Predator Drone

This is a Predator aircraft, also known as an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), also known as a drone. The U.S. uses them every day in Afghanistan and Pakistan to seek out and destroy terrorists. Their use is relatively new, but we’ve heard enough about them at this point that they’ve become ingrained in the American cultural psyche. There’s a drone aircraft hanging on display at the Smithsonian’s Air and Space Museum. Kids with ice cream cones have their pictures taken in front of it.

President Obama has had great success killing Al Qaeda operatives with drone attacks. Of course, that depends on what you think “success” means. Dead terrorists are one thing, and I’d argue there are serious ethical questions about killing them. One could go round in circles about the moral gray zone concerning killing poor, mostly powerless individuals who’ve chosen to take up arms against what they see as a suffocating, immense military power like the United States. I’ll leave it be. The greater concern is the killing of innocents. Whether it’s 1 person or 1,000 doesn’t matter. Obama’s administration fudges the numbers anyway. Some consider the violent death of innocents collateral damage, a sad but necessary consequence of any righteous war (see Britain’s burning of NYC, Sherman’s march to the sea, Dresden, Hiroshima, Baghdad, etc.). But most on my side of the political spectrum – otherwise known as the Left – consider collateral damage a common ugliness perpetrated by a domineering, violent Western power, particularly the United States.

Obama election night 2008

President-Elect Barack Obama, Grant Park, Election Night 2008

Fine. Well and good. So it is. But President Obama confuses things. In 2008 I voted Democratic for the first time because of him. I joined half a million people at Grant Park in Chicago to celebrate his victory in November. I got into heated arguments about how fantastic the guy was, how much he seemed to agree with me, how we shared belief systems, wanted to live in the same world, felt the same way about government. Yes, he made me idealistic, he made me believe in the whole Change thing. It was okay, as a self-respecting Left Wing rebel hippie Commie pinko wackadoo revolutionary, to love and support a mainstream candidate for the presidency.

That was then. I voted for Obama because I had faith in him. He and my ideals lined up, and I’ve always voted my ideals. Isn’t that what the vote’s supposed to be about? Well, there are two ways to see it. Either you vote your ideals, or you vote pragmatism. The old heart vs brain confrontation. This year, my heart tells me I can’t vote for President Obama in November. My brain tells me I must. That’s not to say I’ll vote for Mitt Romney. The guy creeps me out. I might consider not voting at all. Despite the judgment that might befall me, I consider an educated non-vote as much a responsible piece of self-expression as a vote. There’s another option, though, and you’ll have to bear with me: The Green Party.

Ever since 2000, when I became old enough to engage in a presidential election (I turned 18 the week after the election – Damn!), the Green Party has represented my most cherished beliefs regarding politics, the environment, minority rights, women’s rights, war, and society at large. Unfortunately, the 2000 election and Al Gore’s pathetic showing against George W. caused a severe backlash against the Green Party that has lingered ever since. Even stalwart Ralph Nader supporters like Michael Moore and Bill Maher have made it clear they’re no longer interested in anything but the Democratic Party when it comes to mainstream elections. The fact remains, however, that the Green Party remains the only party that seems to truly line up with my belief system.

Jill Stein, presumptive 2012 Green Party candidate for president

While President Obama’s tenure hasn’t been what I would’ve liked, I might be able to overlook his dithering and spinelessness on issues like political partisanship, health care, and the economy. I can’t, however, overlook his continued execution of drone attacks that maim and murder innocent people. Each casualty¬† feels like another bloody knife in the dark waiting to strike back at us in some unforeseen, horrific way. Some might say that he’s no different from – and far better than – almost any president who came before him. But if this is the case, I shouldn’t have voted for him in the first place? Not only this, but when do we draw the line? When do pacifists sickened by war and death say No?

Being president is certainly tough work, and perhaps one can’t afford to be an idealist in the Oval Office. But I’m not president, and all I have is my vote. Shouldn’t I wield it in the way that feels most true to the future I want to see, even if it means voting against the last best hope of the Democratic party and the Left Wing of the political spectrum? Even if it means voting against the first black president of the United States?

