Would You Have
Lunch With This Guy*?by C.A. Matthews
*(The word "guy"
here is being used in a Midwestern dialect way of indicating a neutral gender. It applies to all genders, as in the typical parent's statement:
"What are you guys doing in
there? Starting a world war?" "They/their/theirs" are also being used to indicate a singular pronoun in this article in a non-gender specific manner.)
Some voters agonize over their choices on the ballot. Others simply allow others to
do all the thinking and choosing for them. Most lie somewhere in between, and
this time out the agonizing seems to have edged out the other mindless method. This
is a good and healthy move in the right direction, in my opinion. I'll explain
why.
As many
comedians have said in recent times: "Americans are routinely given the
choice between Shit Sandwich #1 and Shit Sandwich #2 in their elections. Which
one do you really wanna eat?"
Ugh. I wouldn't
want to eat any sandwich with that as its filler. Would you?
Which leads me
to presenting this simple way of making those agonizing voting decisions--I
call it the "Would You Have Lunch With This Guy?" method of making up
your mind. This method works equally well for deciding who you'd like to date,
who you might want to eventually marry, or which person to pick to be on your
work or school project. It goes as follows:
Close your eyes
and picture a person/candidate you're interested in voting for (dating/working with) sitting across
from you at lunch. It can be lunch at your favorite coffee shop, bistro, or
your own kitchen table--wherever you feel the most comfortable. The lunch has
been provided, so no stress there. The interruptions have been minimized and
there's no outside interference allowed. You have this person's undivided
attention, and they are ready to answer all your questions truthfully and
without guile. Ask them your questions
and make note of their responses and then thank them for lunch and let them
mentally depart.
Got it? Okay, open
your eyes now and do some thorough research on the answers this person/candidate has
given you. For political candidates, don't just go with one or two casual sources--and don't just go with the
candidate's propaganda sources (i.e., their campaign staff and the mainstream media).
Check out some good independent reporting resources such as The Real News Network, The Grayzone, The Rational National, or The
Humanist Report. In your mind's eye, did this candidate answer the same or
differently than what has been documented about their policy positions in these
publications/podcasts?
If the
candidate answered differently in the past from what you imagined they'd tell
you over lunch, do you think you might have "put words in their mouth" hoping they would come
off better than they appear to be in reality? Did you really want them to be a decent human
being, but the evidence isn't quite there? It's okay if you've caught yourself
trying to make this guy a better person--less of a bore, less of a player, less of plagiarizer, less of a liar, cheater or blamer. It's a natural habit
most of us have, trying to make others into something better than they really
are so we can congratulate ourselves for being smart enough to vote for (or
date/marry/work with) them. But, in the long run, you have to admit that it's not a wise move to let our habits
guide us in these important decisions.
I assume that most realize putting words or ideals into a political candidate's mouth isn't
going to serve us or our fellow citizens very well down the road. The candidate
won't be able to live up to our lofty goals, and so we're bound to be
disappointed. It probably okay to be disappointed if all we wished for is for our Town Hall to be painted purple, and the candidate ended
up having it painted beige instead. But
if you desperately wished that a chosen candidate wouldn't start a
senseless war to appropriate the oil, lithium, rare earth minerals or other resources
from another country, and the guy goes right ahead and does that
(because it makes Big Business and the Military-Industrial Complex happy and profitable), then
that's a different story. Lives are at stake and lives--especially innocent
ones--could be lost in starting a war or allowing violent conflict to ensue. These lost lives
might include some of your loved ones.
Another thing
to keep in mind is that once you've chosen a candidate (or slept with your
date) you can't take it back. Uh-uh, it doesn't work that way. Remember the old
adage: "Once they've got the milk for free, why would they buy the
cow?" For political candidates this means that once the guy has gotten what they wanted out of you (you've cast
your ballot for them) there's no reason for them to do anything else
for you ever again. You have no leverage if you've given any candidate what
they wanted (a vote or sex) for free. You cannot force them to change their mind or ways at this point.
Giving away
your vote unwisely can prove problematic in many ways. Say you desperately want a
particular candidate to modify their position on universal health care because you and
your family are without any kind of health coverage. Why would a
candidate give you and yours Medicare For All if the guy openly states they're
going to veto any M4A bill that comes across their desk after they take office? Take the guy at
their word--if they hate the idea of Medicare For All now, they won't support
it later. You best bet is to move on and check out other candidates and vote
for one whose platform matches your need for health care.
And don't be afraid to ask yourself this: Is this the guy
I want to have lunch with in the first place? Be honest with yourself. Don't let others do your
thinking for you. It's not their lives at stake here--it's yours. If you find another political candidate who answers your questions over
"lunch" and in the media in a manner you agree with, perhaps this is
the guy you should vote for and not your first pick. (Hint: There is a presidential
candidate who supports Medicare For All and for ending of all wars for oil/resources. You can write this guy's
name in if he's been blocked from your ballot, too. You're always free to think outside the "box" of the status quo. Don't be afraid to exercise your freedom!)
