Comments for Vote... and be damned. at http://www.rivierareporter.com , comment 1 to 10 out of 10 comments http://www.rivierareporter.com Sat, 22 Nov 2008 08:38:34 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.2 http://www.rivierareporter.com/component/option,com_myblog/show,Mike-P---Zimbabwe.html/Itemid,157/#comment-416 "In spades". What an unfortunate choice of words! - Treats Wed, 05 Nov 2008 15:15:08 +0100 http://www.rivierareporter.com/component/option,com_myblog/show,Mike-P---Zimbabwe.html/Itemid,157/#comment-413 Don't agree. Many countries preselect their candidates. Voting for raving loonies notwithstanding, there's never been anything other than a real choice between Tories, Labour and sometimes LibDems in Britain at any time in recent history. The other "choices" are merely tokenism and they can even make for that most harmful of political phenomena - hung parliaments. Every electoral choice anywhere is almost always a pick between "less worst" candidates. That being said, I personally am a fan of Obama and his attitude. What he does concerning internal affairs is only the business of Americans, but what he promises to do in international matters concerns us all. We'll see what he delivers. However I tend to agree with you about race. I have close family that votes in America and it certainly wasn't an issue one way or the other for them. They voted Obama without even thinking about his skin colour. It's so irrelevant that most of us only see a man, not a black man. Most Americans have put racism behind them and yesterday they proved it. We're not there yet in France or Britain. Not even nearly. There's more to the planet than America and I don't think Obama will be only an American leader. I've never seen anyone with enough charisma to be a real inspiration beyond America's shores. Obama has that potential in spades. You just watch, every free country in the world will want to work with this man and support him. He's a healer who will bring us all together rather than dividing us the way Bush and his cronies did and the way I believe McCain would have too. At 5 this morning I heard car horns going off in my neighbourhood the way they do when France wins an important football match. They don't even do that here for French elections! Nothing even close to this has happened since JFK. If I was a religious person I'd pray that one nutcase with a gun doesn't cut short the new hope. I remember that day in Dallas when we all crouched in front of the TV and watched in horror. I was still in high school. The only day to compare with that horror was 9/11. Elegance, class, charisma, intelligence, fairness, social conscience. Everything that's been absent from the White House for 8 years. This is History with a capital H and this could be very good for all of us. Typically cynical by nature, I can't be a cynic this time. As far as I'm concerned he's got 4 years to prove me wrong. Until then I'm on the side of Obama and of the once again United States of America. - Mike Meade Wed, 05 Nov 2008 13:50:09 +0100 http://www.rivierareporter.com/component/option,com_myblog/show,Mike-P---Zimbabwe.html/Itemid,157/#comment-412 So now the US has its first black President. I don't see his colour as relevant, what worries me is the fact that out of 200 and however many million US citizens there are, McCain and Obama were the least bad of the choices available, and the electorate voted for the lesser of two evils. What worries me even more is that if a voter didn't care for the polices of the the Republicans or the Democrats, there was no choice. At least in some countries like the UK you can vote for the Monster Raving Loony Party or the Lesser Spotted Wood Warbler Spotters Party. Even if it that's only a protest vote, it must have some value. Good luck to Obama, he'll need it! - MikeP Wed, 05 Nov 2008 09:31:56 +0100 http://www.rivierareporter.com/component/option,com_myblog/show,Mike-P---Zimbabwe.html/Itemid,157/#comment-311 "I see very little difference other than that in the dictatorships people who dissented had mysterious brake failures, fell out of fifth floor windows, or .... In the Western democracies it's all a little more subtle." C'mon, you mean a LOT more subtle. What you're saying is that we should relinquish voting rights because we never really get what we want when we do vote. Firstly, we don't all want the same thing. Some are content with the system they get. But absolutely no one (outside his few cronies) can be content with a Mugabe-like electionless system. Secondly, I think democracy has to be looked at as the lesser of several evils. Voting is a way to cut some of the losses we'd have under dictatorship. Thirdly, the democratic system's far from perfect, but even if the politicians kept their promises, there would still be many dissatisfied voters because they voted the other way. Isn't there a song "You don't always get what you want"? Life's like that. It'll never be perfect but it's less imperfect under democracy than under dictatorship. - Mike Meade Mon, 21 Jul 2008 11:11:50 +0100 http://www.rivierareporter.com/component/option,com_myblog/show,Mike-P---Zimbabwe.html/Itemid,157/#comment-307 Zimbabwe is not a good example. Fair enough, I used the most extreme current example to illustrate my point, as it's one close to my heart. I may have overstepped the mark in doing so, but my objective was to elicit some comment. The fact remains though that both the word and the concept of democracy are grossly overused, and whilst Zimbabwe's so-called democracy clearly isn't one, there are others not far behind, so it's only a matter of the scale of the said abuse. MikeM has said we should vote if only to preserve the right to do so, but my view, and clearly we won't agree on this, is that the right has no value, so why maintain it. Theoretically politicians can be voted out of power but it seems that when this does happen all we get is more of the same, that's to say unfulfilled promises from the 'other' lot. Am I being overly cynical? Probably, yes, but having lived in dictatorships and democracies, I see very little difference other than that in the dictatorships people who dissented had mysterious brake failures, fell out of fifth floor windows, or slipped on the soap in the shower and that was