It would probably be vicariously fulfilling to be a supporter of one of the two main parties. But given the fact that I can't get excited about supporting imperialism in Afghanistan, the SPP, the tar sands project, and neoliberalism, I just can't bring myself to turn off my brain and vote for one of the winning teams.
Perhaps both Harper and Dion could self-destruct on the campaign and perhaps produce an even weaker minority government and a stronger NDP, but that's nothing to get excited about either.
I'm going to quote something that Scott Neigh said recently about elections and the electoral process, and which I've long meant to send words of agreement for:
It's a puerile liberal fantasy that they constitute genuine decisions for us by us. Yet within narrow bounds, we get to choose -- criminally narrow bounds that mean elections cannot touch the things that mean life or death, more suffering or less suffering, for many, but can make small but real changes that mean life or death, more suffering or less suffering, for others. We get a certain level of influence over certain narrow aspects of how our opponent functions. It would be politically foolish and morally dubious to ignore that.
I'm not saying don't vote. I'm not saying don't care about who wins. I'm not even saying don't intervene in the election somehow, though generally I don't beyond voting.
What I am saying is that we all need to take a good, long, critical look at our words and our other actions and figure out what external cues they respond to. We need to ask, "What organizes my political life?"
It is in lowering our expectations, closing off our sense of possibility, making us believe that this is it, that so much of our potential to make the world better is stolen from us. Or, as I tend to see it in my more depressive moments, how so much of that potential is simply surrendered by so many of us.