Dissent is the mother of ascent

“If you’re not turned on to politics, politics will turn on you.” – Ralph Nader

There’s a certain benefit to being an idiot in this country, in that, you may not have any idea of what’s going on in the world, but you know what? There’s still way more of you than there are of smart people. I’m always reminded of this when I’m watching the coverage of this year’s presidential election and I see people espousing views I held years ago, way before they were all trendy.

For example, one of the biggest of last night’s Democratic primaries was in Ohio, where, as the media keeps reminding us, NAFTA is a big issue. Mad people are out of a job and now mofos are convinced it’s because of free trade. If only they could have arrived at this point of view a long time ago, when literally probably all of them were voting for candidates who were in favor of that shit. (Like the Iraq War, NAFTA was one of those issues that didn’t even seem like a good idea in the first place.)

I think part of it though is that NAFTA provides cover for a race issue that the media is trying to cover up for whatever reason. Is it political correctness, or is the media just that oblivious? Either way, I think it’s obvious that the reason Hillary Clinton did as well as she did last night in Ohio and Texas is the same reason she did so well in California: the sheer abundance of poor people and hispanics in those two states, i.e. Hillary’s base at this point.

And I think it’s obvious that the reason these two groups are so strong in their support for Hillary, since there’s no real political case for them to support her as opposed to Barack Obama (which is not to say that there’s much of a case for him either – I’m just saying), is because she’s white, and Obama’s black – and as some cracka-ass cracka put it on 60 Minutes the other day, possibly a Muslim.

Of course the mainstream media isn’t even gonna have the sheer balls to raise that as a possibility, but I think it’s obvious when you look at the two candidates’ respective constituencies. The more educated and hence less racist a person is (it’s true, look it up), the more likely they are to support Barack Obama. Hillary Clinton wouldn’t even still be in the race at this point if it wasn’t for the sheer demographic strength of hillbillies in this country.

And apparently they came out for her in force last night – the irony of course being that Hillary is married to the mofo who signed NAFTA in the first place. She claims that just because she was married to him doesn’t necessarily mean that she was for it, but I’m at a loss for any instance in which she actually said she was against it until just now.

Her horseshit defense on this issue, in fact, reminds me of Barack Obama’s stance on the Iraq War. She wasn’t in any position to have a say one way or another back when the shit began, but since she’s been in the Senate, what has she accomplished to that end? Nothing. And in that sense, why should we expect her to do the right thing if she’s elected president? The answer, of course, is that we shouldn’t.

It’s important to note, however, that neither of the Democratic candidates left in the race at this point is actually in favor of pulling out of NAFTA. Barack Obama may have worked in some anti-NAFTA rhetoric into his stump in Ohio, but he’s not actually against it. He was just doing his usual pandering. The only Democratic candidate who was, was Dennis Kucinich, and now he’s off in… erm, Ohio somewhere trying desperately to hold onto his seat in Congress.

And then of course there’s Ralph Nader, but we can’t vote for him, right? He can’t win!

So basically what we have here is a group of people who couldn’t be any more down and out (though these next several years could prove otherwise), and yet they’re gonna vote against their own interest. On the hand, the tendency is to want to say, fuck these people. If they’re that stupid (not to mention probably racist), they deserve to fester and die in some squalid, post-industrial shithole.

But on the other hand, you can’t help but feel a certain duty to try to talk some sense into these people – if not because you believe life is sacred and God and the Bible, and I don’t, then because it’s in my own interest to try to affect some sort of real – not just rhetorical – change in this country. And self-preservation is, after all, the first law of nature.

Also, call me crazy, but I’m not convinced that there couldn’t be a legit third party movement in this country, which is what I’m convinced it’s gonna take if there’s ever gonna be anything other than the same shit we’ve always had. If ignorant-ass white people can be convinced that free trade that’s not actually free trade is the reason they live in a trailer, maybe we can even convince them to vote against it.

Shit, maybe we can even talk some sense into some black people. Or is that too much wishful thinking, especially in a year in which we’ve got the first black candidate light skinted enough to be taken seriously? Maybe Hillary Clinton can still manage to pull this one out, and so there’ll be some nasty, race-based resentment. We can capitalize on that!

In his latest bid for the presidency, Ralph Nader is being dismissed as a nutjob, way out on the fringe of political beliefs. But as Ted Rall points out in a recent column (one of the better stories I’ve read on Nader so far – I also enjoyed this one), today’s fringe belief is tomorrow’s conventional wisdom. After 9/11 less than 10% of this country realized what an awful president Sieg Howdy is. Now, pretty much everyone does. And all of this country’s greatest political achievements, from emancipation, to the 40-hour work week, to women’s suffrage (though the greatness of that one is debatable) started out as fringe beliefs.