the end of them. In the Western democracies it's all a little more subtle. Ghost Girl : I am familiar with the shows you mentioned, thanks for the kind offer, but like many classic British comedy series, they never really did much for me! - Mike P Mon, 21 Jul 2008 07:43:18 +0100 http://www.rivierareporter.com/component/option,com_myblog/show,Mike-P---Zimbabwe.html/Itemid,157/#comment-306 Whether we vote or not, we get the politicians we deserve. When a politician is open and honest about his intentions and capabilities he gets criticized at best and unelected at worst. Any politician who would be outright and honest about what he REALLY thought he could accomplish for his country wouldn't get many votes. The fact is that we all want to hear the hype rather than cold reality - so hype is what they promise and reality is all they can deliver. - HerrodK Sat, 19 Jul 2008 18:38:30 +0100 http://www.rivierareporter.com/component/option,com_myblog/show,Mike-P---Zimbabwe.html/Itemid,157/#comment-291 OK, the show too, then (the script, casting and acting was brilliant, wasn't it?). - Ghost Girl Thu, 17 Jul 2008 12:27:56 +0100 http://www.rivierareporter.com/component/option,com_myblog/show,Mike-P---Zimbabwe.html/Itemid,157/#comment-289 Why not the show? It might be dated but it's still hilarious! - Walgren Thu, 17 Jul 2008 12:22:58 +0100 http://www.rivierareporter.com/component/option,com_myblog/show,Mike-P---Zimbabwe.html/Itemid,157/#comment-287 "Has any candidate ever not promised to "eliminate crime" or "make working families better off"? They probably mean it but when they are in power they find that things inside aren't quite as easy as they seemed from the outside. Good intention is not always transmutable into effective action." Have either of you ever read the "Yes, Minister" and "Yes, Prime Minister" books, written by Jonathan Lynn, based on the popular BBC TV series of the same names? These were satirical, fictional accounts of a mostly well-meaning MP (who later became PM) trying to get to grips with running the country and finding himself thwarted at every turn. The author and collaborators were themselves former Civil Servants who had firsthand experience of their subject. The TV show and books of were not only very funny and cleverly-written, but apparently also very accurate in terms of governmental decision-making and the internal workings of the Civil Service. They illustrate Mike Meade's point (quoted above) perfectly. I would highly recommend them - the books, more than the show, which is probably a bit dated now. I think I've got the books knocking about somewhere. If either of you would like to borrow them, let me know and we'll work something out. - Ghost Girl Thu, 17 Jul 2008 12:18:56 +0100 http://www.rivierareporter.com/component/option,com_myblog/show,Mike-P---Zimbabwe.html/Itemid,157/#comment-278 I'm not with you on this one. Zimbabwe is not a good example. In its present state it is not a democracy and Mugabe is an unelected dictator as things stand. No one anywhere can be mistaken about that even though Thabo Mbeki is showing regrettable weakness in his reluctance to condemn outright his neighbour. Not to mention the Chinese and Russians. The "elections" in Zimbabwe were a farce as you say. Just because they were called elections doesn't mean that's what they were. This is reminiscent of countries that feel the need to call themselves "Democratic Republic of..." but are neither democratic nor republics. They are dictatorships and no one is seriously fooled by this deceptive use of vocabulary. You say : "Can anyone convince me that there is any point in voting in a so-called democracy?" I would say that you don't sound very open to being convinced, but also say that in "normal" democratic countries (unlike Zimbabwe) it is well worthwhile exercising the right to vote if only to see that right preserved. In most democracies, politicians know that they can be voted out of power and privilege if their policies in office do not please the majority of voters. Politicians can be removed. That is the power of the vote and it's a power worth conserving, respecting and even honouring. Electoral promises are as easy as ads for soap powder. You can promise to remove all the stains and you can even think you're capable of it but when you're in the washer trying to get the job done you can easily run across considerations you never expected. They get in the way of intention. Has any candidate ever not promised to "eliminate crime" or "make working families better off"? They probably mean it but when they are in power they find that things inside aren't quite as easy as they seemed from the outside. Good intention is not always transmutable into effective action. The first responsibility of a politician is to become elected. Without that, he is no one and can do nothing. There is, however, something to be said for the British system of a shadow cabinet where opposition parties can submit what they would do in real-life situations as they happen. Vague promises about vague issues won't do there; only real propositions are credible. No elected official will or can do everything he promises but the vote is the only tool true democracies have to express the approval or disapproval of the electorate. To renounce that tool is a cop-out. "I don't like the game so I'm taking my ball back" is not an attitude that can ever be effective. If suffragettes had given up that easily they wouldn't have gained the right to vote for women. If black Americans had taken that attitude they'd still be riding in the back of the bus instead of sitting on the Supreme Court or running for president. "Freedom of choice" might seem like an oxymoron to sceptics, but it is this relatively recent principle that has drawn most middle-class minions out of serfdom into meaningful modern lives. It was only a few generations ago that the phrase meant nothing. People like me (and perhaps you) lived by the whims of unelected lords, royals and autocrats. Without the vote we'd still be wiping their bottoms. Historically, "master of the royal stool" was a prized occupation because it gave privileged access to the king. I'll take the power of the vote over the power of the king's excrement any day. MikeM - Mike Meade Thu, 17 Jul 2008 07:36:14 +0100