Rocking the Vote: How I Went From Politically Disengaged to Actually Giving a Crap About Politics

Starting back in January when I wrote a little bit about SOPA, the law that could essentially give government the right to control the Internet and censor a good chunk of it, is when I started to become political. Probably for the first time in my life.

Disengaged from Politics

I have voted in two elections in my lifetime, with my first ever vote being for the wonderful Rod Blagojevich for Illinois governor in 2002 and my last vote in 2004 for the ever-charismatic John Kerry for US President (among other candidates on the ballot). Admittedly, I knew little about the people I was voting for. I grew up in a liberal household, so naturally, my tendencies of voting were Democrat-Centric.

When I placed those votes, I don't remember having any feeling of "Hey, my guy is gonna make a difference" or "I'm proud of myself for voting for a guy whose views I respect and generally agree with". I placed these votes mainly because of my upbringing - which many people do. And trust me, there was absolutely nothing wrong with my upbringing, but my impression of "the other party" was not as favorable with what they stood for and what they wanted out of government.

After the 2004 election, I became disillusioned completely with government processes. When I moved back home with my parents, I never renewed my voting information from the time I voted as a senior in college. The limited stuff I read about politics in-between 2004 and January 2012 was basically such garbage on both sides that it made it impossible to follow for someone who just doesn't care.

And that's where they get you! All those negative ads that both parties run, it's not necessarily to get you to vote for the candidate who is funding the commercial. It's to get people to not vote for the opponent or just not vote at all! At the end of the day, one non-vote for someone's opponent is just as good as a vote for the candidate engaging in the negative ad campaign.

I'm sure there's books on all this stuff, with people who are smarter than me and more engaged in these processes that could better explain how these two parties seem more focused on negative campaigning against their opponent rather than actually presenting their own views - of which the main parties share way way more than either party could ever admit. The negative campaigning does its job a lot of times in keeping people who were unsure of who they were voting for (but maybe leaning a certain way) out of the voting booth altogether. I can say it honestly worked on me - I haven't gave a crap about politics my whole life, particularly the past 7 years before 2012.

Obama ran on a platform of "Change", which was wildly popular and very effective in its messaging of moving on from the presidency of George W. Bush. I don't know why I didn't bother voting in 2008 - maybe it was because I knew Obama was going to win our state and electoral votes anyways, or maybe there was a skeptical part of me that thought this guy was too good to be true. (Now I've realized that local elections are probably more important than the Presidential vote due to their more personal, direct effect on your everyday life, so my attitude has changed on this for sure).

In his four years as President, I wouldn't say he's been the worst president we've ever had (as some Republican folks would tell you - although I'm not politically savvy enough to rank presidents from best to worst), but I certainly would say he's fallen way short on a lot of the campaign change he promised. Guantanamo never closed, unfettered executive powers expanded (including indefinite imprisonment of Americans without trial), and withdrawing from Afghanistan - what happened with that? All of this was definitely not the "Change" that he promised from George W. Actually, it was pretty much more of the same.

What Changed for Me

When the SOPA/PIPA stuff started trending in January, I decided to write our US senators Mark Kirk and Richard Durbin about how in its current form, SOPA would be a dangerous bill that would hinder many of the freedoms that the Internet allows. You can say all you want that the government would enforce it strictly along the lines of copyright, but do you really buy that?

I was encouraged to get a response from Senator Mark Kirk in a relatively quick manner. He expressed his distaste with SOPA in its current form as well as the same worries I had about censorship of the Internet and stifling the innovation that the Internet creates (I later learned he voted for the National Defense Authorization Act, which is a direct violation of the Sixth Amendment for the right to a trial by jury - so much for being about freedoms).

I got a response from Dick Durbin, who I later found was one of the senators pushing for this legislation, that basically gave a cookie-cutter explanation for why SOPA/PIPA needed to be passed to protect copyrights and all that jazz. Durbin has a stranglehold on his Illinois Senate seat, so he doesn't need to worry about supporting legislation like this.

This is the problem! Guys like this shouldn't just be able to stay in power for unlimited terms, presenting the same stale ideas that didn't work before, won't work now, and will not work in the future. Certain areas of the country will always be Democrat while some will be conservative - I get that. But I also don't get it at the same time. When politicians know that their seat in government is essentially protected based on whatever district/ward/state they live in, they don't have as much incentive to do their due diligence when it comes to representing the people that voted him or her into office.

If people who voted for Durbin and are against SOPA/PIPA actually knew what Durbin stood for (and who he stands with) on this issue, do you think they'd be less inclined to vote for him in the future? Perhaps, or perhaps it's a case where we'd rather have Durbin in there because he is "the lesser of two evils", with the potential "worse" evil being another Republican Senator.

