The right not to vote doesn't signify political ignorance

By Kwaku O. Kushindana of The Washington Post

In many ways, I fit the profile of those considered most likely to vote. College educated. In my early 50s. African American and born in the South. Well-read and traveled.

A regular listener of C-SPAN radio, who also watches political movies and attends conferences focusing on the needs of the disenfranchised.

I even worked on the first Senate campaign of Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu. Some would call me a political junkie.

So it is sure to strike many as heretical that I have absolutely no intention of voting in the Nov. 2 presidential elections. I am proud to say that I have been registered since I turned 18, when the vestiges of voter discrimination were very much alive in my home state of Louisiana.

Yet I have rarely voted in local or national elections unless I have seen a clear issue or a candidate who reflects my concerns.

Those of us who choose not to vote are rarely given the opportunity to discuss this option. We are routinely dismissed as uninformed or just plain stupid.

Although I can’t speak for others, after looking at the presidential voting process, I’ve concluded that there is little to vote for.

One of the most vociferous cries raised against African Americans who consider the possibility of not voting is: People died for your right to vote. I’ve concluded that this is only partially true.

It is correct that the civil rights establishment championed the right to vote, but what has been forgotten is that there was no consensus within that movement about the way to promote the advancement of African Americans.

The SNCC (Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee) and the black power movement sought to change the fundamental power dynamic in this country, not simply to win the right to vote. How then did electoral politics get pushed to the top of the African American agenda?

Is there anybody to vote for?

President Bush was correct when he spoke before the National Urban League and suggested that Democrats take the black vote for granted. Oh, the Democrats have done a good job of persuading African Americans that they are our “friends.’’ But with friends like these, there is no need for enemies.

With Democrats believing they have blacks in their pocket, they fail to put a high priority on our concerns and thus fall short as an affirmative choice.

As for the Republicans, their lack of concern for the interests of the poor and their neglect of black issues disqualify them for my vote.

What about the notion of voting for the “lesser of two evils’’? I would ask, is it really the lesser of two evils or the flip side of the same coin?

If you take a look at the Center for Responsive Politics’ contributions lists and correlate the contributions to both major political parties, it is hard to discern the “good guys’’ from the “bad guys.’’ The power of money has corrupted the entire electoral process. One of the most telling points is the effort both parties put into blocking alternative candidates.

Can parties that spend so much time suppressing choice actually be about the promotion of democracy? In the last presidential election, I voted for Ralph Nader—a man who is perceived as a threat by Democrats rather than as providing another choice for voters.

I, for one, shall simply be happy when the entire ritual is over, and the smiles, baby kissing, attack ads and pledges yield to politics as usual. Then we’ll resign ourselves to having the best political leader that money can buy.