Even if it means a Republican president?

I just don’t know. The most unfortunate thing is that, whatever I do, I expect to leave the voting booth with a heavy burden on my conscience. That’s a far cry from 2008.

Sam Ramos is from Austin, Texas. His fiction has appeared in Hobart, Spork, Pindeldyboz, Jettison Quarterly, and Empire Builder. He is currently seeking his MFA in Creative Writing and studies art history at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago.

Share:


Related:

8 Responses to “Can I Vote for Obama Again?”

  1. Hey Sam, this is a thoughtful take. With polling numbers nearing closer, I find that though I’ve been disappointed with Obama in many ways, I can’t pull the lever for anyone else. There’s no way I would even consider voting Romney, and, per usual, a vote for the Green party seems like it would be a vote squandered given the lack of the party’s viability. Tough spot.

  2. Of course the turnaround on that is that if the people whose issues are in line with the Green Party (in other words, the Green Party’s base) don’t support the party with their votes, the party will never gain the viability it needs to be a major contender in national elections. One of the Green Party’s goals is matching funds for elections, and for this they need votes. They would have ad money, as well as time in debates. I struggle with the concept of being forced into supporting the Democratic Party with the repeated refrain that no other party has a chance.

    I should add that the presidential election is one of many. There are a lot of local and state elections with Green Party candidates on the ballot. It might be prudent to vote for a Democratic president and for a Green congressman/woman. That said, as my post describes, I have specific, serious issues with Obama himself, and with the presidency in general.

    • eliseo ramos says:

      when i think of obama and romney, i immediately recall the characters in the tv show Everybody Loves Raymond. obama, played by the character Marie, wants to make your circumstances(no matter how serious they may be) better by cooking you a heavy fattening dish. everything looks and smells good; on the other hand, romney, played by the character Frank Barone, wants to fix stuff around the house that needs fixing badly but eventually gets worst or stays the same. He doesn’t care, it’s not his house. i would vote for obama only because he wants the dream act to become a reality and because of the health reform just passed. in short, presidents in the past have dealt with world-wide issues that might have affected us, and some did. i think no matter who is in the oval office elected: republican,democrate, lib or green, he\she will eventually have to make that choice.

    • My hope is that a party whose platform matches my own beliefs most closely will make the decisions in office that I would want made. Isn’t that the whole point of campaigning? Candidates want us to believe they share our beliefs. If I’m vehemently anti-war, the Green Party makes the most sense, so that if there ever were a Green Party president, and they were faced with the decision of whether to wage war or not, they would make that decision with humanism, pacifism, and rationality. War shouldn’t have to be necessary.

      That said, I don’t expect a Green Party president any time soon. But they deserve to be a part of the conversation. I don’t want Obama to get my vote by default. Not because he’s a liberal, not because he’s a Democrat, and not because I voted for him in 2008.

  3. Dylan Brock says:

    In a choice between a man who has irrational, malicious policies across the board and a man who has rational, malicious policies at times, I vote for the part-time monster.

    • This is reasonable. I would also prefer to vote for the least monster-like candidate. I don’t really think any of them are monsters, just people in jobs that force their hands. I would like to believe, though, that we’ve evolved to a point – or are at least trying to evolve – where war and death will no longer be considered an acceptable, or even possible, option. This is idealistic, sure, but I’d like to believe the vote is a viable expression of idealism. As I’ve said, pragmatism is valid. Then you have to ask what’s more pragmatic. Sometimes idealism is reasonable too.

  4. I agree…to much unlawful killing…to much spying on citizens. I will/cannot vote for this man a second time………..fool me once.

    I can’t vote for Romney and what he appears to stand for…so Green Party it is.

    • If enough people vote for what they really want rather than what they think they’re allowed to have, perhaps some evolution can take place. I’d at least like to think so.

Leave a Reply

Please leave these two fields as-is: