Godheval

On the matter of black people – African-Americans, specifically – voting overwhelmingly for candidates from the U.S. Democratic Party, consider the following:

On April 12th, 1964, Malcolm X made a speech before a large gathering on the merits of black nationalism. Below is a one-minute snippet from that speech, discussing the logic of African-Americans supporting the Democratic Party in such huge numbers.

Transcript:

In Washington, D.C., in the House of Representatives, there are 257 who are Democrats. Only 177 are Republican. In the Senate there are 67 Democrats; only 33 are Republicans. The party that you backed controls two-thirds of the House of Representatives and the Senate, and still they can’t keep their promise to you.

‘Cause you’re a chump.

Anytime you throw your weight behind a political party that controls two-thirds of the government and that party can’t keep the promise that it made to you during election time, and you’re dumb enough to walk around continuing to identify yourself with that party, you’re not only a chump, but you’re a traitor to your race.

—Malcolm X

Now, allow me to paraphrase Malcolm, to reflect the current state of affairs:

Right now (since January 2009), in the House, there are 256 who are Democrats.  Only 179 are Republican.  In the Senate there are 59 Democrats; only 41 are Republicans.  The party that you backed controls two-thirds of the House of Representatives and nearly 60% of the Senate, and put a black man in the White House, and still they didn’t keep their promise to you.

‘Cause you’re a chump.

Anytime you throw your weight behind a political party that controls two-thirds of the government and that party can’t keep the promise that it made to you during election time, and you’re dumb enough to walk around continuing to identify yourself with that party…

Well…I’ll let you come to your own conclusions.

But as you think about it, also consider this: Between 1964 and 2010, how much “Change” has there really been?

(Note: This is in no way meant as an endorsement for the Republican Party. Malcolm was no more forgiving of them. And certainly I’m not. The difference is that Republicans do not even pretend to represent African-Americans, and since at least the advent of the “Southern Strategy” – redoubled through the Tea Party – they have become openly hostile towards African-American interests.)

Last month, Malcolm Gladwell (The Tipping Point) wrote an article for the New Yorker, discussing the role of social media in social activism, concluding that the social media “revolution”, as it were, is actually counterproductive with regards to actual revolution, or at least any lasting change.

I agree with Gladwell, based on my own personal experience with “activism”, or at least political dissent online. There are countless Facebook groups, blogs, and tweeters that I have followed who are in line with my personal politics, and yet none of them encourage me to really DO anything. At best I’ll sign a petition or write a Congressman.

Those passive forms of activism allow me to feel like I’m doing ~something~ without really committing, and not just because I’m lazy or disinterested, but because no physical initiatives ever seem to emerge from these groups. This is especially true of the Left – and by that I mean the real Left, not self-proclaimed “liberals”, who, incidentally, seem far more active.

It’s pretty clear that without any sort of formal leadership or organizational structure, that there will never be any sort of revolution, because that which keeps the status quo in place is a highly organized and well-oiled machine decades in the making.  A rowdy band of misfits, as well-intentioned or self-righteous and indignant as they can be from the comfort of their living rooms or offices, really aren’t doing much of anything to change anything.

Mind you, I count myself amongst those who are doing nothing, and I wish that wasn’t the case.

This is not to say that there are not people who are truly active, but that they go largely unnoticed by the general public, seen as a nuisance, or perhaps as asking for too much.  People said the same thing about the Civil Rights Movement, too.  And in the generations since, we’ve been increasingly conditioned to accept the status quo.

There has been a sense of powerlessness, mitigated to some extent by surges of political activity every two years, and even that is largely ineffective due to the tyranny of the two-party system.  Social media, though, is the new placebo, satisfying the desire to do at least something about all the things we know to be wrong in the world, without committing bodily or any real expectations of making a difference.

The reasons below are my own, and I’m sure are shared by others making the same choice today. There is an argument implicit here for why I don’t think you (whoever) should vote either, but it is not at all intended as a criticism of those who do choose to vote.

