each day. i hear commentators commentating and analysts analyzing and pundits punditing about the importance of voting to our national identity, how this election means so much, blah blah blah.

for these reasons and more, i would like to put forth the following argument: true social change is not possible within the confines of the American democracy complex, and for this reason the only responsible political activity on the first Tuesday in November is to abstain from voting.

part 1: the American Democracy Complex

the myth of American democracy is well-entrenched; and, along with our beloved First Amendment, there is no more frequent rallying cry of this country's nationalism. we are taught that our democracy is what makes this country great, and it is the act of voting is what allows this to be "the greatest and freest nation in the world."

we are taught that the great injustices in this country (invariably occurring the past, never the present) are remedied by the ballot box, and that not voting is an everyday form of low treason, a repugnant abdication of our rights and privileges as citizens.

the reality, however, is that the progressive changes in this nation are rarely enacted by the legislative bodies in our nation. it is the appointed judiciary that provides the impetus to the elected officials, and so our Congress and state houses and White Houses are always playing a game of catch-up with the rulings handed down by the court.

a brief illustration , by decade, in the post-War era:

Shelley v. Kraemer (1948) - no, the deed cannot read 'whites only.'
Brown v. Board of Education (1954) - no, separate is not equal.
Miranda v. Arizona (1966) - yes, you do have the right to remain silent.
Roe v. Wade (1973) - yes, you do have the right to your uterus.
Texas v. Johnson (1989) - yes, you can burn that piece of cloth.
Romer v. Evans (1996) - yes, gay people have rights.
Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) - no, we don't live in a post-racial society.

sadly, this year's big decision (Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission) seems to be going in the other direction; and, unarguably, it would just as easy to compile a list of rulings that are reactionary in nature. likewise, appointments to the courts are made by elected officials, but history has shown us that justices tend to outlive (for better or worse) the limited terms of the people who appoint them.

but this is beside the point.

the point is that elected officials are beholden to the money that drives their campaigns on the one hand, and the (supposed) wisdom of the populace on the other. bear in mind, this is the same populace that consistently passes ballot initiatives that curtail the rights of other human beings (see gay marriage, immigration law, etc.).

while i'm not calling for a return to benevolent despotism, it does seem rather naïve to place such tremendous faith in the ability of people to choose in a system that is already corrupted beyond redemption, a system that – from its very inception – has inscribed racism, sexism, homophobia, and greed in its every structure, system, and institution. these tumors constitute our nation's marrow, and it is foolish to believe that a nice strong exfoliation can reach down inside the bones. the question then, asked by V.I. Lenin over a hundred years ago is:

Part 2: 'What Is To Be Done?'

the conscious act of non-voting can be a tool of political action, not merely an indicator of apathy or ignorance. when citizens vote, the individual elected is merely a side effect, a symbolic gesture that provides him or her with the false sense of having "made a difference." if the 2000 presidential election taught us anything (and i don't think it did), it was that every vote doesn't count. the real meaning lie elsewhere.

by voting at all, citizens implicitly say:

yes, this system works.
(Chicago 1968)

this is a valid model for governance.
(Los Angeles 1992)

this nation protects the equality of all citizens.
(Seattle 1999)

i take issue with these assumptions, but history has also taught us that the violence shown in the images above (in spite of their revolutionary romance) is equally ineffective: the riots in Chicago contributed to the backlash that ushered Nixon into office; the burning of Los Angeles only destroyed the communities of the rioters; and globalization has only accelerated since the WTO protests in Seattle.

the problem is that a complete upheaval of the existing regime (representative democracy, the two-party system, our beloved Constitution) is necessary, but it cannot be achieved through working within the system – but how is one to balance the need for political change with the moral imperative of non-violence?

ironically Ayn Rand, acolyte and evangelist of Capital, put forth one potential model in her novel Atlas Shrugged. while not her best work (John Galt is certainly no Howard Roark), it nonetheless presents an effective strategy for bringing down the system: principled withdrawal.

for her, this meant the titans of industry removing themselves from the economic engine of the nation; but in this context, it means ordinary citizens, 'good' citizens who vote every two years, citizens who want to see a more just and verdant nation – these are precisely the people who should exercise their right not to vote.

if enough people withdraw from the process, the true motives and desires that drive this society will be laid to bear: greed, exploitation, and the unequal distribution of rights. these things remain hidden only because people choose not to see them, and civic pride is a subtly destructive vice because it cloaks the fact that our participation in the political system is the very means by which our subjugation is ensured.

what would happen if we withdrew our consent? what would happen if people acted in accordance with their oft-repeated maxim:

"you can't trust a politician"

if this is true, then why do we vote? why perpetuate the dishonesty known as American democracy?

these are preliminary ramblings, and my own political consciousness is admittedly colored by a certain fatalism. it is not nihilism or anarchism or revolutionary socialism, however. i have already been through my own flirtation and disillusionment with the ideologies of Smith and Jefferson and Nietzsche and Bakunin and Marx and Lenin and who knows how many others.

no, my view on these things is coming from a place of sobriety, acceptance, and detachment. i know that this system will eventually devour itself; i know that another system will rise to take its place. my hope is merely that people might pause to consider the next time they close the curtain to the ballot booth: do i really believe in this?