Last' week's double capitulation on Iraq and FISA has spawned a stream of articles in the progressive blogosphere urging activists to not give up or throw in the towel on this election, because the stakes are too important. Personally, I think such fears are overwrought, and any threat of grassroots activists sitting on their hands is way overblown, although Obama's May fundraising numbers might indicate otherwise. Sure, people are upset with the Democratic Congress, but everyone knows that a narrow congressional majority with Bush (or McCain) still in the White House is fundamentally different than a wide Congressional majority with Obama in the White. And, after the last eight years, it is hard to make the "it doesn't matter" argument with a straight face.
Still, among the "let's keep working anyway" articles, one last Friday by Alfonso Nevarez was particularly noteworthy in that it raised the specter of blame for progressives who are not sufficiently active in defeating Bush. The key graphs:
An admission: I supported and voted for Nader in 2000. Gore was a "sell out" as far as I was concerned. I halfheartedly supported Kerry in 2004, whose leadership skills at the time make Obama look like the second coming of FDR.
And I have nobody but myself to blame for the rotten stinking mess we're in.
That's right. I am to blame. My ideological rigidness prevented me from doing the right thing in both circumstances. I indeed have blood on my hands. I let hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Afghanis get slaughtered by our leaders. I stood by and allowed Kerry to be defeated by Gergoe W Bush in 2004 while thousands of military servicemen and women were being sent around the world to be killed or maimed in a war that had no legitimacy.
Yeah I may have protested before and during this horrible war. I may have wrote letters, made phone calls, changed careers, and moved across the country, all in an effort to put an end to this war on terror. But when I had a chance to prevent a first Bush term I undermined his opposition in high minded defiance, and when I had a chance to prevent a second Bush term, I passed on engaging myself with the opposition.
The relevant ethical question this passage raises is: to what degree a citizen of a republic is culpable for governmental policy that s/he opposes?
This is actually something I wonder about fairly frequently. For example, even though I vigorously opposed the Iraq war, as an American citizen, to what degree am I still to blame for what happened in Iraq? Back in 2002 and 2003, I still have strong memories of attending several protests, knowing both that my actions were probably futile but also that one my main motivating forces in attending the marches was to publicly state, as loudly and clearly as possible, that I opposed what was about to happen. I had a burning desire to make that as clear as possible, and I was particularly drawn to the "not in our my name" slogan at the time.
But really, how much did my actions before, or since, the start of the war alter my culpability, or lack thereof, in the Iraq war? The country I am still a citizen of, and to which I pay taxes, is still in Iraq. While I have worked really hard to elect Democrats over the last few years, and anti-war Democrats in particular, how exactly does that absolve me of responsibility for my country's actions? Then again, how was I to blame in the first place, since I personally had nothing whatsoever to with building up the case for war, with authorizing the war, or with staying in Iraq indefinitely? My connection to the war is extraordinarily indirect.
It isn't a question for which I have a clear answer. Sometimes, I feel very responsible for all of the good and bad things that my country does, while at other times I feel so small and insignificant that I share no blame at all. Either way, I am pretty sure that I was wrong back in 2002 and 2003, and that Alfonso Nevarez is wrong now. Whether or not a citizen of a republic is personally shares responsibility for governmental policy that s/he opposes, there is no magic line of activism against that policy in which one can engage in order to absolve oneself of that responsibility. There is no amount of door knocking, letter writing, envelope stuffing, or petition signing in which someone can engage in order to be transformed from "personally responsible" to "not personably responsible." As a citizen, either you are responsible or you are not responsible for governmental policy you oppose, and your personal actions to not figure into the equation.
This is starting to feel like a Good Works vs. Grace argument, ala Catholicism and Protestants. Anyway, on a slow day like today, I wanted to throw this question out there.
|
STATE BLOGS
