the most important election of your lifetime: 2012 american general election thread

in fairness I haven't heard a whole lot of Obama apologizing of late. I think everybody's pretty bummed, but some people choose to keep their focus on some positive things, which do exist. I think that's a fair enough strategy individually. But I don't think "here are the positives, and they're very real!" (as in health care: a real thing, a real benefit of Obama's admin that people have attained because he was willing to stake his presidency on it) is an answer to questions of profound moral weight. health care is also a question of profound moral weight, and there's a discussion to be had there, but torture, detention without charge, state-sanctioned murder of its own citizens: enumerated goods do not counterbalance these in any way. they are a case apart.

I'm not sure the 'citizen' element of the assassination is a moral one.

I'm not sure anyone here would argue that Obama's great. I think people get frustrated at the notion of "it doesn't matter they're as bad as each other". Maybe I'm just utilitarian though.

you're going to get one candidate or the other, therefore choose the one who is likely to accomplish more good. this, too, is a moral argument, and a very fine one, but it doesn't answer, morally, the question of lending support to lawlessness and murder. That is not really a question for which the "you must vote for the candidate who you believe will do more good" people really have an answer

well 'the answer' is that not voting or voting for a third party is not any more or less of a morally neutral action than voting. you might not 'feel' like you are lending support to candidate a or candidate b, but as far as numbers go, not voting is the same thing as 'voting for the guy who would otherwise win' and you 'should realize' that that's the result of your isolated action

but really voting is mostly about the 'feeling' part, so whatever

iatee nobody said anything about a third party

well I included it cause the effects are the same math-wise not cause I have beef w/ third parties

really tho in a country w/ 300m people spending energy trying to convince anybody to vote any particular way in a national election is just as irrational as voting for a third party, probably more, so I dunno

I agree that Obama has some shortcomings, some of them he brought, and some because of his fear of the Fox-gargling psychotics of the right and how they may try to undermine him but he is getting us out of Afghanistan. I still support the aid to the Libyan rebels. You cannot know the outcome of a national rebellion but, c'mon, it didn't cost us that much to help them out and I do remember that w/o the help of France, Holland and Spain we wouldn't have won our independence.

didn't 'cost us that much' unless you believe -- like, yknow, candidate obama claimed to -- that presidents have no constitutional authority to attack other countries without congressional authorization.

i'll vote for obama for dreary lesser-of-two-evils reasons, but i won't delude myself about what kind of guy he is.

I'm not sure anyone here would argue that Obama's great. I think people get frustrated at the notion of "it doesn't matter they're as bad as each other". Maybe I'm just utilitarian though.

yeah, otm. it's hard to argue that someone with whom i merely disagree with on policy matters (romney) is as bad as someone who's ordered the murder of an american citizen without a trial. [/morbius]

like I genuinely don't care how you vote for pres aero, and if the election ends up being decided by north carolina, and by one vote in north carolina, I think the lols would be worth the loss this time around

btw I didn't even 'vote for obama' cause my ballot got screwed up.

the thing is the stay-home sympathizer in me feels like "yeah - whichever one wins is cool with me" is an ok position & is morally defensible in many cases. but actually iatee I'm with you, I think people who basically try to Sell The Candidate have the right idea - make one's inner decision but don't try to reason people into behavior, it's a nonstarter

I'm not sure the 'citizen' element of the assassination is a moral one.

it is, insofar as the citizen is guaranteed the same rights as any of us under the law. this is an immobile cornerstone of our law. your government will not just order your assassination, you have the right to be tried by a jury of your peers. unilaterally stripping a citizen of those rights is a profound outrage to democracy.

aero otm. it's far worse than anything romney has done (though of course he's lacked the power), arguably as bad as anything bush ever did.

i mean, i'm gonna vote for obama cuz [throws hand up in the air] what else am i gonna do? but i'm not happy about it. have never felt more despondent about my options in an election year.

you also have the option 'don't overthink it'

you also have the option 'don't overthink it'

yeah man can you just allow people to cling to their humanity while they vote for the candidate you're pumped about? actually caring about philosophical questions is not "overthinking," it's an important part of many people's lives

I care about philosophical questions too! I just don't think there's much moral responsibility in one individual's vote in a national election. there are lots of things you do everyday that do have moral responsibilities attached to them and are interesting to think about, but voting is mostly just a formality and thinking too much bout your responsibility w/ the checking of one box is sorta navel gazing. whereas the fact that you didn't volunteer at the homeless shelter today, that should actually be a weight on your shoulders. etc.

lol voting

I guess I separate policy/legal decisions from strictly moral ones.