If you can't even picture yourself sitting alone in a room with this guy
long enough to have a casual business lunch, it should set off the warning
bells in your brain right there. Is there a "creep factor" about this
candidate? Do they have a history of sexual assault or physical/verbal/psychological
abuse? Do they make you feel uneasy?
Be honest here:
If you can't picture yourself having lunch with a person, then why would you
feel comfortable having them represent you in government or potentially walk down the aisle
with you or work with you to get ahead at work/school? Why would you want to link your destiny with theirs?
I hope these
tips help you at the voting booth or while marking your absentee
ballot (or deciding who to go on a date with or work with). If only more people were brutally
honest with themselves and refused to fall for empty campaign rhetoric and the manipulations
of others with decidedly different agendas, what a happier world it would be.
We might even all enjoy a free lunch together sometime.
Bon appetit!
***
The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons has reached the 50-state ratification threshold for entry into force. Its
signatories have demonstrated their commitment to the elimination of
the most dangerous weapons ever created, and their belief in the power
of committed organizers working with international institutions to forge
a path toward a safer, more peaceful world.
Beyond the Bomb recognizes that our fight is the same fight, our
goal the same urgent, deeply consequential goal, and we applaud their
achievements.
As more nations of the world add their voices to the chorus demanding
the elimination of nuclear weapons, however, we recognize that it is the
nuclear-armed countries — none of whom have signed the Treaty, and many
of whom have publicly rebuked it — that must take the first steps down
the path to zero. As long as these countries believe that
nuclear weapons are essential for their security, no amount of external
pressure will shake their commitment to maintaining their arsenals. But,
as more and more people around the world take up the cause of
delegitimizing these arsenals, we must hold nuclear-armed nations to
account. The case must be made that not only are these weapons
profoundly immoral and unacceptable, they are an urgent existential
threat to national and human security.
As one of many in the fight to eliminate nuclear weapons and
prevent nuclear use, Beyond the Bomb remains committed to working with
the US public and policy makers to drive toward No First Use – a
critical, trust building policy declaring that the US will not start a
nuclear war. We believe a global norm of No First Use will
facilitate the phased, verifiable elimination of all nuclear weapons and
that the US is in a unique position to lead the way among nuclear-armed
nations.
Disarmament is as ambitious a goal as it is an essential step to securing humanity’s future. Today, we celebrate the achievements of others in this fight and reinforce our commitment to the difficult work that lies ahead.
In solidarity,
Cecili and the Beyond the Bomb team
***
From JVP Action:
I saw the news that Elan Carr, the U.S. special envoy to monitor and
combat antisemitism, was pressuring the State Department to slander
trusted human rights organizations like Oxfam, Human Rights Watch, and
Amnesty International as antisemitic because of their work for
Palestinian rights.
Make no mistake: this maneuver has nothing to do with Jewish safety. It’s
straight out of Trump’s playbook – Carr is attempting to wield
accusations of antisemitism as a weapon to undermine Palestinian
activism for the administration’s political gain.
Help us send a message to Carr: drop this baseless and harmful claim, and focus on real antisemitism.
Put simply, Trump’s appointee is failing at his job. Rather than
monitor and work to dismantle antisemitism worldwide, Carr is devoting
his time and energy to attacking international human rights groups,
falsely redefining antisemitism as support for Palestinian rights, and
attempting to silence criticism of the state of Israel.
If it wasn’t clear enough that Carr is focusing on the wrong things, the State Department’s virtual conference on antisemitism yesterday did not once address the machinery of white nationalist antisemitism and murderous violence against Jews.
We need to hold this administration accountable. Tell Elan Carr to stop these unfounded attacks and focus instead on dismantling real threats to Jewish safety. Human rights are too important. Palestinian lives are too important.
Carr’s definition of antisemitism is deeply flawed and collapses the
Israeli government with the Jewish people. His argument hinges on the
idea that alleged or perceived support for Boycott, Divestment, and
Sanctions is antisemitic. This line of reasoning crops up time and time
again, and we see it for the dangerous lie that it is. Every day, our community fights antisemitism and advocates for Palestinian rights, including through our support for BDS – it’s not only possible, but necessary.
Please
add your name now and share with others in your community who, like
you, are committed to Palestinian rights and to dismantling
antisemitism, alongside all forms of oppression.
Onwards,
Rabbi Alissa Wise
Deputy Director
***
We the People have the power!
Still,
we're forced to pay the billionaires' corporations for internet access and to keep the lights on. If you're
financially able, please consider making a donation to keep The Revolution Continues going. Any amount helps. You can do so via the Paypal address below. Thank you, fellow revolutionaries, and keep fighting! http://paypal.me/camatthews
