Today is the anniversary of Emma Goldman's death. She died in Toronto in 1940; my brother just moved there. If we travel in similar circles in space, do we circle each other in time too?
Sara (who continues to feel pretty pukey, by the way, though we are told the unpleasantness should abate any day now, as she enters the quasi-utopian second trimester) took this picture as we walked past Emma’s former residence in NYC.
The night we got home from our trip, i knew exactly what had to be done: i ran out and rented The Wizard of Oz. Having a good cry with Dorothy about the terrible beauty of what lies over the rainbow and the sad, wonderful fact that there really is “no place like home” seemed like the right thing to do. I really do love coming home.
In the days that followed, while finishing an essay, i found myself reading about Emma’s lectures on Nietzsche; i was reminded of these while listening to Irving Wohlfarth’s discussion of Walter Benjamin’s “anarcho-messianism” at SFU last week. Plenty to think about, but then along came the election. And the referendum... Which will be the the focus of my blogging energies today.
-------------
I’ve already written about why this referendum was significant, so rather than simply hurling curses at everyone who campaigned against BC-STV (and those who stood by as this battle was lost), i would like to share a little simile:
Arguing that there are better systems of proportional representation than the one on the referendum ballot is as helpful to the disenfranchised as promulgating architectural ideas while we are trapped in a burning building... We don’t need a better blueprint, we need an axe and a fire extinguisher!
The people behind the “No” campaign (including Bill Tielman and Andrea Reimer — whom i’ve been inclined to support, at times, in the past) claim to want electoral reform, but prefer another system (MMP) to that which we had the option of adopting immediately (STV). Thanks to them, we’re still trapped in the current system (FPTP); the movement for reform is exhausted and demoralized, and the media proclaims a triumph for the status quo. This is their desired outcome?
Their detrimental insistence on “the better” over “the good” (borrowing again from The Rebel Sell) is completely transposable onto “radical” and anarchist contexts: what i am saying to the “No” campaign i also say to fellow anarchists who “refuse” to vote “on principle”. As i’ve said before: voting, always an act of at least some distaste (especially for anarchists) — choosing someone else (or, under STV, choosing some few others) to make big decisions, rather than making them ourselves — can be best understood as a form of Harm Reduction.
Everybody knows Harm Reduction saves lives — why are people able to understand that when it comes to the dangers of injecting drugs, but not the dangers of electing governments?!
My hallucination of the burning building haunts me because i am so appalled by the obliviousness of those who comfortably decline urgently needed reforms on the basis of flaws in the proposed improvements. This strikes me as a contemptible denial: we must frequently face critical choices between imperfect options. If we refuse, we might as well curl up and die.
Because people do die, because of politics. And people do suffer, because of the flaws in our existing political system. These existing flaws are like existing flames. While a risk of fire can be planned for, a deadly blaze already ignited must be dealt with immediately, with the tools at hand.
We can reduce the heat of existing flames. And we can help the people whose lungs are filling up with smoke. To “refuse” to do so — to claim that we should apply some set of principles other than those that pertain to emergencies — is to ignore the consequences of the current system to those whom it harms the most! In this particular case, the broad, but appropriate term for the victims of this system — the electoral system — is: the disenfranchised.
To argue against BC-STV based on the claim that it doesn’t help the disenfranchised “enough” is like saying “No, we shouldn’t save that family’s house. Let it burn! It’s ugly! It was a fire-trap all along! They’ll be much happier in a safer, more beautiful house.” The day that firefighters begin making such judgments will be the apotheosis of this high-minded “progressive” idealism.
So i dare say: we need not refuse amelioration of lousy conditions today, on the basis of plans for radical improvement tomorrow — such patience is characteristic of an unaccountable, privileged position. If we can do both: put out the fire and build a new house... which do you think we should do first?
-------------
When i was working at the polls, i invited people to read the summary (even though it sucked) on the implications of the referendum question; no one read it. Maybe they really had read about it before — most people (at the polling station where i worked) at UBC voted for STV, and the STV campaign had a huge presence on campus... Did people elsewhere even know what they were voting against?
Another thing that bothered me about the “No” campaign was its invocations of stereotypes of the “fighting” Irish; simply showing that politicians do indeed argue there (in a country devastated by centuries of war) and hinting at the Irish temper — this is supposed to strengthen the case against their electoral system? Cheap, stupid and desperate. And, apparently, effective.
Props to Fred Bass for mentioning the evidence (in a comment on Libby Davies’ page [whose uncharacteristically feeble endorsement of STV speaks to the depth of the NDP’s backwardness throughout this election]) against the dubious claims that STV is somehow bad for women: referring to the many conspicuously successful STV-elected women, including Mary Robinson; Fred didn't mention that Ireland is also the first country to elect successive female heads of state.
I’ve also heard some grumbling about the lack of clear information about BC-STV, but i’m just not convinced it was that hard to find or understand — for example, Charles Demers did a fun, and concise, demo — but i do agree that much of the information in the campaign got bogged down in technicalities (Charlie did the right thing, for a general audience, and ignored the mathematical details of the “transfer value”).
The summary provided by Elections BC contained no image of the ballots themselves. I think that the most effective illustration of the most important difference between the two systems would have been to just show the two ballots. On one ballot (STV), there is a list of candidates with numbers written beside each; on the other ballot (FPTP), the same list, with an X beside one candidate. Such a stark juxtaposition illuminates the most significant difference: voters have exponentially greater potential influence over the electoral process. (Of course it should also have been emphasized that under STV everyone is free to continue voting as they always have — the right to rank candidates is optional — why not just let those of us who want it so badly have it?)
Would clearer illustrations have moved us to victory? I don’t know. But the notion of contrasting what is with what could have been reminded me of a quote i’ve loved for years, which, when i first read it, was attributed solely to Noam Chomsky, but is, in fact, from the 1986 book “Liberating Theory” which he co-authored with several others. The words are actually those of a fictional composite character (“Coho” personifying the ideas of the book: what the authors themselves call the “dumb” label “complementary holism”): "Once you accept the possibility of attaining a humanist alternative, you have to be a terrible hypocrite, coward or cynic to live passively with the contrast between what is and what could be."
-------------
So today, 69 years after Emma Goldman’s life of struggling and dancing (and being thrown in prison, exiled, and demonized) came to an end, my convictions about the urgency of our struggles today are more fervent than ever... To celebrate Emma, i think i’ll re-watch Maureen Stapleton’s Oscar-winning portrayal of her in Warren Beatty’s REDS. Will i still like the movie (i haven’t seen it since high school)? I have a hunch that it’ll be a healthy antidote to the current cinematic celebrations of regressive masculinity (in Wolverine and Star Trek — both of which i [nevertheless] quite enjoyed, by the way). In any case, i’m looking forward to getting recharged — whether the charge is positive or negative, at least i’ll have something to run on.
No comments:
Post a Comment