Lesser of Two Evils - What Garbage

That term has always cracked me up - lesser of two evils. It's as if you're knowingly and willingly voting for a shit head who you know is probably not going to live up to half of the stuff he or she said on the campaign trail. It's one thing if you actually like the political views of Obama and Romney and actually want to vote for them (hint: I do not). I respect the voting process and believe people should vote for the candidate that they believe best represents what their vision is for the most ideal government for America. However, I cannot stand, and will not stand for, people voting for one of the two major parties based on the notion that they're voting for the guy who seems less evil. In many ways, I'd rather people who vote like this not vote at all. But really, I'd just like people to find another candidate to vote for.

Why I Am Voting Now

If you've read this far, I appreciate your interest in my renewed interest (or you could say my initial interest) in politics. With this interest, I will likely tout some of the stuff of people who I plan on voting for from time to time. However, my goal is not necessarily to get you to vote for the guy(s)/gal(s) I'm voting for - I can't lie, that may end up being an implicit message when I express these views. I will also refrain from the vicious name-calling and other negative attacks that really have nothing to do (or should have nothing to do) with the political process.

I will be looking to inform my friends and family - the people I care deeply for - about policies and ideas that candidates who I am interested in represent.

I get it - I know many of  the folks in my social group and social network sites who will likely be unswayed and will stick to the candidate who represents their party, and that's perfectly fine. I just want to make sure that different views are at least being presented, perhaps a new way of looking at something that may open your eyes on a particular issue.

Based on my research of the candidates in the Presidential election, I will likely be voting for Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson. I'm willing to bet many people who are voting this year haven't even heard of Johnson, yet alone know all of the ideas and views that he represents. I recommend doing some Internet research on Johnson, former Republican governor of New Mexico who is well-known for his vetoing of bills and being elected twice as governor in a predominately Democratic state.

A Wasted Vote? Nope.

Some might say I am wasting my vote because Johnson won't win, but my viewpoint on this has changed 180 since I was voting initially. Why the hell should I vote for a guy who won't win? No one wants to vote for a guy who is going to lose - what's the point?

This viewpoint is likely held by many who may actually agree more with a third party candidate like Johnson (or perhaps Bob Barr, Ralph Nader or Ross Perot, et al.) in other elections but decide to vote for a Democrat or Republican because a third-party vote is a waste. This falls right into the hands of the two-party system, which is set up in such a way that third parties have a very limited platform to express their views and often fight legal battles just to be on the ballots in some states. Democrats and Republicans want to keep it a two-party system to keep the cycle of politics going.

While Johnson will be hard-pressed to make a run for the White House, I will be voting for a candidate who represents who I am and what I want out of government the best. At the end of the day, I can live with myself knowing that I voted for a guy (win or lose) that I believed would be the best guy to run our country's executive branch for the next four years. Personally, I see too many similarities between the major parties to vote for either one of them. You may disagree, but that's the way I see it.

Vote how you will, and I encourage people, especially those who feel disengaged from the process and hate politics, to take the time to look into these candidates a little and make an effort to vote. I just hope people vote for the right reasons.

If you vote for Romney, vote for him because you believe in him and what he stands for, not because "Obama is evil" and/or "Romney is the lesser of two evils".

If you vote for Obama, likewise, vote for him because you believe in him and what he stands for, not because "Romney is evil" and/or "Obama is the lesser of two evils".

And any other candidate you vote for, especially in your local elections, carry the same attitude with you. Just be as smart and educated as you can be before entering the voting booth in November. I have a lot to read up on in the meantime myself, so I'll be right there with some of you (hopefully).

Any who, I'm done with this political brouhaha for now. I hope you got something out of this.

In the meantime, let's try being as civil as we can this election season. Easier said than done, I know.

Another Senator Letter About SOPA & Debating Masters

More political crap! Turn your head away if you don't want to read.

Just got this letter a week later from Sen. Durbin (woo hoo, 2 for 2 on Senator replies)...

This one wasn't as concise, especially about the money Durbin collected from lobbyists who were in support of the SOPA bill.

Durbin writes:

Dear Mr. Bolek:

Thank you for contacting me about the Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act of 2011 (PIPA) and the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). I appreciate hearing from you.

