I have never voted for a sitting president. At least not on the way into office.
I was too young to vote in a national election until Reagan was in the middle of his second term. Had I the right to do so, I probably would have gone from Nixon II to Ford to Carter to Mondale. I suppose I could count Tricky Dick as a sort of victory, but considering I was only 4 at the time and didn’t know he ran against anyone, probably not.
In 1988, my only victory was a bet on the extent of the Dukakis landslide defeat. The Democrat candidate nabbed just enough of the fifty states to force the staunch Republican on the other side of the wager to wear my “I survived the Reagan Administration” button for a month.
Four years later, I lost Tom Harkin and Paul Tsongas to primary defeats at the hands of Mr. War Room, Bill Clinton. Desperate for better options, I voted for the diminutive Ross Perot and his new Reform Party … even though I could tolerate him only a hair better than the first President Bush. That year, I voted for the third-party system, not a candidate. In 1996, it would have been a no-brainer to vote for Clinton, despite his massive cave on meaningful health care reform. However, for the first time, I didn’t vote at all.
The 2000 race landed on Al Gore and the second Bush. The major issue that year was the possibility of appointing some new Supreme Court judges, something I was sure Gore would do a better job than Bush. But ultimately, it was again a choice I resented having to make. So I voted for Ralph Nader, as a write in. It turns out the Supreme Court issue came into light before the next president was sworn in, as a political decision awarded Bush the White House despite questionable election practices in Florida. Disaster followed.
So my official voting-age record is a goose egg. 0 for 4 in selecting the winning candidate, helped largely by a disconnection from those directing the course for our nation. 2004 will be no different. I have the option of a President I can’t stand, a former third-party independent I don’t respect, or a cookie-cutter Democrat arguably less dangerous than the guy in office but just as disconnected from the common man.
I was resigned to a repeat of 1996 (no vote) or 2000 (Nader) since I couldn’t bring myself to vote for the two main candidates. Then I saw Farenheit 9/11, and I’m fearful Michael Moore put me over the top on backing Kerry.
When I write “fearful,” I sense the irony. His last two documentaries in the Bush Administration have both focuses on the culture of fear used as a propaganda weapon by the White House. While condemning such acts with his narration, Moore’s motivation in production of this film was to scare voters to the most viable non-Bush candidate — currently, John Kerry. I respect Moore’s work, particularly his first film “Roger and Me” and his stellar T.V. Nation show. But I also recognize him for what he is: the Dem’s version of Rush Limbaugh.
Even with those filters on, the film successfully paints the accurate picture of Bush as moron. I’m not convinced a Gore White House would have acted in the way I would want a superpower democracy to act, but it couldn’t have done any worse. I have less confidence in Kerry, but the bottom has dropped out on Bush. He might be bad enough to make the sacrifice of a better Democratic candidate in 2008 worth the protest vote.
As a progressive, nothing short of a Barbara Lee – Dennis Kucinich ticket would make be look forward to November. But Kerry may have picked up an Indiana vote tonight, thanks to Michael Moore. Who knows? Maybe the best thing I can do for the cause is vote for Bush … and then hope I run my voting record to 0-and-5.
