Who Terrifies Least
by Nic Olson
And I’m still terrified. I am not relieved.
Canadians who would normally condemn Stephen Harper are currently celebrating the election of a man who is little more than the sexier version of the Canadian Prime Minister. Both leaders carry a similar policy, but one of them you could potentially have a conversation with without wanting to stick cobs of corn in your earholes. Obama is a man we have seen hanging out with Jay-Z. Harper is a man that we would expect to see hanging out with a bank’s CEO, or country club golf pro like Shooter McGavin, or oil and gas investors, although we are skeptical that even these people would be able to carry on a conversation with such a potently awkward man. In Canada, as non-participants, we watch the Presidential Election as if it were the 100-metre dash. We cheer for who seems most approachable in sound bites and video clips. We cheer for those who our favourite celebrities endorse. We cheer for the most famous and recognizable face in the entire world. We cheer for the one who terrifies us the least.
And that is the problem. The lesser of two evils, people say. My idea of democracy doesn’t line up with voting for ‘who terrifies least.’ I can understand people’s relief in the election of the lesser of two evils, however I cannot understand people’s acceptance of the situation. The two-party system is terrifying. In the only podcast worth listening to, Escape Velocity Radio, Chris Hannah levels with Americans, saying that the two-party system is, “only one party away from the Soviet Union.” There were other options (Green Party, Justice Party, etc), recognized on ballots in only some states, and not recognized at all by major media outlets. Denouncing these as non-effective is denouncing democracy.
Sure, Nic. You read two websites about how Obama still supports the Keystone Pipeline, about how he still issues drone killings in the middle east and Africa, about how he passed the National Defence Authorization Act that allows the government to detain citizens without fair trial, and now you can’t take a minor win and leave it alone. You’ve gotta act smarter than you are.
Yes. I do. I am hard to please.
More and more I am learning that if you vote and do nothing else, then it is almost not worth your vote at all. Although Peter Mansbridge’s voice almost seduced me into staying upstairs on the couch, I came downstairs into my room and streamed DemocracyNow.org‘s coverage of the election. In it, Ben Jealous, President of the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People said: “You don’t vote for someone to make a change, you vote for someone who can make it easier for you to make a change. You don’t lose the responsibility of making change. We have to stay in movement mode.”
Although the man that terrifies me the most is not the leader of the most powerful nation in the world, he is still one of the richest most powerful men in that nation. Celebrating and expecting the less terrifying man to make all the changes is irresponsible. It is still the responsibility of the citizens to ensure that change occurs. That an oppressive two-party system is shut down, that Obama’s right-leaning policies are kept in check.
The lesser of two evils is still evil. The ‘least-worst’ is still the worst. The man who terrifies me the least still terrifies me. His manufactured image is pretty comforting. He is hard not to like; I’d go for a beer with him. But I’m still terrified for a population willing to settle, if that is actually what happened. Hell if I know.
ballsofrice.com 
my thoughts exactly. I was an Obama fan in 2008 now I’m a little smarter and have figured out who Jill Stein is, that the Democrats are the equivalent of the Canadian conservatives and that Americans arrest presidential candidates not named Romney or Obama for trying to join the debates and gain third and fourth party attention/publicity and needed support. Sadly Obama IS indeed the lesser of two evils and that has given him 4 more years to do Wall Street’s bidding and work with Romney, as he mentions in his acceptance speech, without the pressure of campaigning for re-election. Then comes Hilary – the hype of the first female president should guarantee an additional 4 years of democrat rule after the 2016 election. welcome to democracy..whatever that is? maybe we should ask Sweden…
So I typed ballsofrice into I ogle search and I saw a tumblr page with the same name. I clicked on it thinking maybe you had another blog running. Big mistake. Lets just say the balls are not so metaphorical on that site. I implore you to stay away.
Meant to say google search.
But the reason I did that was to reply to this post. I hear where your coming from. I’m one of those who was excited at an Obama reelection. Your definitely right that he’s more like Stephen Harper than Jack Layton. I agree the system is screwed up and there should be more voices involved. I agree with most of what you said.
I don’t mean to sound like a defeatist. I just don’t know what the other option is. Change is crucial, but it’s not coming any time soon. And faced with a choice between Romney or Obama, while Obama will make mistakes and has made many, I will happily root for him over someone like Romney and what he represents. I get that it’s the lesser of two evils, but that’s just politics to me. It will always be that way, even if I were the candidate. People in power will always be corrupted or bend to the system on some level. I wish it weren’t true. I just won’t be ashamed of my support for Obama because I think that while he’s done bad, he has done great things as well. My hope is that with little to lose the next four years, he’ll make some real significant changes. I’m skeptical, but hopeful.
Anyway, hear your frustrations, just wanted to push back a little bit as someone who did support Obama. Even though in reality my support made no difference whatsoever.
Unless you count Internet arguing.
But I do very much agree with you that our vote isn’t an excuse for inaction. I think that was part of the problem in 2008. Everyone thought he was the saviour. We do have to stand up and hold our politicians accountable. Maybe that’s where it starts.
Blair, you undoubtedly know more about what Obama has done than myself. However, the things he has done positively, in my mind, are in fact only the things that he did NOT do. That is, he didn’t do the things that Romney/Bush would do. He didn’t let the Keystone Pipeline go through (he will, however: http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2012/11/15/keystone-obama.html) He openly supported gay marriage, instead of condemning it, like Romney/Bush would have. He created Obamacare, originally a Romney-idea. He is still doing what his rich buddies tell him to, and while the reign under Romney would be far more terrifying, the reign under Obama seems like it is little more than a better packaged, more presentable, more secretive version of a slightly less bigoted man.
However, you, being a former (or current?) Green party supporter, can’t say that there wasn’t another option. The only difference between the Green Party here and the Green Party in the US is that the Green Party in Canada actually got some mainstream airtime, where the Green Party in the US got nothing. It still existed as a viable option, and represents a large part of what the population wants, just don’t know that it is there or vote out of fear of a Romney-ruled America.
Anyway, despite my negativity, it isn’t up to Obama. He will make change easier and will have a slightly more level-headed view on things, potentially. But if the population, Canadians included, just sit back and let Obama deal with it all himself, then we’re screwed. He will make not changes unless he is pressured greatly from the masses. And even then, I’d be surprised.