I would like all of those who are cynical or fed up with the U.S. electoral system, where our options are either to vote for candidates from the two major political parties (Democrats or Republicans), to vote for candidates in the smaller parties who have little to no chance of winning nationwide, or not to vote at all, I was once where you are.
I turned 21 years old on May 27, 1968, and was authorized to vote for the first time because, back then, the legal voting age was 21. However, at the age of 18, I, my friends, and classmates were old enough to be eligible to fight and die in Vietnam: a war that I actively protested and worked vigorously to bring to an end.
Many like me viewed the war as a blatantly criminal, illegal, and as an unjustified invasion and occupation that brought misery and death to our military and the people of North and South Vietnam.
Dive deeper every day
Join our newsletter for thought-provoking commentary that goes beyond the surface of LGBTQ+ issues
As an undergraduate student at San José State University until 1969, I joined the Students for a Democratic Society to oppose the war. I helped organize demonstrations and attended and led study groups and sit-ins while I also worked to improve conditions in student off-campus housing. I also joined in activities to challenge racism on our campus.
Although I was interested in politics in high school, my deep political education took off in college. Looking back, I remember much more of what I learned outside the classroom than in my courses, for those were truly exciting and terrifying times of war, riots, and political assassinations.
While we lauded President Lyndon B. Johnson on his courageous leadership into the realm of his domestic policies—especially in his active and enthusiastic support for the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act—we saw how his military ventures and missteps had torn the country apart.
Moving into the political void left in the progressive wing of the Democratic Party—after what we saw as Humphrey’s capitulation to his administration’s disastrous hawkish military policies—a fresh and dynamic voice articulated the feelings and visions of a younger generation of concerned activists.
Senator Eugene McCarthy of Minnesota courageously challenged a sitting president of his own party, and along the way, he captured our imagination, our hearts, and our minds.
Running in the first state primary in New Hampshire that year, he garnered 42% to Johnson’s 49% of the vote. Four days later, seeing that Johnson could possibly lose his small lead in the primaries, New York Senator Robert F. Kennedy threw his hat in the ring. Though I and many of my peers liked Kennedy’s politics, the timing of his entry into the primary process smelled of pure opportunism rather than of courage.
And then we were all completely thunderstruck with surprise watching Johnson give a televised address on March 31, 1968, when he suddenly uttered from the Oval Office, “I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my party for another term as your President.” Less than one month later, on April 27, U.S. Sen. Hubert Humphrey Jr. of Minnesota announced his candidacy.
Though I’ve seen the Democratic Party place its metaphoric thumb on the scales in favor of Hillary Clinton and against the candidacy of Bernie Sanders in 2016, this pales in comparison to the heavy hand that party officials dumped on the scales to assure Hubert Humphrey’s nomination in 1968.
Although my prefrerrd candidate, Eugene McCarthy, won by far the largest percentage of the popular vote in the Democratic general primaries—approximately 3 million or 38.7% to Humphrey’s 161 thousand or 2.1% in a crowded field of candidates—Humphrey didn’t even bother to enter some of the state primaries. Nonetheless, party officials gave Humphrey the right to carry the Democratic banner as its presidential nominee.
It did this by awarding Humphrey the vast majority of overall delegates in the non-primary states, thereby bringing him over the top in terms of the number of delegates needed. Talk about “rigged elections”!
By the time the election came around in November, I was so angry and discouraged by the electoral political process, I decided that if I were going to maintain any sense of integrity and ethical standards, I could not and would not vote for anyone that year, even though I considered Humphrey the least reprehensible relative to Richard Nixon.
The day before Election Day, two friends and I drove south down Highway 1, along the beautiful California coastline. We camped and played our acoustic guitars and violin beneath tall ancient redwood trees overlooking crashing waves at Big Sur. Two days later, as we returned to San José, by choice, we remained unaware of the election outcomes.
At the time, I regretted nothing about my decision to opt out. I didn’t even feel troubled by losing all the points on the surprise pop quiz given by the professor in my Music Conducting class—my integrity remained intact.
Well, at least that’s what I thought until I reflected on the potential consequences and the actual realities of a Nixon presidency.
For a full five additional years, the body bags carrying the fallen continued to pile up. The people of Vietnam, combatants and civilians alike, continued suffering the horrors of incinerated flesh and scorched fields and forests from the massive airdrops of Agent Orange from U.S. bombers, increasing the already massive profits by Dow Chemical Company and other profiteering corporations.
Race relations worsened, as did the already large gap between wages and the accumulated wealth of socioeconomic classes. Charges of corruption and bribery against Vice President Agnew (and his subsequent resignation from office)— combined with Nixon’s involvement in Watergate and his eventual resignation—further divided the country.
So, in retrospect, I perennially ask myself the two-part question: “By failing even to vote for ‘the lesser of the two evils’ in 1968, did I really maintain my sense of integrity on the micro level, and did I serve the best interests of the country on the macro?”