I'd probably agree with you guys if this horrendous action was on Romney or the Republican's platform at all, but since it's not and they have no objections, I'm going to assume they would have done the same thing. Which leaves us with two candidates that will assassinate US citizens abroad without trial, but one of which will also gut programs for the poor, cut federal funding to Planned Parenthood, and will actively pursue an economic policy that will ensure even greater income inequality than there is already.

not to say that Obama's policies haven't made the income inequality gap worse, mind, but at least he pays lip service to the notion that it is not an inherently 'good' thing.

but also you know, this is America. we haven't really had a moral leg to stand on in a long time.

I just don't think there's much moral responsibility in one individual's vote in a national election. there are lots of things you do everyday that do have moral responsibilities attached to them and are interesting to think about, but voting is mostly just a formality and thinking too much bout your responsibility w/ the checking of one box is sorta navel gazing. whereas the fact that you didn't volunteer at the homeless shelter today, that should actually be a weight on your shoulders. etc.

ye gods, that's ridiculous. i do not feel guilt every day that i fail to spend in service to humanity. i'm simply not that altruistic. and the actual act of casting a vote is not the whole of what we mean when we talk about "voting". the act is tied to the complex networks of consideration that constitute our political and moral philosophies. to vote is to endorse, and the less we can find to actively endorse, the less enticing the prospect of voting becomes. this is natural and sensible. if we were equally enthusiastic about voting regardless of the choices, candidates would have little incentive to support our values.

their incentive would be...to ensure that they got the vote, and not the other dude

eh - I fall on both sides - I think the actual effectiveness of a vote doesn't really figure much in its moral weight, morality for me is in a loftier realm. (I know if DJP were awake he'd ring my fuckin bell for that one though + there's a compelling case to be made against leaning too hard on abstract morality.) at the same time, I've heavily increased my real-world helping-out efforts over the past five years, Paul's right, "faith w/o works" etc. But voting remains a "work."

contenderizer otm that broader rippling effects of voting have to do with the forming of consituencies within the body politic & plenty of other stuff, I don't think it's as isolated an act as iatee claims - it's participation. people get motivated by doing it, or discouraged, and that can lead to them e.g. volunteering at shelters.

xp

yeah, but democrats can basically count on the support of liberal voters simply because they're, generally speaking, more liberal than the alternative. unless they depend on generating real enthusiasm among liberal voters, they have no incentive to offer more than meager support of liberal values.

I'd probably agree with you guys if this horrendous action was on Romney or the Republican's platform at all, but since it's not and they have no objections, I'm going to assume they would have done the same thing.

i just don't know. i'm not going to assume that anyone's a monster until they actually do something monstrous. after all, i gave obama the benefit of the doubt until he proved me wrong. and it's worth noting that while bush may have set the precedent, he doesn't seem to have gone as far in this direction as obama. so...

contenderizer otm that broader rippling effects of voting have to do with the forming of consituencies within the body politic & plenty of other stuff, I don't think it's as isolated an act as iatee claims - it's participation. people get motivated by doing it, or discouraged, and that can lead to them e.g. volunteering at shelters

I think this is true but again it becomes a behavioral and personal thing and not an effect youre having on other people. like, voting is good because it's a civic virtue as an act, sure, that's why I do it even though my votes have never managed to change any election and never will. but voting for candidate a or candidate b doesn't really come into play, which is why I didn't say 'don't vote' I said 'don't overthink it'

My guess is that it was advisors/CIA/military folk telling him what to do and he got the legal team to work on it. I imagine they would have advised anyone else in office to do the same, and I think it more likely that Obama would say 'no' than Romney or most Republicans for that matter, being as they're traditionally (and vocally) more hawkish than the Dems.

Again, it being not mentioned at all by a party that is dead set on telling everyone who will listen that Obama is stripping them of their rights makes me think they don't see it that way.

xpost

Of course, if Bush had done it there would be more than just The Daily Show expressing outrage.

ike, voting is good because it's a civic virtue as an act, sure, that's why I do it even though my votes have never managed to change any election and never will. but voting for candidate a or candidate b doesn't really come into play, which is why I didn't say 'don't vote' I said 'don't overthink it']

there's a weird disconnect there, imo. every individual vote, when considered in isolation, makes no difference in a national election, sure. otoh, votes in aggregate make a huge difference, and votes in aggregate can't exist absent individual votes. this should be enough to dispel the notion that the individual vote is "mostly just a formality". it's like carrying a coffin. i can't carry a coffin on my own. if i weren't there, the other five guys could probably manage it without me. but that doesn't mean that my participation is insignificant. i'm as important as anyone involved. shared responsibility is not necessarily diminished.

