You're walking down the street one day when shots ring out at a nearby preschool. You rush in and find two guys standing in there with preschool students as hostages: Newt Gingrich and Barack Obama. Immediately, they turn their guns on you.
"Oh, tough guy, eh?" chortles Newt. "Come in here to save the kids?"
"Err, not really, Newt...well, I heard shots...I guess it would be nice if I could save them."
Obama chuckles merrily. "Heehee--look, Newt, he's scared! Whadda ya think we should do with him, huh? Whadda ya think we should do?"
You: "Mr. Obama, please, you don't have to do this."
"Ooh, I got it!" Barack walks over and puts the gun against the head of the nearest preschooler. "You can decide who's gonna die, tough guy! How about these kids?" He waves his gun at the nearest three children. "Want them to die?"
Gingrich grabs another group of kids. "Ha! Maybe you want these kids to die, instead!" Gingrich waves his gun at the five kids he has before him. "Who's it gonna be, tough guy? Who's it gonna be?"
So--who are you going to vote for? The difference in the example is that, if you choose Obama, only 3 innocent children will die. In the real world, if you go with Obama, it will be thousands. Possibly tens of; possibly hundreds of, depending on how ejaculatory he and his buddies get re: Iran.
Another difference between reality and the example above is that in the example, you have no choice. In the situation above, you have to choose between either Obama or Gingrich, or else both of them will kill the children. You have no choice except to pick one.
Obama/Gingrich is like the Green Goblin in the recent Spiderman movie. Who dies? The woman you love or the trolley full of people?
In the real world, you don't have to pick one of them. This isn't Spiderman.
You can refuse to play either of their terrible games. You can resist them.
Most of all, you have the power to give up the deception that Barack Obama is a hero because he might murder "fewer" innocent people.
The crucial difference between voting for Obama in the real world, and choosing to allow him to murder only 3 preschoolers in the example above, is that the example above describes a terrible choice being made one time only. The presidential farce is recurring.
Imagine the preschool example, but this time imagine that it happens every day. Times ten or fifty or a hundred. Every day, you go by the preschool, and every day the madmen execute either 3 or 5 children--your choice.
At what point do you stop choosing? At what point do you stop playing along and say, "Enough"?
At some point, it must become apparent to you that the game is never going to end.
The children are going to keep dying--there will always be new madmen willing to take the hostages, make the speeches, and carry out the killings. Choose your decade. Choose your war. Choose your murders. Choose your "party." How long can you justify this morbid farce? How long will you play the terrible game with the killer? Go back to Vietnam, if you like. Go back to Hiroshima and "choose" which rich, powerful national leader you want to press the button. Go back to the invasion of the Philippines. Go back to the Mexican American War. The fucking crusades, or the genocide of the neanderthals. Count the bodies.
Is it ever going to end? Are you ever going to say, "Enough"?
Every day you walk by the school. Every day the madmen are there.
When are you going to stop giving them what they want? When are you going to stop validating not only the deaths they cause, but their entire horrific game?
It will never stop unless we stop it. If we keep supporting it, year after year, always justifying it as "a little less murder than we could otherwise commit," it will never end.
When you refuse to vote, or vote for someone else, you are a grain of sand. But at some point, change has to happen, and it will take individual people willing to refuse to support the killing. A few crazies, at first, who refuse to compromise by saying, "I guess it's fine if Obama kills people, because he'll kill fewer than Gingrich will." (This is, essentially, what that haughty piece of shit George Clooney is saying as the televised 2012 contest approaches) A few crazies, and maybe someday, more. It's as daunting a task as any, but it has to happen for the killing to stop: human individuals--without an automatic, reassuring group consensus--refusing to support killing any longer.
You can do it. You can stand for peace and justice--you can refuse to play the terrible game of choosing who will die, and in what quantity. Leave the sadists with nothing but their own fantasies, and they will shrivel away.
If everyone is afraid to take the step away from killing because "it will make no difference; I'm only one person" then no one will ever step away. And the killing will never end.
Who's it gonna be? Gingrich? Romney? Obama? What's the difference? A few points in your "domestic policy"? Marginal tax adjustments to the salaries of people lucky enough to have been born on the North American continent?
How irresponsible of you to not vote for the latest model of political killers. How could you be so unpatriotic? Everyone knows Mitt or Newt would do a little "more." Because numbers are really what matters.
So off "just" three of the preschoolers. And tell yourself it's all you can do.