I must also point out, if it is not abundantly clear to anyone reading this, or who has ever read anything I’ve written, that no part of my decision is about apathy. Quite the contrary, in fact.  And so, if apathy is anyone’s reason for not voting, I would encourage them either to vote, or to truly understand the many legitimate reasons not to do so.

In random order:

1. I don’t support any of the candidates running in my state – that is to say, I oppose all of them
2. I question the wisdom of voting for the lesser of two evils
3. The outcome of the Citizens United vs. FEC Supreme Court case ensured that the next election would be more about money than the last, and indeed, 2010 is breaking all sorts of spending records
4. Republicans, or at least the social conservatives amongst them, openly act against my interests and everything I stand for.
5. Democrats pretend to act for my interests and in favor of the things I stand for, or otherwise remain completely quiet on those issues, and only to shift their position or compromise once in office.
6. In some perverse way I want to sabotage Democrats – who by default are the ones I’d be voting for as the only viable candidates who are even remotely amenable to my interests – just to show people on the left how utterly ineffectual they are and make a case for putting our energy behind actual leftist candidates
7. Along the same lines, I want to see people get what they ask for, and laugh when it blows up in their faces.
8. I refuse to reward any who continue to place the interests of corporations above those of the people – and that would be both Democrats (see ridiculous Healthcare bill, silence on marijuana legalization) and Republicans (see: deregulation, tax breaks, mass privatization).
9. Because I follow the money and don’t like where it leads.
10. Real changes – for the better or for the worst – seem to only ever occur during or in the aftermath of a catastrophe (See: Roosevelt after the Great Depression or George W. Bush after 9/11/2001)
11. Because compromises just aren’t enough for me anymore, which in effect aren’t small victories, but a maintenance of the status quo.
12. Neither party dares to challenge the moral hypocrisy of the Israeli government
13. Not much will change regardless of which of the two parties controls Congress; if a Democratic president and a filibuster-proof majority didn’t change anything, then neither will a Republican majority, which is not at all likely to happen, anyway.
14. My “right to vote”, as determined by my status as a citizen, is undermined by corporate personhood.
15. Not one candidate has the balls to address the issues with any real critical depth, that is, beyond the talking points
16. I am exasperated by the cheeky self-satisfied and utterly disingenuous self-righteousness of liberals (here I mean voters, not candidates)
17. I am exasperated by the raging self-sabotaging ignorance of conservatives (again, I mean voters)
18. Voting continues to be an excuse for people to believe they’ve “done their part” to affect change, even after it’s been shown that nothing has actually changed
19. Not one candidate speaks out against American Imperialism
20. Many of these points presume that my one vote actually makes a difference.  Statistically, it doesn’t.

The following video discusses how game design and game playing can contribute to making a better world.  It sounds like a lofty idea, but it is well-argued, as I hope you will see.

Jane McGonigal is not simply comparing games to real life, but is talking about tapping into those abstract qualities that gamers bring to bear against game challenges – applying that determination, hard work, and idealism to real world endeavors.

It can, has been, and will continue to be argued that games are simply games, that they are designed to be won, and that the real world has no such safeguards against failure.  But the game McGonigal most talks about – World of Warcraft – ultimately has no point.  It has no happy ending. It is game that never ends, which works well for the developers, who continue to make millions upon millions of dollars every year.

You can overcome the most epic of epic challenges, but soon thereafter the game resets to the way it was before that challenge was met, to enable others to do the same.  There are people who continue to play Warcraft even though they have achieved the maximum level, have defeated the ultimate boss, and have done almost everything there is to do in the game.

But they will go through it all again, with the same determination and idealism, to help another player have that experience.  In the real world that could translate into people helping those less fortunate – i.e. at a “lower level” – after they have solved their own challenges.  It is not about pity or guilt, but about mutual understanding of a problem, and collaboration to solve it.  It is this kind of idealistic, high-minded, cooperative determination that McGonigal is suggesting we need to employ to take on world challenges.