As Rall also points out, Nader’s beliefs can hardly be characterized as “fringe,” in that they’re often more in line with a majority of the American people than the views espoused by the leading candidates. For example, Nader, as well as a majority of the American people, believes Sieg Howdy deserves to be impeached. Obama and Clinton refuse to consider it one way or another. Most people are in favor of single-payer health care, as is Ralph Nader. But Obama and Clinton are in favor of corporate health care. (I wonder why that is…) Obama’s plan wouldn’t even make sure everyone is covered.

On Ralph Nader’s campaign website, VoteNader.org, there’s a whole litany of issues in which Ralph Nader has taken the stance that’s in the best interest of the majority of the people in this country, and on which Barack and Hillary, quite frankly, fucking suck balls. I would challenge anyone reading this to take a look at that list and try to explain to me how voting for Barack Or Hillary is supposed to be a good idea.

The only case I could even see is that so many other people are planning to vote for them that Nader doesn’t stand a chance. But since when has the fact that everyone else is doing it ever been a good idea to do anything? Throwing away your vote on a candidate who can’t win might seem insane, but isn’t the definition of insanity continuing to do the same thing and expecting different results?

That’s what continuing to vote for the same people we always vote for (even if they’re kinda black this time) would be. Insane.

Recommended for You

Around the Web

Best of XXL

  • Pingback: Dissent is the mother of ascent

  • Jova

    Great post!! I agree in that until we have a viable third party that can challenge our two-party syste, our politics will never change.


  • The Nicker

    Nice drop, but if it’s close in my state (and in MI, it will be), I’m voting Barilary.

  • The Spaniard

    Best (serious) blog entry thus far. I know who I am voting for (Nader). The differences on the issues between these candidates on the isses are crystal clear.

    And if McCain happens to win because of it then…fuck it, we all have to die sooner or later.

    Obama Nader ’08

  • http://hiphoponmymind.blogspot.com DJ Daddy Mack

    U R 5 FOR 5.



    • VoiceOfReason

      Pshaw!!! You think?

      @Bol, how virtuistic of you to drop a post like this. I agree totally, except I won’t vote for Nader. Nope, I wouldn’t even consider it. While you raise some really valid points, we all know that as long as bipartisanship is in place, people will always be forced to choose the lesser of two evils. I can’t front, I’m voting Obama for the sole reason that he’s black(ish, as you often put it). But hey, I’m a realist like that(or sexist racist, considering the circumstances). So yeah, Nader’s definitely the most sensible candidate (I was really pulling for Kucinich early on), but I think you can make that insanity argument both ways. Even if the light bulbs went off in a significant amount of peoples’ heads and they decided to vote Nader, that would make way for the greater evil to plop his lethargic ass in the most comfortable seat in the oval office. I mean seriously, what’s more insane, proving a point by voting for Nader when he doesn’t stand the snowballest chance in hell, thus allowing that Neo Nazi Conservative John McCain to take office, or choosing the lesser of two evils in Obama? Shit, the lobbyists control of Bipartisan Washington is so strong that even in the unlikely event that Nader won, he wouldn’t be able to get half the shit (and that’s being generous) he’s proposing accomplished.

      Once again, don’t hate the kid. I’m just a realist.

      Real talk is welcome.

      • maxwell

        Sir, you are not a realist, you are a sucker. You fall for what you have been told by the media and history, however, you obviously don’t know history. Ever heard of Teddy Roosevelt and the populists? Probably…….not.
        Let me guess what you’re thinking right now. Hmmmmm….. screw this Maxwell guy. He doesn’t know me, he doesn’t know how I think, he doesn’t know what I’ve been through. Screw this guy, who the hell is he? Third parties can’t win, that’s obvious.
        So once again tell me, have you heard about Teddy Roosevelt and the populists? Better yet, have you READ about them?

        • VoiceOfReason


          Too bad the political landscape has changed significantly since the days of good ol’ Teddy.

          The shit you speak of is not even remotely relevant in the politics of today.

          Third parties can’t win, that’s obvious.

          Wasn’t that my argument in the first place, tiger? Care to revise yours so that you actually make a point?

          And you’re wrong. I don’t care who you are, where you’re from, or what back country motel you were conceived in for that matter.

        • maxwell

          Obviously you didn’t catch the sarcasm or the trap. You speak of Teddy Roosevelt and the populists as if you know about this time period.
          For your information it was during the Taft presidency which turned out to be such an incompetent administration that it caused backlash amongst the Repubican party and no Teddy Roosevelt didn’t win the election , although he did win the POPULAR VOTE. Perhaps you knew about this. I’m sure you did.
          Just one thing……. if you knew about Theodore Roosevelt how come you didn’t point out the fact that his party’s nickname was PROGRESSIVE, not populists?