I've never voted in a Presidential Election. Now that I'm in Virginia, it feels maybe more important, but actually I'm not entirely sure if it matters. I'm voting for the experience.

carrying a coffin is a good analogy for america

my vote for mondale changed the course of history

My guess is that it was advisors/CIA/military folk telling him what to do and he got the legal team to work on it. I imagine they would have advised anyone else in office to do the same, and I think it more likely that Obama would say 'no' than Romney or most Republicans for that matter, being as they're traditionally (and vocally) more hawkish than the Dems.

I am assuming that Obama picked up the paper one day, saw one of those "20% of electorate think Obama is a Muslim" polls, and thought "Well, it look like I'm going to have to kill some brown people to get re-elected".

(Or maybe he has a real taste for it - we don't really know)

really?

Also hey guys there's this thing called Google :)

Romney forcefully defends killing of al-Awlaki

Romney, Perry congratulate Obama; Perry gives backhanded praise

Mitt Romney: Death of AL-AWLAKI a Major Victory

yeah, i know. i'm drawing a moral distinction between ordering a murder and congratulating the murderer, splitting hairs perhaps. also saying that i'm agnostic about what people might have done if they'd had the power when they didn't. not endorsing romney or perry, btw.

the al-Awlaki assassination was the no-man's-land action for me. Believe it or not, I would've considered voting for him (as I said in November '08). You've all got your beyond-this-I-won't-go moments; this one was mine, as bad as Candidate Obama siding with Republicans on warrantless wiretapping. I'm quite aware that Justices Ginsberg and maybe Breyer will retire or die in the next couple years and would prefer Obama nominating their successors but I can't even trust the decision making of a man so unconcerned about the morality of killing an American citizen without bringing him before a court.

xp not literally no, but seems like he both has a massive handicap as regards foreign policy (or the one vector of foreign policy that will get any play), and a blank cheque from the Democratic Party because they are the Democratic Party. He seems, to me, to cut more of a Tommy Carcetti figure than an actual villain like Nixon - willing to make bad deals to get further (in this case to set Obamacare in - I would like if he went mad socialist in the next term, but I consider it about as likely as Eisbaer's slash theory above).

Also as a non-USier the details of "these people that we're killing with no stated rationale or oversight have a different passport to these people we've been killing with no stated rationale or oversight" still elude me, particularly as Gubke says compared to the other elements of that sentence.

One thing I'm surprised to hear about is torture - I'd thought that apart, from refusing to prosecute Bush-era torture, Obama's hands were clean on that?

I'm sure W would've gotten around to repealing DADT eventually.

If he needed the cannon fodder, maybe.

not to say that Obama's policies haven't made the income inequality gap worse, mind, but at least he pays lip service to the notion that it is not an inherently 'good' thing.

Obama 2012: For the Lip Service

He and Holder have continued the late Bush administration policy of banning it; now we target suspects with drone missiles.

"these people that we're killing with no stated rationale or oversight have a different passport to these people we've been killing with no stated rationale or oversight" still elude me

al-Awlaki is an American citizen and thus has constitutional rights. We must take the government's word that he was A Dangerous Fellow.

Right, but the last sentence is also true of lots of other people.

This made me laugh:

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/04/river-phoenix-reacts-to-the-romney-nomination.html?tw_p=twt

Many governments kill their own citizens with no judicial process whatsoever. Some guys just get together in a room and decide who to kill. It sucks balls to be a citizen of such a country.

My own government is now able to kill my fellow citizens without a judicial process. It cites various reasons for doing this, but none of those reasons rise above the simple need to maintain an unbreachable wall of safeguards between me and the guys who got together in that room.

al-Awlaki is an American citizen and thus has constitutional rights. We must take the government's word that he was A Dangerous Fellow.

right which is why this is a legal issue not a moral one

http://www.seattleweekly.com/2012-04-18/news/mitt-romney-american-parasite/

right which is why this is a legal issue not a moral one

I don't know if you're being a pedant.

Because we can't verify whether al-Awlaki committed the crimes for which the Obama administration had him killed, his death IS a moral blight if you believe in due process and the presumption of innocence. How can you separate law and morality from this act?

http://www.seattleweekly.com/2012-04-18/news/mitt-romney-american-parasite/

― stay in school if you want to kiw (Gukbe), Thursday, April 19, 2012 1:51 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Man, this is a pretty great read. This stuff really should be mobilized in the campaign - Romney comes off as like, Roger Smith.

man we have this voting conversation a lot

if you believe that due process and the presumption of innocence is a moral right then you should believe its a moral right to everyone in the world

if the american gov't is assassinating people I really don't care more if it's happening in nyc to american citizens or cairo to non-american citizens

iatee sometimes you say smart shit and then there's times like this

the law stems from principles, this isn't hard to get, I'm glad you love the brotherhood of man so much that you're incapable of understanding how a government parceling out the rights its own founding documents guarantees to its citizens isn't a big deal but you're on the wrong side here so just moveon.org imo