The race to become ruler of the world on January 20, 2009 is now upon us, and as ever the problem facing the would-be Pharaohs is the anachronistic impediment of the U.S. Constitution requiring the appearance of a plebiscite approving the selection of Number One. The obstreperous voting masses, oblivious to anything beyond their immediate needs and wants: survival, the safety of their children, watching the game on TV, a good price on whatever, “time for myself”, and a good supply of booze (or substitute enjoyable neurosis), are as ever obdurate to the careerist ambitions of the pharaonic contenders. Such is the agony of mid-August campaigning for the presidency of the United States of America, fifteen months before the election.
It is commonly known that the next USAmerican Pharaoh will be selected by a committee of representatives of the property interests of the nation, and the candidates chosen for the road shows of the primaries and electoral events of 2008 will be a batch of individuals who are deemed most likely to carry the crowds along the channels laid out by the Big Money. It might be the Shrike “against” the Dour Doughface in the finals, or it might be some other pair pleasing to the owning elite.
The eighty to ninety percent of eligible voters (a decreasing proportion of the USAmerican population under the Rovian Regression of democracy), outside the management, will exhibit a variety of delinquent and passive-aggressive behaviors: failing to become enthused about the
mandated choices, manning public protests, becoming active in third party politics and even abandoning voting altogether. Many clueless of “effete intellectual snob” (thanks, Spiro) persuasion will agonize about “how to register” and “who to vote for” in order to maximize the effectiveness of their single vote.
Since most USAmericans are now marginalized by the political system, they tend to share the same type of fantasies. They wish they could somehow vote for a real change — whether that change is for a new Christian Kingdom or a Socialist Revolution — and they wish they could somehow vote to throw out all the careerist bums who confidently punch their tickets in the government gravy train from its Washington D.C. locomotive down through its fifty state luxury sleepers, the county administration box cars and down to its city council cabooses. But, voters can’t get what they really want if they vote obediently.
However, voters do have one option that is primarily symbolic and generally ineffective, unless they happen to share a very wide agreement: they can write in a candidate. So, friends, here is my suggestion. Instead of swallowing hard to accept another “morning after” Democrat, or hoping Ralph Nader can somehow miraculously combat the accumulated malevolence of a rigged electoral system fully under the control of the pharaonic parasites, act like a rebellious jury that ignores all instruction from the judge and just decides what it damn well thinks is just. Act out the equivalent of a “jury nullification” as “voter nullification”, and write in Cindy Sheehan as president.
“But, I’ll be throwing my vote away!” you may cry. If you want an immediate end to the Iraq War, taxation of corporations and a equitable use of national resources for the benefit of the national population, your vote doesn’t count anyway. If you live in the wrong neighborhood or have too rich a complexion, your right to vote will be questioned more strenuously — even rejected — under the new Rovian eligibility criteria. If you vote for the pretty face that looks like yours from among the approved contenders, you will get a black, or female (or whatever) mask over the the same kind of guardian (and errand boy/girl) of white power capitalism we always get, whether with a horizontal Texas drawl or a vertical Massachusetts nasal pinch. Obedience is not in your interest.
“But Cindy Sheehan has no experience running a government!” you might fret. Honestly, are you happy with the results garnered by our “government experienced” would-be Pharaohs? Is there anybody who believes that Cindy Sheehan is less trustworthy, less honest, less truthful and less concerned about the USAmerican people than anyone in the dugout of Big Money approved presidential pitchmen? Number One barks out the orders and hires and fires as needed to get them done. Do you really believe Cindy Sheehan is less capable of doing this than the careerist androids of the Big Money Brat Pack. [Insert John Belushi saying “Please”].
The flaw in this suggestion is the same flaw as in John Lennon’s song “Imagine.” Yes, it is true that if most people had the same vision they could overcome war, hunger, nationalism, religion, and all the scourges of humankind. But, humanity has proved unable to share such a compassionate vision, even though humans everywhere say they want “peace” and justice” and other forms of universal good. Note, however, that the flaw is based on probability, not possibility. It is not probable that most people would share a common humanistic vision, but there is no logical impediment to such an outcome, and in fact if most people did choose to share such a vision — through their actions — then the desired humanistic compassionate state (and world) would necessarily have to emerge. It is the same with the elections in the U.S.A., if enough people choose to vote for a given candidate, in this case by write-in balloting, then regardless of the shenanigans by partisan election officials, and the hacking of electronic voting machines, the “will of the people” will become clearly evident. The success of any such act of mass disobedience would be the beginning of the end of the current syndicates running USAmerican politics as a continuing criminal enterprise for the enrichment of corporate sponsors.
For such an act of national liberation by mass disobedience to ever occur, it would be necessary for many voters to see beyond their assumed self-interests as co-conspirators with the political machines they pledge allegiance to. They have to see “their” interests and the nation’s interest as being above and different from “the party’s” interest. In the 18th century, this was called patriotism. Being patriotic might cost you money, it might contradict your prejudices, and it might challenge your patience. But it will bring you into a closer brotherhood and sisterhood with a great number of other people who also think of themselves as “Americans.” When you vote for Cindy Sheehan as president, you are declaring “I do not wish to make war on other Americans by seeing them as a threatening ‘other’ race, religion, class or type; I do not wish to enslave, depreciate and discard my fellow countrymen and countrywomen because it is advantageous to my pocket to do so; I do not wish to invest my county’s blood and treasure in piratical ventures around the world, whether alone or in league with foreign bandits whose thievery and bloodletting are enabled by our resources.”
So — imagine — we all go to the polls in 2008, ask for paper ballots and write in “Cindy Sheehan” for president. Imagine, the vote is overwhelming. Imagine the panic of the pharaonic class. Imagine all the court decisions trying to stem the tide, all the resistance to democracy, even perhaps the calling out of the National Guard (and imagine what side they would prefer). Go ahead, imagine another country, possible if we have the courage to hold a common vision. Why Cindy Sheehan? Her patriotism is compassionate, based on the power of motherhood and the eternity of grief for a lost child. Who doesn’t prefer this over cynical self-aggrandizement leaving a failed adventurist war hung around a gutted nation’s neck like Samuel Taylor Coleridge’s albatross, by a gang of con-men marketing facile prejudices to an inattentive public — “the sting”.
What does Cindy Sheehan think of this nomination? I have no idea; I didn’t ask her, I have never met her nor communicated with her in any way. I have read about her, and more importantly I have read her essays, speeches and interviews. In the past I have voted for more than one mass-murdering Pharaoh on the basis of much less information, so what more do I need to know about Cindy? “What if she refuses the mandate?” you may wonder, fearful of being caught in a rebellion gone awry. Do not worry, if we can muster the mandate, then Cindy or an equally worthy citizen of our choosing [sic] can be positioned to implement the authentic will of the people. “When in the course of human events…”