          Hey buddy, you took the bait, I didn’t feed it to you.

        • VoiceOfReason

          Actually I addressed Teddy Roosevelt, but never mentioned populism. Rely on semantics and outdated ideologies all you like, the fact still remains that third parties can’t win in TODAY’S political climate.

          And I took bait? You trapped me?

          How old are you, kid?

        • maxwell

          Too bad the political landscape has changed significantly since the days of good ol’ Teddy.

          So ,exactly what is the political landscape of today? Details please.

          And you’re wrong. I don’t care who you are, where you’re from, or what back country motel you were conceived in for that matter.

          Already with the back country motel shit? Geez I didn’t know they had motels in the back country.
          And what the hell is the back country?

      • http://hiphoponmymind.blogspot.com DJ Daddy Mack


  • B Mo Careful

    BOI I have to give you props on this post, you were dead on!!! The media tries to spin all of these graphs and charts about why these certain demographics vote for Hilary and Obama, but in Ohio and other states, people are voting for Clinton, just because they don’t want the black guy in office!!! I read an article on the website and this person (racist) stated that she didn’t know why she wasn’t voting for Obama, but it was just something about him she couldn’t trust!! Hell could it be his skin color!! Until these old ass racist men and women die out a lot of this stuff will never change!!!!

    But I still vote because my ancestors died for us to have that right, and I’m not spitting on no one’s grave!!!


  • Tray

    See, these voters are voting their interest because NAFTA is actually good for us. Exports have gone up since we got NAFTA. It’s created more jobs than it’s cost. You can look it up if you don’t believe me.

    Anyway, Hillary won because people think she’s more ready to be commander-in-chief. Which sounds ridiculous. But think about it, she’s more of a man than him. If North Korea dropped a bomb somewhere, he’d probably call Kim-Il-Jong and start talking about the audacity of hope

    • Fire

      Do you seriously think that the wife of one of the most overrated presidents ever would actually be that much different? Bill Clinton didn’t get that much accomplished to my knowledge, he was lucky to become president at the time of an economic upsurge. Plain and simple. Not much changed under Clinton. Granted, I think that American politics would be a lot better if the Bush family had never entered, but that’s another matter entirely. The point is (assuming Hillary gets elected and makes it through one term):at least 20 years of TWO INCOMPETENT FAMILIES running the country is no kind of democracy. Something needs to change, and in my view that means libertarian ideals making a huge resurgence.

      • Fire

        Correction: It’s not 20 years if Hillary makes it, but TWENTY-FOUR!

  • P-Matik

    Joe Biden, Dennis Kucinich, and Ron Paul were saying the same things that Nader is. You see where they are. Americans are just dumb by large anyway. I’m for Nader’s policies but he’s stupid for a couple of reasons…

    1. He’s old as DIRT (74). He probably wouldn’t make it through his term.
    2. He keeps waiting until the middle of the game to jump in. Only his devoted hanger-ons know who he is and what he’s about. Obama already showed that its the young voters that are most responsive to radical change. Nader hasn’t even been seen since 2000. If he was smart he would have started his movement long ago so everyone would get to know his deal.

    I think he’s an agent with a wire, myself. He always jumps in when big things on the democrat side are jumping off. He screwed Gore but when Kerry was running he was nowhere to be seen. Now he’s trying to salt up the game again.

  • Styles

    I’m hispanic….and I can’t stand that bitch.

    Go Obama!

  • Conan

    So what you’re basically saying is ‘Vote for McCain’ Bol?

    If Bloomberg was running you might’ve had a third party candidate that had an actual prayer.

  • Worley

    We need a third party indeed or let’s just go with the popular vote and do away with all the nonsense.

  • joe

    actually free trade is a good thing.

    look what american cars were like before we had the option to buy one from japan. they were overpriced pieces of crap. why would you want to have to pay extra money so some fatass in michigan can have a overpaid manufacturing job?

    likewise with tv’s and ipods. can you imagine if we had to buy made in america tv’s? they would cost at least twice as much and breakdown after a year.

    since when has working a factory job been a good thing? dumbass.

  • Combat Jack

    Nice post my dude!

  • wells

    oops, i guess this is nytimes.com. for some reason i thought i was at xxlmag.com, a hip-hop website, but that’s my bad. pardon me

  • wells

    ps Bol, i think it may be time to crack some of those old, dusty political science books from your college years, if your ambitions have been refocused in this area.
    good post though buddy, good post

  • phat thug

    I am highly educated, mexican and a single male. I worked for a black owned business for the past six years and anyone who has ever worked for one-or with one knows why white people run everything, thats all Im sayin.