Looking back now, I realize that in 1968 at the age of 21, I was functioning on a dualistic or binary cognitive developmental level. I perceived the world, people, and events as either “good” or “bad,” and I saw pragmatism as a form of “surrender.” Viewing both Humphrey and Nixon as “bad,” I could not honestly vote for either without surrendering my ideals and ethical standards.
Using this event as a constant touchstone in my personal history, I now understand the cosmos more in its multiplicity, its nuance, along a continuum rather than as a binary. I also often consider pragmatism not so much as surrender, but more as compromise and as a necessary give and take in a democracy.
The 2000 Presidential Election
For the cynics, I ask you to imagine the following scenario in a recent close presidential election.
How history would have been different if Al Gore had won the 2000 presidential election over George W. Bush. Would we have invaded Iraq, what turned out as a misguided and disastrous venture that resulted in the death of over 4,000 U.S. military personnel and severe injuries to thousands more, and the expenditure of trillions of tax dollars wasted needlessly?
Add to this the deaths and injuries to literally hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, plus the political destabilization of the entire Middle East, giving rise to radical terrorist groups, including those supported by Iran.
At home under the Bush administration, we witnessed a gradual loosening of governmental regulations on Wall Street and the housing industry, which set the stage for the biggest downturn in domestic and international economies since the Great Depression.
Consider where we would be and the different outcomes if Al Gore had defeated George W. Bush in the Electoral College count (though he did prevail in the overall number of individual votes), and Congress had significant Democratic majorities.
Let us suppose that Gore, a high-profile climate activist, would have pushed Congress to develop green technologies at greater rates with substantial budgetary increases. He most likely would have advocated for retraining programs of workers in the mining and oil drilling industries whose jobs would change in the developing renewable energy economy.
As a leader in these technologies, we could impact the world by sharing our advancements as other countries would share theirs with us. Possibly, we now would be living in a world in which we all would breathe a bit easier, drink cleaner water, and the weather extremes might not be as great as they are today.
President Gore would also view reports from our intelligence agencies with an open mind, and not merely dismiss accounts that did not accord with his political agendas. He most likely would not have invaded Iraq as did the Bush II administration under the guise of confiscating Saddam Hussein’s “weapons of mass destruction,” which were never finally confirmed by intelligence information, both before and after the invasion.
By not invading Iraq, Gore would have spared the lives of an estimated 150,000 to 1,033,000 people, including more than 100,000 civilians, and thousands of U.S. and NATO military personnel. This does not include the many more who received serious injuries and those who took their own lives once they returned home.
For those who are considering voting for a minor third-party candidate during the 2024 elections–presidential and down-ballot—you might want to consider the 2000 presidential election between Gore and Bush, and Green Party candidate, Ralph Nader.
That year, many progressives wanted to vote for their preferred candidate, Nader, thereby, maintain their political values. On the other hand, many feared that by voting for Nader, people would in essence be casting their lot with Bush since Nader had as much chance of rising to the presidency as any individual does of purchasing a single ticket and winning a national MegaBucks lottery.
As it turned out, Bush was chosen by the Supreme Court as the vote was so close, particularly in Florida, though Gore won the overall popular vote.
So, I ask those who voted for Ralph Nader, or those who did not vote at all in 2000, did you really walk away with your integrity intact? Did your vote serve the best interests of the country?
Now we stand within another crucial election year. For those who are considering not voting because you either don’t believe your vote will matter, or because the candidates don’t conform to your idea of a “perfect” political leader, or you are thinking about voting for a third-party candidate, think again!
These very rationales in 2016, by a mere total of 80,000 people in three states–Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania –brought our nation to a crisis under the Trump administration resulting the frayed international alliances, needless deaths during the COVID pandemic due to the lies and inaction by the Trump administration, and the stripping of reproductive rights and voting rights, the dehumanization of immigrants from our southern border, the vilification of transgender people, reversals on clean energy sources, giant tax breaks for the super-rich, and presidential scandal upon scandal that by now, it is often difficult to comprehend the enormity of corruption and sexual assault.
Oh, yes. Let us not forget the insurrection and attempted coup on January 6, 2021.
So, for anyone thinking of not voting or voting for a third-party candidate this year, I would simply repeat what Sarah Silverman said to the lost Bernie Sanders campaign supporters at the Democratic Presidential Convention in 2016 who promised they would not vote for Hillary Clinton: “You’re being ridiculous!”
Kamala Harris and her vice-presidential running mate, Tim Walz, are good people who are genuinely fighting to work for the majority of people in the United States. No, they are not perfect human beings, but none of us are. They might not absolutely align with all of your values or policy agendas.
For example, I disagree with Harris who does not advocate for a single-payer health system and who will continue the practice of fracking, which I oppose. But I am voting for the Harris-Walz ticket because I trust them, and I know they will model a positive force for our nation and nations throughout the world.
And I agree with Kamala that “We are not going back!”
Don’t forget to share:
