To vote or to waste vote?

In a 2004 episode of Comedy Central's animated series South Park, an election was held to determine whether the new mascot for the town's elementary school would be a "giant douche" or a "turd sandwich."  Confronted with these two equally unpalatable choices, one child, Stan Marsh, refused to vote at all, which resulted in his ostracization and subsequent banishment from the town.

Although this satirical vulgarity was intended as a commentary on the two candidates running for president of the United States during that time-John Kerry and George W. Bush-as I looked back at the myriad of political candidates throughout American history, it became clear that, regardless of the political office being sought, American voters have indeed often been required to choose between a "douche" and a "turd." 

So I began to ask myself why only the most despicable and unsavory people seem to obtain political office, particularly in a nation where the blessings of freedom of speech and press should produce an educated and informed electorate.

One obvious explanation is the inanity and inefficiency of the two-party system.  This system, by its very nature, creates a constant cycle where one party holds power, and the other party desires it.  The result is perpetual political gridlock as the party seeking power incessantly labors to make the party holding power appear weak and ineffective.

Another explanation is the antithetical reality that people who desire to wield power over their fellow human beings are usually the ones least deserving of it.  And even though many try to convince themselves they are concerned about "justice" or "public service," the corrupting influence of politics soon dispels such illusions.  

In fact, any student of history will be hard pressed to find any American president who, at some point during his term in office, did not make at least one decision that resulted in the deaths of others.  And many actually relished making such decisions. 

In one famous (or perhaps infamous) case, Robert Oppenheimer, the "father" of the atomic bomb, lamented the fact that he had "blood on his hands" after president Harry Truman ordered Oppenheimer's creations to be dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  Upon hearing Oppenheimer's statement, Truman allegedly remarked, "Blood on his hands, damn it, he hasn't half as much blood on his hands as I have" (The New Atlantis, Fall 2006).

For exhibiting these pangs of conscience, Oppenheimer was politically attacked and his security clearance was revoked.  Truman, by contrast, enjoyed, and still enjoys, the reputation of being a decisive, "no-holds barred" politician.

More recently, America, and the world, experienced the sadistic gleam in the eyes of "wartime president," and Vietnam-era draft-dodger, George W. Bush as, from the safety of the White House, he challenged Iraqi insurgents to "bring it on," even as thousands of Americans, and tens-of-thousands of Iraqis, were meeting their deaths in a war waged upon nothing but lies.  Yet it was not Bush, but those who questioned his motives or exposed his lies who were castigated.

Democracy in America is rarely a case of voting for a candidate and frequently a case of voting against a candidate.  The problem is, in a two-party system, the impetus to vote against one candidate invariably means supporting the other, and oftentimes voters have done little research into the candidate who subsequently receives their vote.  

An example of this comes from the State of Indiana, where long-time Republican Senator Richard Lugar lost the primary election to Richard Mourdock, a right-wing imbecile backed by the billionaire-supported "tea party."  Although Mourdock has since attempted to disavow his "tea party" roots, he recently caused significant controversy when, during a political debate, he stated that if rape resulted in the pregnancy of the victim, it was something that "God intended."

In the past, whenever I looked at democracy, I always subscribed to Che Guevara's philosophy that it was nothing but a charade created to dupe people into believing that change can come without revolution.  As the 2012 election campaigns progressed, I even came to believe that it might actually be a positive thing if the "tea party" candidates gained control of America's government.  Since their policies would hasten the demise of the middle-class, enhance corporate greed, increase the "outsourcing" of jobs, and further lead America's legal system down its sordid pathway of ignoring or excusing government and corporate criminality and corruption, more and more Americans would experience or witness injustices, lose more freedoms, and see their loved ones die in unnecessary wars or from lack of affordable health care.  Ultimately, they will realize they have nothing left to lose.  And, historically, revolutions have been fueled by people with nothing left to lose.