    • whatever

      if you’re so educated why do they own the place and you just work there…don’t figure.
      fat and smart, go get another job or better yet muscle up some of that intelligence and start your own business.

      Go Obama!!

    • The Spaniard

      I’m curious…why don’t Mexicans run everything?

      After witnessing your illustrious & flawless thought process I’m surprised that you haven’t conquered the entire business world in your six years of working for a black owned business.

      Could it be that you are in reality a fucking idiot with an unjustified & overinflated opinion of yourself and your mental abilities?

      The answer is yes.

  • http://xxlmag.com Billy X. Sunday

    Chuuuurch like a muvvvv.

    A Kucinich/Paul ticket might be the only thing that can revitalize the domestic economy. Unfortunately, I think Paul advocates a return to chattel slavery.

  • Pingback: Parting Shots / Stereohyped

  • Darth Nader 2012

    Earth to Bol: Skip the kool-aid, try the reality sandwich!

  • RisingSon

    Nice post, first off the only reason a free trade agreement like NAFTA doesn’t work for a country like the US..is because as you state the country consists of dumb ass hillbillies. With the kind of financial strength you guys have you’d think you’d be able to rake in on tha agreement…cos ya’ll can afford to improve and effectively increase production..and lower economies of scale..but no!your dumb ass leaders would rather sit on their asses and subsidies any inefficient industry rather than trying to improve it… The reason Nafta ain’t worked for ya’ll is simply because their are a lot (not all) of ignorant people looking for a hand out and looking to be saved when shit hits the fan ( see: GM Motors, mortgage crisis..etc). It’s ironic really that in a nation where nearly everybody would lay down their left nut for capitalism, everybody still expects the government to practise a communist approach to save them. This is why the poor remain poor because they haven’t grasped the workings of capitalist economics, and will jump on any band-wagon that promises a tax cut. Coincidentally thats how the rich remain rich, cos unlike the rest of them they understand how capitalism works (survival of the fittest, dog eat dog and if you gotta enslave a buncha people to do it, so be it)…I bet you as the stocks are falling right now, there’s a guy buyin’ shares because inevitably the recession/ miniscule depression (whatever you choose not to call it)will have to come to an end and he’ll be rolling in it. So it’s not about which president you vote for that will really help you, because in the end even the most able candidate cannot help every single soul in the Land of the “Free”…like Bols said self-preservation is the first law of nature. Protect your neck!

    “When there’s blood on the streets buy shares” – RICH White Guy

  • Wesley Gibson

    No one can and no one will repeal NAFTA. In fact, its more likely that international trade regulation will get lighter before it gets stiffer. All those people in an Ohio live in an America that doesn’t exist anymore: one unconnected to the rest of the world. You can’t legislate historical regression. That ship has sailed. Nader is a dinosaur. End corporate personhood… LOL.

  • Around and Around

    Bol this is a good drop. Two words when voting for either party…Satus Quo

    These clowns on here remind me of a simpsons episode where aliens take over and the two of them run shit:

    “Kodos: It’s true, we are aliens. But what are you going to do about
    it? It’s a two-party system; you have to vote for one of us.
    Man1: He’s right, this is a two-party system.
    Man2: Well, I believe I’ll vote for a third-party candidate.
    Kang: Go ahead, throw your vote away.”

  • http://stuntingonprose.com J. Burnett

    solid fucking post

  • mgs

    Two things:
    1. Countries with tons of political parties have even more fucked up politics than our own. Look at Italy, every election cycle politicians are trying hold together coalitions of 5 to 8 single-issue parties. Its not going to fix our problems.
    2. Nafta isn’t the reason people can’t get jobs in Ohio and Michigan. Bad management, overbearing unions, and city and state gov’t abuse makes industry unprofitable in those regions. Nafta didn’t make Ford and GM cars expensive and crappy, or make Toyota and Honda cheaper and better. Check it out here:

  • Venjamin Jenkman

    Wouldn’t the best counter-argument to this be Bush ’00? If you agree with Nader’s policy proposals, you’re completely justified in giving him your vote, but I think the fact that a certain environmentalist cost a future Nobel Prize-winning activist the presidency only eight years ago should give you pause.

    If you thought Bush had a simplistic view of the economy, just wait until you have to deal with McCain. But that’s ok, because what McCain lacks in economic wonkery, he makes up for in visions of National Greatness imperialism.

    Do you really want to tempt fate? This is worth stating for the record that Bush should’ve been impreached? I’m not sure this election is the best time to take a stand on whether we should go all Trotsky on the dude who’s leaving. There’s a big enough difference between the Dems and McCain for you to care.