while I still do it faithfully, and will continue doing so until something better happens, voting really is for suckers.

It really is a hell of a bind were in as citizens, which is why I don't have it in me, jaded as I am, to be all that frustrated with the people who enable or even actively support the system.

To steal a metaphor one of my bestest friends ever! used on a different thread: it really is as if we're in the Matrix. You'd have to be pretty crazy to give up steak for bland mush on a dirty hovercraft, even if Carrie-Anne Moss is there...

I sat out this election, and thought most of Obama's rhetoric to be empty - but I will admit surprise at the speed and extent of Obama's turnaround on many issues. I expected him to pay much better lip service to progressive ideals and then violate them when people weren't looking.

That being said, I'm not especially feeling prescient or worldly-wise. Reflexive cynicism is every bit as tired and mindless as reflexive credulity.

I'll try harder to live down to your expectations. If I were ever to garner one of your "best post of the week/month/year" nods, I might have to retire my Salon Letters account.

(ironic emoticon goes here)

Congratulations in advance to the graduate.

Bullshit.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply.

I have said that until certain forced changes are made, voting is pretty much worthless.

You believe that with "certain forced changes" we can vote our way out of Empire. I do not see it as possible at all, under any circumstances, so I was not "misrepresenting [your] position" to leave that qualification out.

I'll respectfully and confusingly both disagree and agree with adnoto and Intercooler.

As far as it goes, adnoto is correct in my view that citizens enabled Candidate "Yes We Can!" Obama to act like President "Don't Look Back!" Obama by endorsing him with their votes. But Intercooler is correct that laying all this at the feet of the voters is a little disingenuous. There was never a chance in hell of either Paul and Kucinich becoming the leading candidates.

I think that both are mistaken in believing that we can vote our way out of Empire. The massive, blood-and-money-soaked machine will either be peacefully subdivided into reasonably-sized pieces, or it will collapse under its own weight and well hopefully have a chance to fight for representative democracy beyond Thunderdome. But - as my girlfriend says - size matters. Once government reaches the scale of intercontinental Empire, organized citizens can't reasonably fight for control against moneyed interests.

Until that happy day comes, though, and I can take the solar-powered-tram to my polling place to vote for a pinko transgendered atheist to be the next President of the Republic of New England, I'll continue working in my community... and voting for the lesser of two evils only when absolutely necessary.

Selah.

Whether you believe it or not, Ive read and feel I understand all of your 'responses.' The problem is that none of them have been responses in any way one could define the term. What you've done is repeatedly post passages detailing your philosophy that are marginally relevant to the topics we've discussed, replete with strawman attacks on things I've never said and don't believe.

You cast me as a "Neo-Liberal," (which you seem to think means "new liberal," despite the fact that this term has an actual meaning in modern politics which is quite different) even though I've been clearer than many in this comments section about my political beliefs, which are anything but liberal. You claim that I trust in government and want to control it by voting, even though I've stated repeatedly that I don't vote.

You have no interest in dialogue, where dialogue is defined as engaging in a give-and-take with another human being, where positions are exchanged and at least an attempt is made at understanding your interlocutor, whether or not you eventually agree or even shift your position in any way. This will be to your ultimate detriment, I feel, but it is - of course - your choice.

In any regard, as I've said before, this statement:

The part that neo-liberals just can not seem to understand is that racism without government power is of little consequence.

is foolish in the extreme. It's kind of saddening, actually, because it's not that you lack in intellect. It's like watching someone put braces on their legs who doesn't need them: an intentional self-mutilation.

You shoehorn everything - history, sociology, political engagement, human relations - into the narrow box of your philosophy. This is certainly your right, but what an impoverished way to live the life of the mind.

I can only say to you that the government is the central cause of all discrimination.

You are high.

That being said, have a good evening.

What we have to concern ourselves with is racism in the here and now.

Yes. Which is exactly what I'm talking about.

I've been assuming you understand this, because I've asked you a number of times in this thread if you literally believe that the effects of centuries of racism boiled off like water on a stove after the "I Have a Dream" speech.

And apparently you do.

Heru-ur, again, because it is hard for me to wrap my mind around it, do you actually believe that there are not institutionalized, culturally-entrenched, conscious and subconscious lasting effects of having had a society - not just a government - that for centuries practiced racism of the most vicious, violent, spirit-crushing and cruel sort?

Is that actually your assertion?