presidential dilemma

The French election system is horrible, unfair and absolutely one-hundred-percent frustrating. Voting in the majority, two-round system as it has developped has more to do with betting, calculating and hoping than expressing political convictions. Betting on which candidate other voters will massively vote for, calculating which two candidates are thus likely to make it to the second round, and hoping that your calculations are right.

Over the past weeks and months, I had come to the conclusion that considering the present candidate constellation, and the experience made with the 2002 presidential elections, I had to vote for Royal. 2002 was the first time I was allowed to vote. I voted green - which as a choice in itself I'd rather not judge at present - and contributed to Jospin's weakening so that I HAD to vote right wing in the second round. HAD to vote right wing for my first presidential elections. I remember waking up all sweaty after a nightmare in which Le Pen had won the elections. (The good side-effect of this was the sllllowww beginning of my politisation). If this time, once again, no social-liberal-democrat candidate (debatably a lesser evil) made it to the second round, and if the choice then were between one-eyed-evil and two-eyed-evil, I would be totally and absolutely incapable of voting. So to avoid this type of second round, I had accepted that I had to vote Royal.

The problem is, I dislike being blackmailed and voting AGAINST what I don't want rather than FOR what I want. I dislike being put in a position where I'm told there is no alternative. So it is that I've started looking more into the whole situation. I've looked at what the candidates say, I've looked at their websites, I've downloaded programmes which I haven't started reading, and I've started asking other people what they were thinking of voting. The candidate that has a vision that most resembles my ideal is little Olivier Besancenot of the LCR. He is an excellent talker and debater, and has the rare ability to explain in simple terms what the cause of socio-economic problems are. He is probably the most powerful orator when it comes to countering both racist and neo-liberal ideologies. This is one of my favourite interventions of his, debating with businessman Charles Beigbeder.

The main obstacles I have for voting for the LCR are
1) that obviously, left-wing vote is once again going to be scattered and thus the ominous Evil 1 vs. Evil 2 second round would be unavoidable.
2) that it's unclear what the meaning, significance and purpose of an idealistic vote is.

The aspects to keep in mind when considering these two obstacles are
- Would having more moderate Royal or even Bayrou as president actually be in any way better than the Big Evils? And, connected to this,
- What would the socialist party learn from an election process in which voters gather on one candidate out of fear, not expressing the way in which they really want left wing politics to go?

I'm surprised that so many people have started considering voting for Bayrou - people I've talked to. Well, mainly two people. I need to read his programme, but instinctively I would say that the difference to the socialist party programme is minimal, seeing as the socialist party is already very centre. So why go for him? I would expect that Royal has the woman bonus for her, that people would be curious and excited by the novelty of trying to have a woman president.

In any case, I'm thinking. There's more to it, but I'm going to make cheese scones.

of voluntary simplicity

My mood varies according to what sort of person I dialogue with. Dialogue and communication has become a central feature of my development, and conversations with people who share some of my ideals give me strength, while conversations with others leave me frustrated, feeling caged up. I feel more idealist, more radical, less patient with those who haven't reached this point in their thinking, longing for practical actions building an alternative, longing for those social networks that will give me the energy to do so.
It was good to meet up with M. again after the christmas break. I saw her on Monday evening, Tuesday afternoon and Wednesday afternoon and we had long conversations each time. We have now reached the friendship stage and we share so many conceptions of what we want our life to be that it's always heart warming to talk with her. She and a flatmate of hers have decided to launch their Project 2015 which would involve building up a linked town-countryside community. I said I'm in. She lent me all her books on Utopia research and alternative community. I like the fact that we have one book in our communal property - the history of Longo Mai we got at Ulenkrug.

Cooking dinner yesterday with psychology-student C. also reinforced my optimism. She is also a utopist who believes in alternatives to most widespread conceptions of what "normal life" is. She was enthusiastic about the idea of my seminar on political utopia, and we talked about it for a while. She thought part of it could be used as a creative workshop to let students define what their own utopia is. I find the idea interesting as it would fit in the progression of my plan - What theorists thoughts, what practicioners did, what do you want to do? It would be too much to have a whole creative session, but I'll keep the idea in mind. We discussed the theory aspect for a while, and she also reckoned the context in which utopias were developed was definitely important to be able to compare with our present situation. Unfortunately she probably won't be here next winter. I would like to get all sorts of people involved in this project, create a real dynamic around it, at least have them prepare bits of it with me. Mister Big and Important's expertise in intellectual history and linking ideas across disciplines would definitely enrich the theory part.

Sharing a belief in the possibility of creating one's own utopia isn't the only link I've found that keeps me interested in talking with people these days though. Last weekend at Sweet A's party I talked for a while with her school friend M2. [using only the initial of names to keep everyone's anonymity is probably more confusing than anything. Perhaps I should just start making up other names.] M2 isn't an explicit utopist although she does long for something other than a life spent working one's self to death for a boss. But what we most strongly shared was a common attraction for self-made everyday goods - the satisfaction one gets from eating or using something one produced. I don't really understand why it seems to senseless and ridiculous to most people. In turn, I don't understand why the idea of sitting in an office producing reports that serve no purpose for society doesn't appear absurd, ridiculous and senseless to most people. It's not that I don't think labour repartition is a good thing - it's more that I don't see the point in producing goods that do not cover anybody's real needs. And also that I don't want to specialise and have only one profession for the rest of my life. I want to be a farmer, a carpenter, a researcher, an architect, a photographer, a thinker, a traveler, an educator, a musician...

Of course, one person's Real Needs and priorities are different from another's and I'm not hoping that everybody will suddenly think "Hey cool man, let's live in the countryside and produce most of what we need!". But I do find it important that everybody sees what priorities and principles they have, and what is really important to them - and start making steps towards living accordingly. I can accept a certain amount of what others would call 'deprivation' (no tomatoes all year round! No goods that have traveled half the world? As little prepacked and overpacked goods as possible - not supporting supermarkets and big chains - ...) because to me they are not deprivations but logical consequences of my priorities - to live as little as possible off the unnecessary exploitation of others and of the environment. However, I've always felt that voluntary simplicity and partial self-sufficiency had a certain charm, even before I had any explicit political principles. I wonder where it comes from.
Here's an interesting link to keep those french speakers around occupied (thanks to my old friend Xa for mentioning the movement to me a few years ago).

Looking down on freedom

But what exactly would you like to do?, Grandmama asked, insisting on the would.
I don't understand why it is so difficult to frame the desire to live according to one's rhythm and to create as much freedom for one's self in a way that doesn't immediately get associated with the negatively connotated "Drop Out". The familiar status provided by a salary (regardless of the level of happiness the job and/or money provide) will continue to seem much more acceptable and comprehensible to her. Not that she expressed any disaproval of my description of the community that I find so inspiring - she actually fell asleep. B. asked a few questions and, being a lone antisocial at heart, found the aspects touching upon independance and self-sufficiency appealing. The whole "community" aspect, less, I guess.
Obviously, knowing only people who follow the path of job-founding family-get house has an influence on the ability to imagine other forms of life styles. Most of all, on the ability to believe that these can actually be successful. "Everybody does it that way. If there were other ways, we'd know about it." It's a normal reaction, and I shouldn't be too surprised about it, because I had similar thoughts before I actually experienced and saw what alternatives could be.
I think a good documentary on other forms of life organisation would be in order. We need some manipulation of feelings a la Rorty...