The bipartisan PIPA bill (S. 968) was introduced to rein in foreign-based websites that have no purpose other than to sell or distribute pirated or counterfeit goods. U.S. law enforcement agencies already have authority to seize and shut down domestic websites that are dedicated to violating copyright or counterfeiting laws, and hundreds of sites have been shut down in recent years. However, our law enforcement agencies lack effective tools to stop foreign-based websites that are dedicated to the same illegal behavior. These websites deprive American innovators and businesses of revenue and result in the loss of American jobs.

PIPA aims to close the gap in our laws that enables rogue websites to simply locate themselves overseas in order to avoid accountability for stealing American intellectual property and selling pirated and counterfeit goods to Americans.  The legislation would authorize the Justice Department to seek a court-ordered injunction against a foreign website if the court found the website to be dedicated to illegal piracy or counterfeiting.  If an injunction were issued by the court, it could be served upon third-party payment processors, advertising networks, search engines and other companies who would then be obligated to take reasonable steps to cease doing business with the infringing website. 

The drafters of this legislation tried to address the serious problem of foreign rogue websites in a way that respects due process, protects freedom of legislation, and preserves the vitality of the Internet.  However, I have heard from many constituents that PIPA and a more expansive bill introduced in the House of Representatives, SOPA, fail to strike the right balance between the goals of combating illegal piracy and protecting the Internet.  Both the House and

the Senate have postponed consideration of these bills in order to engage in more discussion with stakeholders and achieve more consensus on a legislative approach.  I support these efforts and hope that stakeholders can agree on a reasonable solution that addresses these important issues.

I will keep your concerns in mind as the Senate continues to consider these matters. Thank you again for contacting me. Please feel free to keep in touch.

Sincerely,

Richard J. Durbin
United States Senator

RJD/bc

Looks like he still wants to support SOPA - and who could blame him with lobbyist money that comes his way?

I guess it feels good getting some feedback from my first political activities in forever. Still wish I never have to write these items.

Hopefully this keeping active thing will produce some positive results. Hopefully I'm not being delusional.

No Debate...

You watch a Republican debate this year - what do you see?

A couple of guys (Gingrich & Romney) basically stripping the other naked with accusations and calling the other on falsehoods, etc. The kind of thing you'd expect from two girls in high school who hate each other and start pulling each other's hair in the cafeteria.

Except the hair pullers in this case have an unusual habit that is often seen in politics but not with the high schoolers.

Once the fight is over, they unite and try fighting the bigger "bitch" in the room.

In this case, the bitch is Obama (although this isn't the point of my story to call him that). I find both parties to be equally repulsive and it's one reason why I have subscribed to either team's newsletter.

I didn't really start following primary season closely until 2008, when Hilary Clinton was thought by many to be the favorite to win the Democratic nomination. I remember hearing some publicity about a young senator from Illinois who was making some noise and threatening to win some of the early primaries.

Turns out, that guy not only won the early primaries, but also took the Democratic nomination for president. Along the way, his opponents (mainly Hilary but also John Edwards) critiqued anything and everything that they could about the man, especially about his inexperience.

No worries - the Senator from Illinois rolled with the punches and became the front-runner for the Democratic ticket. One would think with this harsh debating between the two that the nominee would have hard feelings about what happened.

Nope - this nominee (let's call him Bobama) goes on the campaign trail and has the person who was just critiquing him months ago campaigning for him. Lord knows Hilary doesn't want a Republican winning the ticket - so why not have the guy who she was basically calling inexperienced and unfit to lead become president?

He becomes president of course, and she becomes his secretary of state.

Enter 2012. The top Republicans are doing similar attacks, saying nearly the same things that Hilary & Obama (err, Bobama) were bickering about. These two seem like they'd never campaign for the other.

You'd be delusional to think that Romney wouldn't support Gingrich or vice versa when the presidential nominee is announced (my apologizes to Ron Paul, who doesn't look like he will win the nomination).

The same stuff that happened in 2008 will happen this year. The loser will support the winner by the time the Republican National Convention comes into play.

It'll be as if the mudslinging never happened. Only in politics.

No wonder why people are so disillusioned by the process.

To bring a sports metaphor into it, it'd be like a Bears fan actively rooting for the Packers after they lost to their hated rival in the playoffs. How could you do it? Only a fair-weather "Bears" fan would do that.

Not the same for politics. In this game, people who are Bears fans will root for Packers fans when their team is out. It makes no sense, but that's what it is.

I don't know how people can continually buy into this cycle on a 4-year basis or at least allow it to happen. I'm not even a political person and I see this coming a mile away.

I'd respect these politicians a lot more if they didn't support the people they just spent 3 months bashing across the nation.

Luckily for me, the words "respect" and "politicians" are far enough apart in the dictionary so they don't contaminate all the words in between.